An opinion piece last month in one of India’s leading English dailies summarized the emerging prospects: ‘Parliamentary majority being used as bulldozer to carve out autocracy, India’s new version of President’s rule’ … replacement, at the upcoming opening [of the new Parliament building]The de facto President of the Republic of India symbolized by the Prime Minister can symbolize more than one person’s ego.
I read and put away Levitsky and Zibault’s book on the fate of democracy a few years back, amused at the thought that it did not mention India. I did not even imagine the time when skillful tools would be used in search of the desired purpose.
Our parliamentary system, designed with some care, sought to legislate; Accountability of the Executive; Approval of taxation proposals and control of national finances, and discussion of matters of public interest and concern. India stated, ‘There shall be a Union of States’ and the provisions of Part XI of the Constitution shall govern the relations between the Union and the States.
BR Ambedkar emphasized that the ultimate objective of social democracy is the trinity of liberty, equality and fraternity, which is achieved through the effective functioning of the legislature, executive and judiciary. These fundamental principles were enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution and reinforced by the Supreme Court of India in the Basic Structure Doctrine.
a decline
The challenge was in the effective functioning of the key material starting with the first. Available data show a gradual decline in its performance year-wise, session-wise and decade-wise., It is clear that Parliament has lost its effectiveness as an instrument of scrutiny, accountability and oversight. Instead, the tools of disruption devised in protest and innocently seek to disorientate the government. Above all, the leadership of the day backs it up with a studied silence or lack of presence, or both, and a noticeable laxity towards the functioning of the standing committees. The end result is a downward process of inquiry, debate and dissent. Apart from periodic elections, informed opinion is worried about its derailment and its consequences. The emergence of social media, a rival claimant for representation in civil society, has emerged as both complementary and antagonistic to questioning or complementing parliamentary representation. It has manifested in both forms in our politics. Therefore, as one political scientist put it, ‘while Parliament has become increasingly representative in descriptive terms, it has simultaneously become[s] In terms of law and governance, there is a tendency to avoid accountability by being unresponsive and closing ranks. An element of ideological orientation, in the form of religious sanctity, was used to reinforce it, as in the Parliament ceremony.
Editorial | A dangerous fall: on the standard of India’s parliamentary sessions
These moves suggest a design for centralization and personalisation, and the creation of a ‘Führer or Zaim-like’ image is not unknown in recent history. Also, calls have been made to use administrative tools to bring state institutions that have influence over the election process into line. Both contributed to the achievement of the transition from populism to electoral authoritarianism; Both violate the spirit of the constitutional text.
One result of this trend, a reflection of the disquiet caused by it, is a statement in the form of a recent letter written by a group of former civil servants to the President of India, expressing concern over the government’s attempts to change its character. Is. The civil service and its functioning, lead civil servants to be ‘torn between conflicting loyalties’, weakening their ability to be impartial. ‘It has upset the federal balance and left civil servants torn between conflicting loyalties, weakening their ability to be impartial’.
‘Hinduism and development’
These trends in the changing character of Indian politics have generated public concern and have not gone unnoticed by observers abroad. An editorial comment stated that ‘Hindu nationalism in India is writing an article for the country’s experiment with multi-ethnic secular democracy’. In an article published last year, Christophe Jaffrelot analyzed Hindutva ideology (linked to populism) based on Israeli scholar Sammy Smua’s theory of ethnic democracy – defined as the ideology of a group that identifies itself with racial, Believes to be bound by linguistic, religious or other cultural characteristics. with a sense of superiority and rejection of the ‘other’ generally regarded as a real or perceived threat to the existence and integrity of the ethnic nation.’
The conflict between nationalism and Hindutva has been the backbone of the new hegemony, which has helped the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) project a powerful combined image of Hindutva and development. As Suhas Palshikar has said, “That is why the Bharatiya Janata Party is so happy with intellectuals trying to problematize the country. That particular intellectual initiative simultaneously puts the BJP in a position of immense advantage and ensures that ‘Anti-BJP’ would essentially equate to anti-national. Independently, both ideas – Hindutva and development – are powerful political discourses. By combining them with nationalism, Narendra Modi has bundled them into his arsenal of political offensive .
A carefully calibrated personality cult with an image of infallibility has been reinforced by the hype surrounding India’s presidency of the G-20. The whole effort is to mesmerize the public, especially the middle class, with the illusion of India being a Vishwaguru image, while the opposite is being seen – falling standards in educational institutions, rising unemployment and its impact on the public welfare.
a new parliament building, question
The opening of the new building of Parliament was conspicuously lacking in any suggestion to make its functioning more meaningful. It appears that the formal equality of the two Houses has been abolished and the Leader of the Lok Sabha in his speech could (but did not) suggest measures to increase the working days to 90-100 days as in the past. The practice of having a Prime Minister’s Question Hour every week, and proposed more effective measures for the functioning of the committee system to enhance its effectiveness and public confidence. Thus more work space for Members of Parliament can be justified in practice. However, no such suggestion was forthcoming.
So, will the new building contribute to a more functional and productive Parliament? Will it enhance the democratic process in politics? Will it, as the Prime Minister said in his inaugural address, ‘spark a sense of duty in every Indian’ and make those who sit and work in the new structure and those who lead it its primary duty? Will he remember Ambedkar’s lecture to himself and his colleagues in December 1952 on the ‘Conditions for the Successful Functioning of Democracy’?
Hamid Ansari was the Vice President of India (2007–2017)