Vijay Hashia
This piece of my writing is not a sermon but out of hard stroke laden with pain and anguish by watching Parliament slipping into frequent adjournments over raucous voices without debate, thereby setting a bad precedence of the institution, for the issues that could be well debated on the floor of house. The raucous voices have taken considerable toll of both time and public money. It is time that feelings of citizens were understood by the parliamentarians.
Every democratic legislature contains rulers and opponents and in all parts of the world, these legislatures are confronted with the problem of ‘dominance’ in face of tit for tat. Because of these pressures, legislative politics becomes inefficient, ineffective and a good democracy develops fissures as experienced during emergency but in the words of Albert Einstein, “great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”
An adorable trait of our Parliament is a powerful symbolic oscillation but when a debate becomes noisy, fragmented and confused, the purpose of its serving the institution and people is defeated and when a debate degenerates into reflex of acrimony, the parliamentary process itself becomes discredited. The process of debate is no doubt, a contest, symbolising inner dialogue, the sequence of questions and answers reflect the truly civilized mind which is a reflection of our social and public life but the citizens, if the debate is not imbued with inspiration of high ideas and principles, recognize opposing tendencies merely each other’s enemies and not each other’s partners instead.
Parliamentarians are associated with high ideals of commitment to every citizen which is a sign of civilisation. They have all means of measuring bottom line impact of walkouts and washouts which is derailing citizen’s high expectations. Citizens perceive this environ filled with vacuum of political mistrust, hidden agendas, interpersonal conflicts and rivalries. The political mistrust is undermining the best of strategies for debates and a situation in which the activity of debate is devalued is inimical to democracy.
The wedge between ruling and the opposition is as orthodox and wide as political democracy itself but the essence of ruling is the rulers, the ruled and the minority could seek to persuade majority of its point of view by peaceful means. In the democracy, opposition have the right to articulate the interests of their constituents, to scrutinize the actions of the government, and to present alternative policies. The question is how many of these disruptions or unruly behaviours benefit the opposition is open to question, since hollow pandemonium and shortening of length of speeches sometimes makes debate not fruitful nor does the disciplining party members by suspension? Political pundits say the genius of the parliamentary process is that adversary politics is not simply negative, but can itself be an important part of shaping government policy but it is only possible when there is an erudite debate to solution. Indeed, without good opposition, policy consensus would be meaningless formality.
Parliament, after all is fundamentally about debate- ‘rhetoric’ in transacting people’s business but not disruptions. It is also about the right to dissent in a civilized but not unruly manner, therefore, necessary attribute to democracy, is tolerance and mutual trust to resolve differences by peaceful means.
As facts speak for themselves provided issues are debated and debates not stalled by means of disruptions and dharnas. The highest institution of country must function to its reputation; it must serve a system and the people in the best interest without partisan ends. This institution enjoys the power to enact legislation and to either amend or revamp the constitution. Therefore, where, power is enjoyed, modesty must not collapse to riotous and unruly behaviours but reasonable and meaningful debates. The challenge to the democracy is that it must rest on the consent of the governed, which means the minority accepts the right of the majority to make decisions, provided that there is reciprocal respect for the minority right to dissent from these decisions and to promote alternative policies if needed.
(The author is a Management Consultant and Writer. Views are personal.)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel