Opinion The Ayes always have it: Why voice votes in Parliament are bad for democracy

The Constitution mandates that decisions of both Houses be made through a simple majority of those present and voting or a special majority for constitutional amendments. As a debate ends, the convention of orally agreeing or disagreeing, a voice vote, is used. The Speaker/Chairman asks MPs to call out Ayes or Noes, then decides based on the purportedly louder voices. This mode lacks a record of MPs present, doesn’t reflect individual stances, and can be inaccurate. Yet, it’s a preferred method for passing legislative motions. The Jan Vishwas Bill 2023 was passed by a voice vote amid fervent Opposition protests on the Manipur issue. In 2020, the contentious farm bills were passed in the Rajya Sabha despite persistent Opposition protests.

In 1836, the House of Commons voted on the London and Brighton Railway Bill. It was pivotal in parliamentary history not because of the Bill’s content but because of how the vote was carried out. The desire for an accurate record of how MPs voted led to a precise list of the division of votes. This procedural shift was presumably to reaffirm the MPs’ electoral pledges on reform.

Division by counting votes, or “division”, a relic from the Halls of Westminster, is an alternate voting method where an MP can call to record the votes. The Speaker’s call for “Clearing the Lobbies” signals votes to be recorded where MPs can affirm, negate, or abstain on a motion using paper slips or Automatic Vote Recorders.

Worldwide, voting records tangibly represent legislative processes. They further legislative transparency and accountability and offer insights into an MP’s stance on crucial issues. This understanding is particularly vital in a candidate-centric voting system. For instance, AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi called for division six times during the Triple Talaq Bill in 2018 (303-82). In 2019, he opposed the Citizenship Amendment Bill (334-106). In the special session of 2023, Owaisi also dissented from the passing of the Women’s Reservation Bill (454-2), citing the non-inclusivity of Muslim and OBC women. A cursory look at the voting pattern of the four-time MP from Hyderabad will illustrate his stand for his constituents. This information is critical, especially in India’s first-past-the-post system, where electors vote for a candidate rather than the party.

In Modi I, 40 divisions were raised for 180 bills, but in Modi II, only 20 divisions were allowed for 209 bills. In the BJP’s 10-year tenure, a mere 15.4 per cent of the bills have voting records; that is to say, the constituents are woefully uninformed about their MP’s legislative engagement, unaware of their presence during the passing of crucial bills, let alone their stand on it. Does the lack of recorded votes reflect MPs’ aversion to accountability, or is it considered futile because of anti-defection laws?

The 1985 Anti-Defection Law, aimed at curbing political defections, ironically undermined a crucial democratic principle: MP dissent. While it successfully stopped floor-crossing, it encumbered the MP, whipped to vote along the party lines. Some may argue that quality debates are a measure of a parliamentarian’s stand on an important issue, but one must remember that all deliberative discussions transform into concrete action through a vote. Unfortunately, the anti-defection law has increasingly reduced this to a mere formality. Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu Lavu (YSCRP), an ally, raised numerous reservations about the New Criminal Bills, yet they were passed unamended via a voice vote.

But what of the demands for division by MPs on the floor of the House? The rules of procedure of both Houses state that a division shall be done if called for unless the Speaker/Chairman deems it “unnecessarily claimed”. Contemporary trends show a concerning pattern; the right to a division, meant to be readily available, has become shrouded in subjective judgement.

Division calls in Lok Sabha (2022) were dismissed during the passage of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Bill and the Electricity Amendment Bill. Raghav Chaddha’s (AAP) division request on the motion to suspend Sanjay Singh in Rajya Sabha (2023) was also disregarded.

Legislative voting helps Opposition parties communicate their positions to the electorate by shaping the public narrative of their stance on governmental policy. In the absence of voting records, their opposition is muted, and their difference with the government is less tangible.

Transparency defines the measure to which our parliamentarians’ political decisions are traceable, which begets accountability. As voice votes have steadily increased, a shadow of opacity has fallen over our legislative processes. The scarcity of voting records can be a symptom of a deeper problem. There is an urgency to reclaim the essence of this democratic practice in these hallowed halls through transparency and clarity, which voting records provide. For without it, the “Ayes” become meaningless echoes, at best.

The writers are lawyers engaged in public policy and research in Kolkata.