Article 2: Parliament and the Crisis of Trust
Why in News: Recent disruptions in Parliament, including a notice of no-confidence against the Speaker and heightened confrontation between the ruling party and Opposition, highlight a deepening breakdown of trust affecting parliamentary functioning.
Key Details
- 118 Opposition MPs have reportedly signed a notice to move a no-confidence motion against the Lok Sabha Speaker.
- Controversies surrounding debates on the Motion of Thanks and references to unpublished material have escalated tensions.
- Allegations and counter-allegations between the ruling party and the Opposition have led to repeated disruptions.
- The situation reflects a growing institutional strain affecting parliamentary dignity and deliberative democracy.
Parliamentary Democracy: Constitutional Foundations
- Supremacy of Parliament in Law-Making: Under Articles 79–122 of the Constitution, Parliament is the supreme legislative body representing the will of the people. Its functioning is central to democratic accountability and policy-making.
- Collective Responsibility & Debate: Article 75 establishes collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Lok Sabha, which can function meaningfully only if debates, questioning, and scrutiny occur.
- Role of the Opposition: Though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Opposition is institutionally recognised (Leader of Opposition Act, 1977) as essential for accountability and checks on executive power.
- Deliberative Democracy: The Constituent Assembly envisioned Parliament as a forum of reasoned discussion, not mere majoritarian assertion. Debate, dissent, and compromise are intrinsic to parliamentary culture.
Breakdown of Trust: Contemporary Manifestations
- Frequent Disruptions: Recent sessions have witnessed adjournments, protests in the Well of the House, and reduced legislative debate time, impacting productivity.
- No-Confidence Notice Against Speaker: A motion against the Speaker raises serious institutional questions, as the Speaker is expected to function with neutrality and moral authority.
- Politicisation of Security and Proceedings: Statements regarding security concerns inside the House and disputes over parliamentary conduct have intensified mistrust between the two sides.
- Escalation of Rhetoric: Substantive motions and allegations against key constitutional functionaries reflect a shift from policy disagreement to institutional confrontation.
Office of the Speaker & Institutional Neutrality
- Constitutional Position (Article 93): The Speaker is elected by the House and is expected to act impartially, rising above party lines once in office.
- Guardian of Parliamentary Privileges: The Speaker regulates debates, decides on points of order, and adjudicates disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
- Moral Authority & Precedent: Historically, Speakers commanded respect across parties, facilitating dialogue during crises through behind-the-scenes consultations.
- Perception vs. Legitimacy: Even perception of bias can weaken institutional credibility, underscoring the importance of transparency and neutrality.
Historical Perspective: Disruptions Are Not New
- Coalition Era (1989–2014): Frequent disruptions occurred during coalition politics, often reflecting regional and ideological contestations.
- Lokpal Bill Episode (2011): The tearing of the Bill in the Rajya Sabha symbolised intense political disagreement, yet institutional dialogue eventually continued.
- Presidential Concerns: In 2016, President Pranab Mukherjee publicly urged MPs to fulfil their legislative duties, signalling concern over declining standards.
- Continuity & Change: While disruptions have historical precedent, the present intensity suggests a deeper erosion of trust rather than episodic protest.
Opposition as ‘Opponent, Not Enemy’
- Sushma Swaraj’s Democratic Ethos: In her 2014 farewell speech in the Lok Sabha, she emphasised that political actors are “opponents, not enemies,” highlighting civility in disagreement.
- Constructive Dissent: Parliamentary democracy requires institutionalised opposition to critique policy without undermining constitutional legitimacy.
- Adversarial but Cooperative Model: India follows the Westminster system, where government and opposition contest policy but cooperate to maintain institutional functioning.
- Erosion of Civility: Increasing personalisation of politics and public rhetoric risks transforming adversarial politics into antagonistic confrontation.
Consequences of Parliamentary Dysfunction
- Reduced Legislative Scrutiny: Bills passed without adequate discussion weaken democratic deliberation and reduce transparency.
- Weakening of Committees: Parliamentary committees, traditionally spaces of bipartisan consensus, lose relevance if political polarisation deepens.
- Public Disillusionment: Dysfunctional proceedings can erode citizens’ trust in representative institutions.
- Institutional Precedent: Normalising disruption may create long-term damage to parliamentary conventions and norms.
Conclusion
Restoring parliamentary functionality requires rebuilding trust between the ruling side and the Opposition. Institutional neutrality of the Speaker, structured dialogue mechanisms, strengthening of committee systems, and adherence to parliamentary ethics are crucial. Democratic politics is inherently adversarial, but it must remain constitutional and civil. Reviving the spirit articulated by Sushma Swaraj—that opponents are not enemies—is essential to preserve the dignity and vitality of India’s parliamentary democracy.
EXPECTED QUESTIONS FOR UPSC CSE
Prelims MCQ
Q. The Leader of Opposition in India is officially recognised under which Act?
(a) Representation of the People Act
(b) Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act
(c) Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition Act, 1977
(d) Anti-Defection Act
Answer: (c)
Descriptive Question
Q. Examine the role of the Speaker in maintaining neutrality and ensuring smooth functioning of the House. Suggest reforms to strengthen institutional credibility. (250 Words, 15 Marks)