FROM BUSINESS WORLD OF 29 MARCH 2006
Offices of
profiteers
The normal
pattern, set for decades, is that the budget session goes on till early May
with a three-week recess in the middle. Two months are given to debate over the
budget from 1 March onwards; then outstanding business is dealt with over the
first week or fortnight of May before Parliament adjourns. This year, however,
the speaker has prorogued Parliament suddenly in the third week of March. He
has announced that Parliament will be recalled in May. But in the meanwhile,
the government has taken a recess – one might be tempted to call it a holiday –
from Parliamentary scrutiny for six weeks.
As is customary,
the Bharatiya Janata Party suspected dirty business behind the recess. It
alleges that Sonia Gandhi is just as liable to be disqualified from her seat in
Parliament for heading National Advisory Council as Jaya Bachchan for heading
the UP Film Development Board. The government, it says, has set
Parliamentarians home because while Parliament is in recess, it can make any
law in the form of an ordinance, which remains valid until the next session.
The opposition suspected that the government will use the recess to work out an
ordinance which will confirm Jaya’s suspension and enable Sonia Gandhi to
retain her seat.
Whether it was
right in its suspicions or not will never be, now that Sonia Gandhi has
resigned. All that can be said just now that the government gave the opposition
every reason to suspect its intentions. The prorogation could not have been
done more maladroitly.
Although the
government has issued no clarification, it has not kept its reasons entirely
secret. The government believes that the opposition is incapable of fulfilling
its function of questioning and criticizing the government’s actions and of
keeping it on its feet. The Lok Sabha chamber fills up for the question hour.
But then – and often even before it is over – the opposition rushes into the
well and begins a shouting session. It ends with the speaker adjourning
Parliament, and so on till the next day. In the government’s view,
Parliamentary sessions are largely a waste of time; if shouting and
gesticulating is the only skill the opposition can muster, it can demonstrate
it anywhere else in the country. The august chamber is neither necessary nor
appropriate for such theatrical performances.
Apart from the
sheer pointlessness of such sessions, they also waste ministers’ time. At least
some of them have to be around in Parliament; in the meanwhile, valuable
administrative time is wasted, and decisions are delayed. The Prime Minister,
in particular, works long hours. He values every minute, and rues the time
taken up in watching the opposition’s antics. Apart from this, a good deal of
officials’ time is taken up in preparing answers to Parliament questions; that
time too will be saved.
The dramatic
curtain call raises two issues. One is, what are the implications of Jaya
Bachchan’s disqualifications, and how to draw them out. Here, the government
would be tempted to work out an opportunistic solution that would do itself
least damage. But it should ask itself what was the original purpose of
disqualifying legislators who held an office of profit. It was that they should
judge the government without favour – that they should in no way be mercenary
to the government, and that they should take a disinterested view, whether they
were in the ruling party or the opposition. That reason is as valid as it was
when the rule on the office of profit was formulated; for that reason, the rule
should be enforced in full rigour. It is true that the rule has been honoured
more in breach, and that its enforcement will disqualify hordes of members of
legislative assemblies, as well as some members of Parliament. It is also
possible that some of the rickety coalition governments will fall. But the
earthquake will be healthy; it will restore to our democracy some of the vigour
it has lost.
The other is
that offices of profit are only the tip of the iceberg. A legislator does not
have to hold an office of profit to make profit. He only has to exert pressure
on ministers and get work done – usually improperly – to get money from
supplicants. What a big business this is, is evident from the size of assets
disclosed by veteran legislators to the Election Commission. It is also evident
from the price some parties in Uttar Pradesh have been openly charging for
giving tickets to candidates. Not only has the line between a minister and a
legislator – a policy maker and a policy critic – been blurred; even the line
between the government and opposition is in danger of getting erased. This is
the worst result: with the coalescence of interests, democratic vigilance
itself has become feeble. A graphic indicator of this is attendance in
legislatures; most of the time, there is not even a quorum. The government may
dismiss Parliament. But the Prime Minister should call together leaders of all
parties, and initiate some introspection on the state of our democracy.
