Role of Political Opposition

The word ‘opposition’ on the face of it, is often perceived in a negative sense, thereby pre-judging the nature of the expression. In political language, particularly, in democratic terms, however, it ought to be a positive function to identify the negative aspect, so that one can propose the alternatives. But, like absolute affirmation, absolute opposition is also not entirely democratic. Opposition in a debate has to be interpreted as a right to criticise and, further, as an opportunity to present alternative choice of ideas and actions. One should not simply oppose, antagonize and stop at that. It is an act to bring out the implied anti-thesis to a thesis in order to get into a process of synthesis. Thus, to oppose is to take a commitment to be part of a dialogue to arrive at a better solution by way of convergence or consensus. In this sense, it is totally different from opposing something or somebody to damage his reputation or ruin one’s interests. Opposition’s role is not destruction. If it hurts national interests, it becomes unpardonable. At the same time, one should not see any agreement arrived at as surrender. It is also agreeing to disagree and to be together, for the time being. That does not take away one’s right to differ the next time. In democratic electoral language, an opposing candidate is one who provides an alternative choice to the voter. In a civilized society with democratic values, the vocation of opposition cannot be practiced without responsibility and without a desire to promote harmony at the end of the process.

In Indian context, the concept had one mission during the struggle for independence against a foreign ruler and it has another mission, now, in our parliamentary debates among the elected representatives. However, by taking certain terms literally and for political expediency, the vocation of political opposition, in our Indian democracy, has become very vicious, negative and destructive. Further, the political parties are playing after the elections also, the same role they play during the elections. The situation still continues to be what, long time ago, the American Ambassador to India, John Galbraith has described, a ‘functioning anarchy’.

The Origin: In England, the noble and useful functions of opposition are being performed by the Loyal Opposition to Her Highness since the Seventeenth century. The word ‘loyal’ is added, initially, to indicate the attachment to the royalty and it is continued, now, in order to indicate the loyalty to the constitutional process and to national interests. The leader of the Opposition appoints leading members of the caucus as ‘shadow ministers’, usually around 20, so as to monitor the work of the ministries. We are doing, more or less, same thing in India without obtaining the same results. 
  
The Leader of the Opposition (LoO): In India, the 1977 statute fixes a salary and other facilities for the leader who has, at least, 55 members. Further, there are many recent laws that require the LoO to be a part of several selection panels, such as, the Central Vigilance Commissioner, Chief Information Commissioner, Lok Pal and CBI director, etc. Some would clarify that if there is no official LoO for lack of numbers behind him, still, the leader of the largest party group should assume such a role.

Their Performance:  We should recollect the fact that the Constituent Assembly had set very high standards. The quality of criticism from an independent member has more credibility. The majority enriches the bill with proposals received from the Opposition. Criticism in the context of legislative discussions is different from representing grievances or complaints. It is here In the United States of America and in France, the regimes still work, constructively, to find bi-partisan solutions. But, in India, the present ministerial coalitions are not arriving at convergence, except in rare occasions.

If one takes legislation as the main mission of an assembly or a Parliament, the existing method by which a rep is elected does not qualify him at all for the job, which needs more than general knowledge.  During the sessions, sometimes, the Opposition groups block the process so much that they would, finally, have no time to discuss and vote on the finance bills. In spite of some work on the part of the Standing Committees, there is, practically, no sincere control or monitoring over public expenditure, at any stage.  There is, most often, no discussion on the annual reports of many commissions, such as the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the Chief Information Commissioner. In case of the fight against corruption, the Opposition only tries to discredit the persons in office or to seek their resignation, rather than to explore into its ramifications. They have been unmindful of the social costs incurred due to the delay in many vital economic reforms.

The Speaker: With a little more independence, the Speaker can offer the floor for constructive criticism and stop ritualistic criticism, with his ‘rulings’. He has to become the ‘speaker’ of the collective voice of the totality of the peoples’ representatives. An independent member should be given more importance. In short, higher traditions expect the Speaker to resign from his party to show that s/he is the president of all the members i.e. he speaks for all and listens to all with equal objectivity.

Since, only 15% of the members can become ministers, the rest of the members of the ruling party’s disappointed reps in an assembly lapse in their seats into inaction and indifference. The attitude of others is; since you rule, everything is bad and it will be nothing but bad, till we come to power in your place. During these verbal exchanges, no term of hate or abuse is spared, even if it is impugned afterwards from the records. Mr. Hamid Ansari, the chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, once an insider, had termed their behaviour as ‘competitive hooliganism’. What kind of mentality would one develop, if one employs himself continuously for five years to criticise without participating in learning experience in solving problems?  The journalists, too, usually, do not make efforts to bring in the outside experts to comment upon the veracity of those figures, facts and claims made by the members.

Logistics in the House: In order to facilitate the role of proposition and opposition to every member, the speaker can try some social engineering applying some ergonomic measures. All the members should sit in alphabetical order of their names on one side and the government members and the bureaucrats on the other side. Of course, all of them should continue to address the speaker so as to avoid vulgarity in language and gestures.

The Role of a Member: Each member should have empathy and compassion for the fellow representative and try to understand the others’ point of view. Occasional self-criticism is necessary in order to gain credibility or to admit one’s own share of presumed culpability in an omission or commission. By the fact that one is elected as a people’s representative to make laws, he becomes a part of a House meant for making laws. Any criticism should be inspired by some ‘conscientious objection’ arising out of one’s moral sense of right and wrong. In case of disagreement, one has to be democratic. One can, individually, abstain or vote against but, once the majority view or the consensus emerges, one must recognise such a decision as his own. This is what we expect from all kinds of minorities in the society. If the majority position is so unacceptable to one’s conscience, then that member should resign to be true to oneself.

As per the 1977 Law, the Speaker can identify more leaders of Opposition. In the lines of the present negotiated ‘coalition’ governments, these selected leaders of Opposition might also be accommodated in the Executive organ of the state, as ministers or with some other name. The objective is that an elected representative is not confined to only negative role but also allowed to participate in the governance. These hanges can take place with simple amendments to the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 or by “rulings’ from the speaker or by cabinet decisions. In all the Committees formed on various subjects, there should be a systematic consultation or hearing of the civil society representatives or professional bodies, without which the Speaker should not allow a bill to be discussed or passed. This will be a paradigm shift: the role of opposition would be played by the public directly from outside.

Outside the House: All the political parties, including the legislators are coming on to the streets to protest, along with some concerned interest groups. Why should they stop the functioning of schools, hospitals, stock markets and the Courts? All street action by the political parties is a clear indication that they do not believe in the parliamentary form. Such situations of street disorders, in some countries, gave room for the military or religious heads to take over the reins of power, as arbitrators. They are also abetting any agitation taken up by any section of the society for various professional causes, in the name of showing their solidarity.  Now, on many occasions, the civil society organisations are proclaiming, in advance, that they are non-political and when some political leaders want to join them, they are being hooted out.

Non-Political Opposition:  In view of the present possibilities of easy access to fast, cheap and sophisticated means of information, communications and transport and through social media, etc. any section of the society is capable of coming out to express their opposition. Such protests are issue-focussed and are not general comment on the ruling party. They are, often, protests against executive action. Over years, they have become a non-institutional opposition. The civil society organizations dealing with governance issues have started, carrying out, regular, social audit on the functioning of the legislative institutions and the reps.

Dissent and Sedition: Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. As early as 1962, the Court had clarified that only a call for violent revolution against the government attracts the charge of sedition. And that only incitement to violence or the tendency or the intention to create public disorder should be considered as sedition. However, creating hatred against a person or a belief is a crime. To differ, to say no and to contradict is one of the human faculties which cannot be classified as a negative quality. The faculty to negate is one of the intelligent functions of a human being and it is important as means to improve our knowledge. In Indian logical system, in ‘siksha’ only after three negations, ‘neti’,’neti’ and ‘neti’ that a positive affirmation is proposed. Artistic modes of expressing a negation rather than a verbal communication should be encouraged, since it promotes meeting of hearts, more than meeting of minds.                     

                                                                                               Dr. Rao VBJ Chelikani