Parliament should be Accountable
Published in The Hans India on 17th August 2011
Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao
"While the intentions of Anna Hazare and his Team are irreproachable, the sovereignty of Parliament cannot be doubted"-Editor
Let Indians respect Anna Hazare and his team of Civil Society for being largely instrumental in pushing the Government in formulating the historic draft Lok Pal Bill and getting it approved by the Cabinet. It does not mean that they have a right to disregard the self-righteous Parliamentary Democratic process. Its lawmaking power is sovereign. The draft Bill includes many of the Jan Lok Pal Bill provisions. It is however, regrettable, that instead of complementing the Government and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for coming-out with this draft Hazare and his Team preferred to predict that when this is passed in its present form it would be struck down by Supreme Court. Well, when Parliament has the power to pass a Bill, the Supreme Court has the power to struck it down if it Un-Constitutional. Why not the Gandhian in Hazare wait for its passage and for Supreme Court Decision as predicted by him? Better Postpone sitting on an indefinite fast!
The Fundamental feature of any Democracy and the most important contribution to democratic practice has been the development of a system of Checks and Balances to ensure that political power is separated. The Judiciary, Executive and Legislature (Parliament) though are independently supreme in their own way; it is subject to checks and balances so that the supremacy is also interdependent within the Constitutional Provisions. Laws are proposed by Government - the Executive (As a Collective Responsibility after Cabinet approval) and later are debated and passed by Parliament. Lobbyists (Including Civil Society Organizations) do not have a formal right to be heard, but free to exercise some influence on Government as well as Members of Parliament. The opposition may be taken into confidence or ignored until the introduction of the Bill.
If whatever that Hazare and his Team suggested is accepted and approved by the Executive, then, what role has the Parliament and the Executive? Does it not amount to decline of effectiveness of Indian Parliament as an institution of accountability and supervision? As it is over the years it is on the decline as observed by several experts. The instruments for accountability of Parliament are being rendered dysfunctional. Globalization of Indian economy added to the erosion of the power of Parliament. Parliamentary oversight on the powers which are being delegated to non-elected institutions often to constitutional bodies (Today already many and tomorrow one more in the form of Lok Pal is being added) is very weak. Slow legislation process, more powers to executive in the form of ordinances (Thank God…Hazare did not propose for an Ordinance on Lok Pal) substituting for legislation are some of the known weakness of our Parliament. The capacity and inclination of Members of Parliament (MP) for attending to the modern legislation is also weak. The large number of political parties in Parliament, most of which are institutionally weak, has substantially contributed to the barriers to collective action.
Parliament for no reason itself has self-abdicated many of its functions. And now Hazare and his Team are insisting for an “All Powerful and independent of ‘Checks and Balances’ Institution”. Since Independence, the country undoubtedly sustained, against great odds, a lively, stable, multicultural and functioning democracy with regular and free elections, an independent judiciary and a vibrant civil society. Democratic institutions have shown remarkable endurance. Should we attempt to erode them on the pretext of good intentions?
To what extent our Parliament could be held responsible for the successes and failures of Indian democracy is debatable. Performance of Parliamentary Democracy is not independent of performance of Parliament. Performance of law makers and quality of parliamentarians is also on the decline despite many of our parliamentarians have much higher levels of formal education than in the past. Notwithstanding all this, should the Parliament be a supreme Law making Body or not? Should few persons on the name of Civil Society, however honest and Gandhian they may be, be allowed to dictate as to what is to be law and what is not to be?
The social composition and consciousness of Parliament has also changed considerably over the years. The “state of emergency” that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared in 1975 eroded the procedural norms that are the basis of parliamentary practice. The most offensive failure of Parliament to prevent abuse of executive powers occurred in 1975 when Indira Gandhi rammed resolutions approving the presidential proclamation of an internal emergency through both houses of Parliament, suspending the fundamental rights of citizens. They are being brought back to their original position. Should we tamper them even if the intentions are great?
The primary objective of Parliament is to enact legislation, although it also has constitutional, financial and governmental powers. It is the sole body that can amend the Constitution. Parliament is the agency through which government is held accountable.
Legislation in the Parliament involves three stages corresponding to three readings of a bill. After second reading, the bill may be taken into consideration and put to an immediate vote or can be referred to a select committee of the house in question or to a joint committee of both houses, or even circulated for public opinion. However, this option is almost never exercised after a bill has been introduced. Most bills are referred to select committees. A bill placed in Parliament is scrutinized clause by clause, with members also having the right to move amendments. After the third and final reading, followed by Cabinet’s approval of amendments the bill is put to vote. On passage of the bill, it is sent to the second chamber where the entire process is repeated. It is sent to the president for consent after the bill has been passed by both houses. With President’s consent, it does not become a law automatically, that can be enforced, until a notification is gazetted. This step is sometimes “forgotten”, either deliberately or otherwise, with the result that it is unenforceable.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his team involved in formulation of Draft Lok Pal Bill, in a way, circulated (Which, though not being adhered to so far) for Public Opinion (By way of forming a Committee with members of Civil Society comprising of eminent people) even before it was placed in the House. What more is expected from the Government?
India more or less adopted the parliamentary democracy of the Westminster. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is same as there. The Parliament either under the English constitution or the Indian Constitution has the right to make or unmake any law whatever. No person or body is recognized by the law as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament not to speak of threaten to undertake indefinite fast!
Nearly four and half decades after the first draft of Lok Pal was conceived, the Union Cabinet has approved now. It is absolutely justified to keep outside its purview the Prime Minister while in office, the higher Judiciary and the conduct of MPs inside Parliament-the three authorities expected to safeguard the system of Checks and Balances. Is there any guarantee that each and every one of the proposed nine members of Lok Pal shall forever and ever be above all ills of the present day system? Then why cannot Lok Pal keep out PM outside its purview?
