By Dr.
Rao V.B.J. Chelikani
In a system of democracy where
Parliament is the most important decision-maker, it has always been considered
necessary to sub-divide it into two houses with two kinds of representatives
with different interests, so as not to allow concentration of power or majoritarian
decisions to be imposed on the residents in a country. Of course, in any case,
the judiciary is given the right to review the decisions to see whether they
conform to the spirit and the letter of the constitution which is supreme in
the polity.
1)
Rajya Sabha, the Upper House in India is meant, at
that time to protect the federal spirit of the political entity and to operate
as a counter-power, when India lived before independence as a country of
independent states. After 70 years of national integration of all the people,
there are no more separate interests of any state to be protected. All citizens
wherever they are enjoy the same status. Article 371 of the Constitution
attends to the special needs of some residents of some regions. In any case,
the Rajya Sabha, in practice has always been screwed to be in favour of
doubling the political representation of the ruling party, which wants to have
absolute power in making laws. The Upper House is functioning like a balcony in
a cinema theatre, serving only to provide extra seats to those who could not be
accommodated in the lower chamber. Some Rajya Sabha members are elected
indirectly by the already elected members of the state assemblies (MLAs) and
the seats are shared on the basis of the relative strength of the political
parties. Whatever might be the category they belong to, most of them remain the
faithful representatives of the political parties and are not representing any
other specific interest or activity of the people. Even the regional political
parties are not playing any role different from that of the role they are
playing in the Lok Sabha. Neither the representatives are more competent to
represent any other interests of the people, than that of either opposing the
ruling party or opposing it in terms of legislation. Only 12 members, with
special knowledge and experience in a vast number of subjects like literature,
science, arts and social service are nominated to Parliament by the President. Special
representation to the Anglo-Indians has no relevance any more.
2)
In
most of the states in India, the politicians in order to have unfettered
freedom to take majoritarian decisions which are mostly, politically-motivated,
keep only the Assembly to legislate. Very few states have Legislative Councils
and in each Council, the members should be only 1/3rd of those in the Assembly.
Further, the
opportunity to decide upon the financial matters is denied to them. At present, one-third
members are elected by the MLAs; one-third by the members of the Mandals and
Zilla Parishads; one-twelfth are from teachers; one-twelfth are from graduates
and one-sixth are nominated by the governor. Those who produce wealth and
knowledge, such as economic actors and professionals, universities and
scientists are not at all represented in the Assembly. All the activities of
health care, science, culture, arts and crafts, media, industries, businesses,
labour and other active productive forces, which can bring direct knowledge,
experience, and vision into the laws have no place.
3)
Since
Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies represent the people vertically on the basis
of some space and some numbers, ideally, the Rajya Sabha and the state
legislative councils should represent the society horizontally in terms of its
social, economic and cultural actors to supplement in the decision-making. In
some countries, starting with the British example, the Upper House includes the
judicial representatives also. While the members of the Lok Sabha have no time to think beyond the next
election season, the RS or the Council members can think beyond about the
future of the society in terms of long-term policies and their implementation. In some
municipalities in Europe, elders’ councils are held. They need not have to promise freebies to the
targeted voters and to take populist measures to please people instantaneously.
Proposal
of Some Radical Reforms
In order to remedy the present
undemocratic situation which is not serving the long term interests of the
people, we need to recognize the need to take some radical reforms, one day.
1)
One best practice that can be intensified is that all the
members of both the Houses should obligatorily participate in the Standing and
Joint Committees regularly reconstituted by both the Houses. At present, all
the bills are not entrusted to these Committees and all the members are not
involved in them.
2)
These Committees should always consult the civil society
organisations in the country as well as the international governmental and
non-governmental organisations. .
3)
Both the chairperson and the speaker, as well as the
Panels of Presiding Officers of both the Houses should resign from their
political parties during their term so as not to be bound by the party whip and
party interests. Madabhushi Ananthasayanam Iyyengar and Neelam Sangiva Reddy
have already set such a good example.
4)
Some Pre-Election Modalities:
i). Some kind of pre-selection process
appears to be necessary before allowing anybody to contest as a candidate in
the elections. There can be a preliminary aptitude test, oral or written, for
the intended candidate to be conducted by the Election Commission of India and,
as a result some ratings can be announced about their aptitude to deliver.
Accordingly, the voters in that constituency can compare the candidates present
and vote. Alternatively, while the affidavit is being filed by the candidates,
in addition to their criminal background and financial situation, they can,
further be asked to indicate the proof of their aptitude to be a legislator or
a minister. Even the physical and
mental conditions of the candidates to conduct public affairs are also to be
assessed or profiled. In order to avoid senile senior leaders, China has fixed
68 years as the upper age limit to remain in public life.
ii). Representing a bit of territory and an
unspecified number of people living in it is not any more democratic enough. It
was revolutionary enough in Feudal England, and it is not based on any holy
criteria. Now, it can be abandoned in favour of more specific interests or needs-based
criteria. The Rajya Sabha members and the MLCs could as well be elected by
different categories of actors in the society, starting from the domestic
helpers to the scientists, including former officials, private sector managers,
the civil society organisations and foreign experts. Like the political
parties, the chambers of the professionals of Commerce, Industry, health,
education, Sciences, also should be able to present their delegates, by turns. The advantage with such candidates from
productive activities is that they would go back to their original activities
after finishing their mandate, without hanging around indulging in politics
permanently.
iii). Representatives of the regional and
international organisations, as well as the non-resident Indians (NRIs) should
also be given the membership, without the right to vote, as they would objectively
bring in new knowledge, expertise and broader perspectives. They are already
supplying foreign currency. They would widen the spirit of the decisions to
remain in harmony with universal values and global practices, and also to
promote better international relations and human understanding. This is one way
to eliminate narrow nationalist tendencies.
iv). A mid-term change
of the ruling party, which is at the helm of affairs in the Assembly has been
affecting the quality of policy-making and resulting in the wastage of public
money due to reversal of policies. The prospects of partial elections,
bye-elections, and mid-term elections have been directly affecting the policy
decisions taken. The members of the RS, as well as the MLCs should be elected
for a longer period, say for ten years, so that they can ensure more political
stability, continuity and certainty in policies.
4) Contrary to the present practice of
restricting their role in ‘money bills’, they should be given statutory right
to exercise veto, if necessary against some populist measures in legislation
proposed by the Assembly.
5) In the case of a seat of an elected
member falling vacant anywhere, the candidate who received the next highest
number of votes in that election held can be asked to sit as a member till the
end of the term. Thereby, we can avoid political instability.
6) A member should be allowed to serve
only for one term, so that we can increase peoples’ participation.
7). Some of the representatives can and
should be persuaded by the civil society organisations, especially, when they
are elected by a small majority or inversely by a vast majority, to resign from
the party and be an independent member so as to become the representative of
all the people in the constituency. The chairperson would not have an
obligation to put such a member into one of the groups in the House, and the
party-whip cannot whip him.
8) Similar to the Election Watch
activities, some civil society organisations dealing with good governance and
developmental studies should carry out Legislation Watch and release an annual
statement of the assessment of the performance of the legislators, in
cooperation with the media. At present, the Speaker and the chairperson of the
RS are doing it at the end of the sessions.
But, without the full cooperation and willingness
of the present political class formed into political parties, none of the above
proposals can see the light of the day. They would never accept the above, as
they have a vested interest in the status quo. Understandably, though our
Constitution could not envisage such a possibility, it is possible in the 21st
century for the citizens to directly participate in the governance. In matured
democratic countries in Europe, it is being called Citizens Initiative. The
civil society organisations like the senior citizens and pensioners
associations, resident welfare associations which are keen about good
governance in our country should mobilise the public opinion and collect their
signatures or votes in favour of some proposals. They can be sent as peoples’
demands to those authorities who are taking decisions at any level. This is not
forbidden by any law. The European Parliament has accepted it as an obligation
to take up for discussion any matter that is addressed to it by more than a
million citizens from more than one country. Further, we can put pressure on
the candidates before the elections to take a commitment towards such reforms.
Something must be done immediately to
prevent people from becoming more disgruntled and cynical. In many African,
Arab and Latin American countries, in such circumstances, the military or the
religious chiefs are tempted to grab power by force,
without any signs of disapprobation from the public. This has already happened
in South Asia and in our own neighbouring countries.
0 Comments