The winter session of Parliament was almost an absolute washout. Both houses were supposed to discuss, debate and decide for 21 days, out of which 19 were drowned by total chaos. According to the stats given out by the Lok Sabha speaker in her concluding remarks, the house ran for a total of 19 hours 26 minutes. If we consider that the house runs from 11 am to 6 pm on a normal day (with an hour for lunch), the total number of functioning hours would come to 126. So Lok Sabha functioned only for 15.5 percent of its allotted time.
The last session turned out to be one of the least productive sessions in the past six years. Back in 2010, the Lok Sabha functioned only for 6 percent of its allotted time and Rajya Sabha for 2 percent. While in 2013, the percentage had a marginal spike of 15 percent and 25 percent respectively, questions still arose regarding the functioning of Parliament.
It’s time to ask the question: Is there a solution to make Parliament function amicably?
Also Watch: Washed-Out Winter Session of Parliament Comes to an End
Proposal May Not Work
One solution which is trending at the moment, and some MPs have also written about it, is implementing a ‘no work, no pay’ rule. Simply put: if the MPs are not working, they should not get their salaries. While this appears to be a reasonable suggestion off-hand, we have to ask some deeper questions. IF you are assuming that MPs would let the house function when there is a threat of a pay cut, are you also saying that our MPs are motivated by money to attend Parliament?
This may seem like an idealist question, but consider the simple fact that our Lok Sabha has 442 crorepati MPs. According to the Association of Democratic Reforms, the average net worth of these MPs is 14.61 crore which comes to a collective total of approximately Rs 6,460 crore. On the other hand, their income from Parliament (considering all allowances) comes to 1.1 lakh per month or 13.2 lakh annually. To me, that just seems like a paltry sum if you consider their income from alternative sources.
Only the MPs who totally survive on the salary they get from Parliament will be the ones affected by ‘no work, no pay’. Others, well, not so much. The ‘no work, no pay’ solution also might not work because India does not have a law which says that MPs have to give up their professions and businesses to exclusively work as a legislator.
Ensuring Smooth Functioning of Parliament
- ‘No work, no pay’ is
not the ideal solution to avoid disruptions, as salary is not the only
source of income for the MPs.
- Estimating loss
caused due to disruptions in terms of money is unfair as it is rare that
both houses agree on a single law in a single form.
- Increasing the
number of working days of Parliament to at least 110 days a year can increase
the productivity of the House.
- Allocating time to
the Opposition, at least one a day in a week, to voice their concerns about
various issues can bring down the decibel levels.
- Annual calendar specifying
schedule for the government and opposition can result in parties
adapting more constructive legislative strategies.
Parliament Not a Factory Producing Goods
The second factor we seriously need to think about is whether the Parliament can be compared to any other workplace, like a factory for example. There are many who have used the argument: “Regular employees get a pay cut if they don’t work, our representatives should face a similar fate.”
Let’s get one thing straight from an organisational standpoint: The Parliament is NOT a for-profit enterprise. It is not producing any goods that are being sold to consumers. If employees in a factory producing shoes rise up in protest, there is a very direct economic loss caused to the enterprise and its owner(s). If they stop producing shoes, they stop making profits.
What the Parliament does, on the other hand, is debate issues and make laws. It is a forum for discussion which is used by representatives to air the voices of the people who elected them. There is no quantifiable economic value that can be associated to what they do.
For the simple reason that the loss is too large in order to be quantifiable. There can be estimates like stalling Parliament is causing a loss of 1-2 percent to the GDP or is losing out on a certain amount of taxpayer money but it is much bigger than that. If valuable time that needs to be used to pass laws is lost, the cascading economic effect of that cannot be realistically comprehended.
Would our MPs take into consideration these notional, but immense losses and be motivated to function? Highly doubt it.
There is one simple thought that comes to mind: It is quite rare that both houses of Parliament agree on a single law in a single form. Laws, by their very nature, are supposed to touch multiple aspects of how our society functions.
For example, some MPs might be in favour of privatising education, some will argue that education should be completely controlled by the state and others will argue for a more middle ground. The Parliament, collectively, will decide the education policy. It is realistically not possible to say which one would work better and lead to the most economic benefit for the society at large. It’s subjective. Again, there might be estimates, but that is essentially what they are: estimates.
Need for Structural Reforms
The final question: If personal wealth and the country’s economic benefits don’t motivate our MPs to work, what does?
On a very primary level, one of their motivations is to stay in power and get re-elected.
If they collectively believe that disrupting parliament, taking political potshots and insulting the government in power will help them get votes, they will continue to do so. And there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. The party in power will, someday, lose their government and hand it over to the opposition camp. Like it happened with UPA and NDA in 2014. But the disruptions continue, the Parliament continues to get adjourned.
What we need in a situation such as this is for our parliamentary system to evolve. We need structural reform.
More Sittings of Parliament
Our Parliament sits for an average 67 days annually. Compare this to the first, second and third Lok Sabha (1952- 1967), when it sat for an average 120 days annually. Since then, the time of functioning has reduced by half.
According the PRS Legislative Research, the average attendance of all our MPs (in the 16th Lok Sabha) is 82 percent. So if you take that into consideration, on an average, our MPs collectively spend 55 days in the Parliament in a year. If you consider their performance in the last winter session, 19 of those 67 valuable sittings were lost due to disruptions.
If we increase the number of days to a universally accepted standard of 110 days, it would make an immense difference. More working days means more work would happen. Going by the current trend, it is possible for disruptions to be dragged on for a considerable period (even a whole month), but there would be more time to work out a solution and allow Parliament to function. Which brings me to the second reform which needs to go in tandem with increasing the sittings.
Allowing Opposition to Set the Agenda
At the moment, the agenda is completely set by the government in power which is a big factor, leading to political friction. One reform, which has been suggested earlier by experts, is to give one day in a week for the non-government benches to set the agenda. They can raise various issues that are bothering their collective conscience like price rise, atrocities against minorities, floods, droughts and even region specific issues. Considering the increase in working days, by having say, an extra week every session, the government can make up for the time given to the opposition quite easily.
Imagine if this were the case in the winter session. The opposition would raise the issue of demonetisation easily on a particular ‘opposition day’ and the government would be free to continue with its legislative agenda during the remaining four days. In the following week, if the opposition felt there was more to be discussed regarding demonetisation, they would simply continue discussing it on that allotted day.
Announcing an Yearly Calendar of Sittings
The sitting days of the Parliament are decided by the government of the day. The President issues the summons on the advice of the government about three weeks in advance. This gives power to the government to hold a session considering the political climate. If there are state elections, the sessions are usually called on dates that don’t clash.
Parties that are not a part of the treasury benches, on the other hand, use the Parliament as a campaigning stage to take potshots at each other keeping an eye on the upcoming elections.
IF a yearly calendar for Parliament sittings is announced in advance, these factors would be more or less mitigated. The annual calendar would give the government and opposition a chance to take a more long-term view of their political and legislative strategies. The government would have assigned slots to bring in legislations, which can be announced months in advance too. It would automatically give everyone more time to go through the proposed laws and come to their own conclusions before the bill goes to the floor for discussion and voting.
Seeking Long-Term Solutions
While solutions like ‘no work, no pay’ may work to a certain extent, I am not denying the possibility outright, it might not be an effective long-term solution for ensuring that our Parliament functions. To say that an MP is motivated by salary to serve as a legislator is an incorrect notion because elected leaders are, by virtue, required to think about the greater good and not just personal motivations. The only reasonable solution for ensuring our legislature functions is to review the manner of its functioning.
Sources: Indian Express, Hindustan Times, PRS Legislative, Mint
(Meghnad S is a public policy professional currently working as the Chief of Staff for a Lok Sabha Member of Parliament. When not watching sessions, he dabbles with writing on subjects related to the Greatest Place on Earth: The Indian Parliament. He can be contacted on Twitter: @memeghnad)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this column are strictly personal. Ideas & thoughts expressed here should not be attributed to the author’s employer, Mr Tathagata Satpathy, his political party or any other person/entity.
Also Read: Parliament’s Credibility Will be at Stake if Disruptions Continue
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)