Don’t allow erosion of democratic values

Of late, we all have been under the mistaken notion that the foundations of Indian democracy are very strong. However, on a closer scrutiny we find that those foundations are seemingly limited to elections, and anyone who cares about democracy may not last many more years. There’s no need to over-analyse to find the reasons for that fear. Just step into the parliament that we treat as a temple or the state legislative assemblies, and the causes become obvious.

Meaningful debates do not take place in the Lok Sabha. There are no effective decisions. Legislators do not engage collectively in thinking about laws that would benefit the public. Opposition members hurl abuses at the ruling party; the ruling party retaliates with even more furious attacks. The Speaker, as if asking where the complaints raised by the opposition should be heard, tilts to the right and refuses to look left.

In some Assemblies, the opposition members show up only on the day of swearing-in, and after that are present merely to sign attendance sheets with pride. Who cares about what happens inside, if their demands are met whenever made? Debates? Aren’t there media microphones outside for that? Are the microphones in the House only meant to be torn apart, and not to convey the carefully chosen words of the people?

The debate over whether the Lok Sabha ever previously approved a vote of thanks to the President’s address without the Prime Minister being present is redundant at this juncture.

When passing resolutions without discussion is becoming parliamentary practice, do we need to abandon older customs? The Speaker took his advice seriously and the Prime Minister did not attend the House. The issue is not whether the Speaker advised this because of alleged disrespect to MPs’ dignity or because the opposition’s proposed no-confidence motion against the Speaker created new precedents—those are side issues. The real question everyone in a democracy should consider is why our constitution-makers enshrined Parliament and assemblies as forums of dignity. The Prime Minister was unable to attend to move the vote of thanks to the President’s address because the Speaker, by order, dispensed with a concluding debate. Likewise, the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, could not speak on the vote of thanks because the Speaker would not permit him to read an excerpt from the preface of a yet-to-be released book by former chief of army General M M Naravane.

When the leader of the ruling party and the leader of the opposition are both unable to speak on a crucial resolution for any reason, should that be taken as senior leaders abdicating their democratic responsibilities? How acceptable is it for the Lok Sabha Speaker to claim helplessness? The executive and the Parliament discharge responsibility through debates and answers.

Is it reasonable to ignore parliamentary conventions and avoid responsibilities by saying, “I’m not the one accountable,” simply because you can anticipate what will happen in the House? How can we say that representatives elected by the people are fulfilling democratic processes and constitutional duties when debates and resolutions are passed without discussion? Is not that overstepping democratic bounds? Whether knowingly or not, or because of personal or intra party ego issues, when basic principles are being cast aside and the polity is being discarded, who should be blamed? When a low level official exceeds his or her authority, does the machinery give up on holding them accountable and punishing them according to law? Has the Constitution given licence to apply one kind of justice to government employees and another to elected representatives?

There have been many instances in India where elected representatives chosen by the people have switched parties after the election, and even where presiding officers—legislative speakers and parliamentary chairpersons—have repeatedly delayed making decisions despite clear evidence of such defections.

Those in the Chair, who should ensure fairness for all sides, often act as if they must protect only the ruling party, as if legislators had no obligation to resign when they leave their party. Some may even brazenly insist on continuing to act as party representatives while holding the speaker’s chair, pretending there is nothing wrong with it. If politicians sink to the point of thinking that winning elections is all that matters and that anything goes to secure the nextvictory, then the word “democracy” is forced to take on a different meaning.

Despite many setbacks elsewhere after independence, our country has earned a reputation for upholding democratic values and serving the people to some extent.

At this stage, when we have largely succeeded in preserving those values, it is unacceptable to cavalierly abandon responsibility and trample those principles. It is essential for the nation’s wellbeing that power remains accountable and firmly within democratic bounds. Rulers, opposition parties, and citizens alike must take that responsibility seriously.

(The writer is a retired IPS officer, who has served as an Additional DGP of Andhra Pradesh)