Public Discussion and Parliament Sanctity

_________________________________________________

N Balasubramanian

In keeping with our heritage of being ‘argumentative Indians,” there is an ongoing debate in the media as to whether parliament (especially when it is session) has been “insulted” by the presence and participation of some key parliamentarians belonging to the opposition parties at Anna Hazare’s one-day token fast event at Jantar Mantar in Delhi on the 11^th December 2011, reiterating his demand for a strong Lokpal legislation.

Clearly, established conventions do frown upon policy announcements by the government or its ministers and spokespersons outside of parliament when it is in session since it impinges on parliamentary privilege. Since other members of parliament can in no way make any official policy pronouncements on behalf of the government, no parliamentary privilege can conceivably be breached by their expressing themselves one way or another. Outside of parliament, shouldn’t parliamentarians be seen, accepted and treated like any other ordinary citizen of the country (except as constrained by conventions indicated) including the freedom of assembly, expression and peaceful protest?

The next issue is the choice of the forum for the exercise of such rights. Very few people seem to consider appearing on national media to participate in discussions on various issues even while parliament is in session. Strangely, spokespersons of the ruling parties including even some ministers do regularly appear on these debate shows and obviously do not see any parliamentary insult or impropriety in such appearances. In effect, are they not expressing their views and indeed often the views of their parties on matters under discussion in parliament? If such participation dies not adversely impact upon the stature and sanctity of parliament, why should airing such views in a public meeting be considered injurious to parliament’s august personality as a revered institution? Of late, several parliamentarians appearing on such shows in recent times seem to have developed a newfound respect for parliamentary privilege – they make the usual disclaimers and overly protest on their inability to divulge any details of proceedings in committees and so on before going on to disclose the substance of such discussions albeit shrouding them in bikini idiom – that is revealing more than they conceal!

Writing in the print media on the same lines also falls in to a similar category. In common with the electronic media exposures, those articulating their views in writing also are addressing an audience (hopefully large) on matters concurrently under discussion in parliament without any qualms of intruding into the domain of parliamentary privilege.

So, what’s it that makes physical gatherings of people different? Why should people find it unacceptable behavior on the part of parliamentarians who chose to share Anna Hazare’s podium? A particularly inane reason offered is that only parliament can legislate and therefore all these views should be expressed only in parliament! Nobody is saying that others can also legislate (thank God!) in addition to or in lieu of parliament. But liberty of the individual can certainly find expression in many ways including participation in such open debates and meetings so as to mobilise public opinion and pressure government to consider and incorporate whatever it feels comfortable with in its draft legislation for discussion in parliament.

The second reason offered is that no one can dictate to parliament or the “elected” government on what and how to legislate. Who can indeed dictate to parliament except the citizens at large when voting in elections? It is fallacious to argue that in between two elections, citizens forego their right to draw government’s and parliament’s attention to matters they consider cannot wait till another election. Expressions of this nature through the media and public meetings can be polite, persuasive and often (as happens in oratorical rhetoric) terse and peremptory but that by itself cannot be called dictating for the simple reason that as we noted before, nobody indeed can dictate in a democracy except the people themselves.

The third and perhaps the worst dysfunctional argument is that after all it is only a parliamentary committee’s recommendations that parliament as the supreme body can and will do what it thinks appropriate. It is strange that a committee’s report should be treated with such scant respect by the parent body notwithstanding the substantial dissent within the committee on the matter.  I am reminded of a brilliant in-house general counsel colleague who would refer matters from time to time for expert legal advice to eminent lawyers outside and when such advice was received would invariably reject the counsel with good arguments of his own and recommend his preferred course of action! An exasperated boss would ask him why at all he referred such matters to outside counsel at enormous cost in terms of time and money if at the end such advice was not to be heeded, my colleague would respond that procedurally that was the thing to do in important matters for after all, who knew, in some instance the external advice may be so good as to warrant acceptance internally! Referring to parliamentary committees should not degenerate in to such procedural niceties with little or no intention to consider their recommendations in an unbiased manner.

In democracy, parliament is indeed intended to be the supreme body reflecting at all times the diverse views of the people its members seek to represent. Parliamentarians cannot afford to shut themselves up in an insulated sound-proofed edifice to an extent that, like the three good old monkeys, they cannot see, hear or talk to the people who elected them in the first place. If they think some civil society teams (like Anna Hazare’s) do not reflect the opinion of a vast number of other citizens, they should demonstrate the basis for their conclusion. Why couldn’t MPs for example visit their constituencies to ascertain the general feelings of the people they represent and convey to their party chiefs who can aggregate the inputs and reach a conclusion that is not based on the views of a party ideologue or a coterie of experts from within but rather on the feedback from the grassroots which ultimately sustain the superstructure of the plant or the tree. The analogy to party high commands is strikingly close!

Would this be the ultimate panacea for all such knotty problems? I would love to think so ideally, but I hate to concede the reality may still be different so long as electoral reforms and intraparty democracy are not in place.  

__________________________