When Parliament Stops Debating

It’s saddening to note that the recently concluded monsoon session of the parliament had transacted only 19 per cent of the scheduled business; that too by passing some bills through voice votes and without any discussions. This is clearly against the very essence of parliamentary democracy as the parliament is meant to be the foremost forum for democratic dialogue, disagreement and accountability. It is an erosion of Parliament’s capacity to perform its constitutional responsibility of deliberating on laws, scrutinising the executive and giving voice to the concerns of citizens. Political differences are intrinsic to a parliamentary democracy and parliament would be meaningless without disagreement. The problem arises when disagreement becomes so entrenched that neither side is willing to trust the other enough to permit meaningful discussion. The government increasingly views opposition tactics as an attempt to paralyse the legislature, while the Opposition sees the government’s approach as an unwillingness to engage with uncomfortable questions. Caught between these competing perceptions, parliamentary business becomes a casualty.

The present situation is particularly worrying because Parliament is not simply an arena for political contests. It is also a constitutional institution entrusted with making laws and holding the executive accountable. Every disruption means that an opportunity for detailed scrutiny is lost. Important legislation can be pushed through amid political confrontation, while issues of public importance are reduced to slogans, protests and counter-protests. Neither outcome serves democracy well. The responsibility for restoring parliamentary functioning cannot be placed entirely on one side. The government, by virtue of possessing the numbers, has a greater responsibility to create space for debate and accommodate legitimate opposition demands. Parliamentary majority is a mandate to govern, not a license to disregard dissent. The Opposition, equally, must recognise that disruption cannot become a substitute for argument. Raising an issue forcefully is legitimate; preventing the House from functioning indefinitely is not. What makes the current impasse more troubling is the apparent collapse of informal channels of communication. Parliamentary democracy depends not only on formal rules but also on political conventions, negotiations and a willingness to meet halfway. Leaders across the aisle must be able to talk even when they disagree profoundly. When such communication breaks down, every procedural dispute quickly becomes a political confrontation.

Disruptions, which once used to be considered as an extraordinary parliamentary tactic, have become part of routine political strategy over the years. This should concern everyone. At the same time, the Opposition's concerns cannot be dismissed simply because they are expressed through protests. Parliament must provide sufficient opportunities for issues of national importance to receive sustained discussion. Government accountability is not an inconvenience; it is one of the principal purposes of Parliament. The government would strengthen rather than weaken its authority by allowing difficult questions to be debated and answered on the floor of the House. The answer, therefore, is neither unconditional government dominance nor permanent opposition obstruction. What Parliament urgently needs is a restoration of trust. A government can be criticised without its legitimacy being questioned, and an Opposition can be defeated in a vote without its concerns being delegitimised.