Opinion Return of the House
Parliament has an array of legislation to show for the budget session. But the NDA seems to be in a rush
After sessions of lassitude, Parliament seems to have come back to life. The brute majority of the NDA, the emaciation of the opposition, and the impasse over the appointment of a leader of the opposition, had given rise to fears that decision-making would be shifted out of Parliament, that debate would be snuffed out. But the budget session largely belied such fears. Apart from a few adjournments, there was a flurry of activity in the House. The budget was passed, as was a law to amend the Sebi Act and the bill to reorganise Andhra Pradesh. Bills to amend labour laws are slated for consideration. Most importantly, debate returned to the House, a sharp contrast to the last years of the UPA. There were robust discussions on a range of subjects — Gaza, the CSAT, the insurance bill, disaster management. At first glance, this would seem to be an exemplary session of Parliament.
But what injected such energy into the House? The NDA is working on many fronts, pushing the same legislation as the UPA, but it is invigorated by a clear mandate for action. It is also harder for the opposition to block legislation it had championed while in the Treasury benches, though the BJP seemed to have no qualms about doing so while it was in opposition. An overwhelming mandate also reduced the need for the BJP to build a consensus among allies.
Do numbers alone account for the stark contrast with the previous sessions of Parliament? Was it the UPA’s loss of legitimacy that robbed it of the confidence to press ahead with legislative business and its ability to talk to its allies and the opposition? Or was it the inveterate obstructionism of the opposition that stalled the government’s agenda? At present, a decimated opposition, at least in the Lok Sabha, does not seem to have the numbers or the right strategy yet to seriously oppose the government’s agenda. If the UPA was hobbled by inaction, the new government may be inspired by a need for speed, as it often seems to sidestep the deliberation needed in mature democratic processes — the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, and the constitutional amendment to support it, for instance, or the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, which saw limited public discussion. A government confident of its mandate need not be in such a hurry.
Share
