A tale of two democracies

The events relating to the transition of power after the recent elections in India and the United Kingdom present interesting contrasts.

In India, the election results were announced on June 4, and the swearing-in ceremony of the new government was held on June 9. In the UK, the elections were held on July 4, and the results were declared on July 5. The same day Prime Minister Keir Starmer appointed his Cabinet, and it had its first meeting on July 6. Unlike what happened in India, hardly any time was wasted in the UK.

In India, the election campaign was more sound and fury, signifying personal attacks, one-upmanship, and uncivil language, with little focus on the real issues confronting the people. In England, the election campaign predominantly focused on the economy, with political parties listing out their plans and policies to address the issues the country was facing.

What differentiates the two countries in the practice of politics is the political culture that has evolved over the years. In Britain, parliamentary traditions developed over centuries. India is a modern democracy, which is less than a century old. Although we have adopted the British system of parliamentary democracy, parliamentary practices depend a lot on the political culture of the leaders.

It is indeed an irony that the initial years of India’s Parliament witnessed decent —and at times exemplary — parliamentary behaviour when compared to what we get to see seven decades later. In the initial years after Independence, parliamentarians in the Opposition like Acharya Kripalani, Madhu Limaye, and Hirendranath Mukherjee would strongly criticise the government without resorting to personal attacks on members of the ruling party or government. The treasury benches would also respond without any bitterness. The exchange of words between the two sides was more like friendly banter than the inimical abuse we see today.

Once, members of the ruling Congress taunted Kripalani after his wife defected to the Congress. His quick reply that he never thought the Congress had ‘abductors’ got the whole House to burst into laughter. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was an epitome of decency and civility, and was magnanimous in appreciating talent in the Opposition benches.

It may come as a surprise that in 1957, India’s first serious financial scam was exposed by a member of the ruling Congress, Feroz Gandhi. The Mundhra scandal, involving the Life Insurance Corporation, led to the resignation of then Finance Minister T T Krishnamachari, following an inquiry by a committee appointed by the prime minister and chaired by retired high court judge M C Chagla. Today, for any alleged scam, a CBI inquiry is demanded, while the government is also accused of using the CBI and other central agencies as tools to harass the Opposition.

Cash-for-query is another shameful practice which some MPs have indulged in or are accused of having indulged in. The most recent case is that of Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra. Late last year, Moitra was accused of having posted queries in Parliament in exchange for financial favours. The Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha recommended her expulsion, and on December 8 she was officially expelled from the Lok Sabha. Moitra contested the committee’s actions saying it violated procedural rules.

The Question Hour in Parliament, described as a form of direct ‘democracy’ and the first on the agenda of the House, is meant to elicit answers from the government on critical issues of the day, particularly on the constituents of an MP and put the government on the mat where necessary. Unfortunately, this privilege has been misused by some MPs in the past. In 2005, 11 MPs from different parties, including the BJP, the BSP, the RJD, and the Congress, were accused of accepting cash for raising questions in the House. In a historic decision, Parliament expelled all 11 MPs.

The deterioration in standards of political and parliamentary behaviour started during the license-permit raj when several influential MPs managed to get permits for petrol pumps and gas agencies, and sold MPs’ quotas for telephone and gas connections. Some of them had no hesitation in subletting MPs’ quarters, and with middlemen flourishing in the North and South Avenue, almost any facility under government control could have been obtained for a price. Post-liberalisation, permits and quotas were eliminated, but the influence of businessmen and corporates over MPs grew.

To ensure ethical behaviour on the part of MPs, a Code of Conduct for Lok Sabha Members and guidelines for declaring their business interests have been pending before the ethics committee for long. It also includes matters of conflict between the personal and public interests of MPs to ensure that the latter are not compromised by the former. In the British parliament, a register of interests is maintained for disclosure of members’ financial interests, and they are required to enter “information of any pecuniary interest and other material benefit which a Member may receive which might be thought to affect his conduct as a Member or influence his action, speeches or vote in Parliament”. Several MPs, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair, have been reprimanded for their failure to register their interests as required under these rules.

Elected representatives need to realise that Parliament is not a place to settle scores; it is a sacred House that draws strength from ‘We the people’, and whatever they say and do must reflect the interests of the people of the nation. Sociologist Max Weber rightly placed the ‘politics of responsibility’ above the ‘politics of commitment’.

In other words, responsibility to the people is more important than commitment to one’s own or a party’s ideologies or personal goals.

Currently, in general, the behaviour of our legislators seems to be oriented more towards their own or their party’s commitments. Parliament’s ethics committee must strive towards evolving a political culture embodying democratic values.

(The writer is a former chief secretary, Government of Karnataka).

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.