Discussions, Debates, and Discourse: Enhancing Parliamentary Efficacy

The roots of our democratic frameworks trace back to the Vedic era, where the seeds of discussions, deliberations, and collective decision-making were sown. During that epoch, assemblies such as the Samiti, a gathering of representatives from the populace, and the Sabha, a smaller assembly of esteemed elders, convened to address public matters through discussion and deliberations. As the pages of history turned, a new chapter emerged – one where the ideals of modern democracy took root, intertwining with our rich tradition based on democratic ethos. It was during this course that we embraced the Parliamentary system of democracy.

The adoption of the Parliamentary system was motivated by its integral attributes of accountability, representation, and adaptability. Our model draws inspiration from the British system, embodying structural and functional parallels while integrating distinctive features attuned to our nation's unique context. The crux of the Indian Parliamentary system revolves around the ideals of debates, discussions, and deliberations. This system amplifies the voices of the people through their elected representatives, who actively participate in discourse within the legislative bodies.

These parliamentary debates serve as a conduit that indirectly elevates the quality of democratic decisions. These debates involve the consideration of diverse viewpoints, leading to the selection of the most widely accepted perspectives. Beyond this, debates inherently function as a mechanism for monitoring elected officials, holding them accountable for their actions and decisions. An additional significance of Parliamentary debates is their contribution to legal interpretation. These deliberations provide courts with invaluable insights into the intent and purpose behind laws, facilitating a clearer understanding of legislative objectives. Moreover, the opposition, through its active participation in debates and discussions, fulfils its critical role of holding the government accountable. These debates establish the framework for implementing the accountability process, compelling ministers to engage, listen to criticisms and offer responses.

However, as time evolved, a shift occurred in the motivations of elected representatives. The once-sacred objective of well-informed decision-making through constructive discussions and debates gradually transformed into a quest to capture the spotlight to secure victory in subsequent elections. The foundation of rational discourse gradually eroded, making room for a culture of mudslinging, name-calling, and other unproductive behaviors'. The adobe of people's representation has morphed into another prime-time debate where emotive issues take Centre stage, often overshadowing the crucial matters that contribute to the nation's advancement.

For instance, in the most recent monsoon session, the Lok Sabha’s productivity stood at a mere 43%, while that of the Rajya Sabha fared slightly better at 55%. Considering this, If we look back, an alarming pattern is emerging within the current Lok Sabha – a concerning rise in the loss of valuable time due to interruptions. An analysis from the first session of the 17th Lok Sabha up until the Budget Session of this year paints a painful picture. The House has witnessed a substantial loss of 293 hours due to frequent disruptions, with a peak of 96 hours lost during the 2023 Budget Session. Equally, the Rajya Sabha faces an even graver issue with disruptions. In the eleven sessions preceding the recent Monsoon Session, the Rajya Sabha lost 373 hours due to disruptions. Notably, the 2023 Budget Session alone accounted for more than a quarter of these cumulative lost hours. The absence of substantive debate and constructive discourse is making our democracy lose its essence, reducing it to a lifeless entity devoid of its core principles.

With this hindsight, it is of paramount importance to address the disorder within the Parliament. A stringent enforcement of a code of conduct for MPs and MLAs becomes imperative to achieve this. The Chairperson's authority to suspend those MPs who deviate from these codes and obstruct the business of the Houses should be exercised with firmness. Further, to elevate the standards of debate, one approach is to increase the frequency of House sittings. It ensures that all members are afforded opportunities to voice their concerns without leading to undue disruptions. Also, a noteworthy strategy to adopt is the Shadow Cabinet model, akin to the United Kingdom's system. In this regard, political parties should undertake the responsibility of maintaining the responsible behaviour of their members, irrespective of their positions in the opposition or the ruling party.

It is also necessary to provide ample room for the opposition's voice to be heard. Currently, government business often takes precedence, leaving private members to address their topics post-lunch on Fridays. To rectify this, the introduction of opposition days, as practised in countries like the U.K. and Canada, could offer a balanced platform for critical issues to be discussed and debated.

Another transformative step involves greater space and respect for private member bills. Such an initiative would foster a nurturing environment for diverse ideas to emerge from grassroots levels. Governments would be empowered to engage with non-mainstream perspectives, providing official support when merited. By embracing these changes, MPs can truly evolve into genuine lawmakers.

Finally, the Anti-Defection Act should be applied in a more nuanced tone. The current model leads MPs deviating from their parties' stance to face severe consequences, including the loss of their seats. This approach should be recalibrated to apply exclusively in circumstances where the government's stability is genuinely at risk.

The Parliamentary debates and discussions serve as a gauge of public sentiment and should be treated with respect by all the political parties. Hence, thoughtfully applying these approaches can rejuvenate the Parliament's purpose as a vibrant platform for productive discussions, well-informed choices, and efficient governance.