[Politics] Weekened Parliamentary system
Ranjith
On Paper:
· Article 75 (3) of the Constitution provides that “the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of People.”
· Constitution has empowered legislature to hold executive responsible for their actions.
· It helps to ensure economic empowerment of the common people and establish norms of participatory democracy
· There are provisions in the rules of procedure and conditions of business in the Lok Sabha to ask ministers questions
o Question hour, Zero Hour, adjournment motion
o (a) resolutions (b) motions (c) short-duration discussions and (d) calling attention to discuss matters pertaining to executive functioning.
o Parliamentary committees which examine bills referred to them and scrutinise the demand for grants of all ministeries/departments.
Reality:
· The fair play of the functioning of Parliament can be ensured only if the government willingly subjects itself to legislative scrutiny.
· Also, members must be proactively vigilant and must utilise all opportunities to bring the government to book whenever and wherever it is found to be wanting.
· But unfortunately, neither the government nor the members discharge their duties in the manner they are called upon to do.
· Parliament is bypassed. Parliamentary scrutiny is avoided. The duration of the sessions is on the decline. Interruptions are on the rise. Answers to questions are unsatisfactory and incomplete.
· It is easier to extract full and fair information through the Right to Information Act than by raising questions in Parliament. Even a short-duration discussion or calling attention motion does not yield results.
Weakening of Legislature:
· On important executive decisions, Parliament’s sanction is not needed -> Aadhar card, initially FDI in retail
· A few years ago, a unanimous resolution was passed in the Lok Sabha calling upon the government to take effective measures to contain price rise. It did not implement the resolution. While Parliament is ignored by the government, members are not vigilant enough to enforce their rights.
· Unscrutinized Budget:
o Parliamentary oversight of the budgetary process has immensely weakened, leading to the executive wielding disproportionate power and acquiring clout over the process. There is no pre-budget scrutiny as in the U.S. Congress. Supplementary demands for grants are not referred to the Standing Committees. Nor are their recommendations binding on the government — they are merely an academic exercise. The demand for grants by most of the Ministries is guillotined without any discussion. The time allotted for a discussion on the Finance Bill and demands for grants is not adequate. Even after the budget is passed, the government is authorised to withdraw money from the Consolidated Fund of India, the allocation is changed, reduced, even withheld.
· While members of the British Parliament forced the government to change its policy on Syria, in India there is no such parliamentary device to force our government to change its policies.
· There are members who have not spoken even once in the House. Seventy six out of 543 members of the Lok Sabha have court cases pending against them.
· Parliamentarianism is looked upon more as a profession, unrelated to the discharge of a patriotic duty.
Conclusion:
In South Asia, only the Indian democracy is a little deep-rooted. But if the decline of the parliamentary system continues unabated, if the executive becomes reckless, if public opinion is ignored, if fruitful democracy and participatory system are lamentably overpowered, the country will be in peril.
Reference: