Today's Editorial

12 December 2016

Relevance of Parliament

 

Source: By B K Chandrashekar: Deccan herald

 

By now, the multi-faceted failures and misadventures of demonetisation are well known. That the BJP spokespersons and top guns, Prime Minister Narendra Modi included, are demonstrably defensive and consequently more aggressive, even offensive, is visible. What is not quite realised is the devalued status of nation's Parliament - the centre piece of the Constitution of India.

The BJP manifesto for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections promised: 'Good Governance: Transparent, Effective, Involving and Encouraging, and open Government and Accountable Administration'. So, both good governance and accountability were promised. 'Governance' directs our attention, among other features, to the process of decision making.

In the case of demonetisation, however, since the prime minister asserted the need of secrecy, the desirability for information on the 'process' factor need not be pursued. 'Accountability' is a different matter. The prime minister has been surprisingly emotional ('will risk my life') - with tears in his eyes on a couple of occasions - in stating that he took the decision to demonetise on behalf of the nation and that he would take the issue of black money to its logical conclusion, implying that he is responsible and accountable for his decision.

Who should the PM be accountable to and in which forum, is an issue that has paralysed Parliament ever since the monsoon session began on November 16. Since he chose not to announce the decision in Parliament, Modi believes that he is not obliged to initiate or partake in the debate in the House. True, the PM cannot be technically faulted on his promise, but it is equally reasonable to argue that a fundamentally important policy decision adversely affecting the common man's daily transactions deserved to be announced in Parliament that was meeting barely eight days later.

That would have renewed Modi's reverence of Parliament that he chose to display when he got down on his knees, as one would at a temple, at Parliament's entrance as the PM-elect. He would have sent out a clear message to sycophants in all parties including his that while the BJP and the Parivar have conceded that he is everything, he nevertheless accepts his own accountability to Parliament. Don't forget the BJP's tongue-in-cheek declaration in its 2014 manifesto that "the only epic of a Government should be India's constitution"!

I spoke above of Modi's refusal to be accountable to Parliament as being technically defensible. But a far more critical value in the concept of parliamentary democracy is that of propriety. The presiding officers of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have held, following the practice in the UK House of Commons, in a large number of cases that "courtesy demanded that all important announcements on matters of public interest or policy statements should first be mentioned in the House", in particular, when Parliament was sitting.

A point worth the mention is that the PM is elected in the same manner as any other Member of Parliament; his party elects him as leader of the majority parliamentary party; he forms a cabinet; it formulates policies which are debated and approved in the House. The cabinet, including the PM, is thus accountable to the House. This is what distinguishes parliamentary democracy from a directly elected Presidential system where he/she is not accountable to Parliament and thus it will not be a forum for debate. Modi's "I won't debate in Parliament" stand is further impaired by his serious and self-righteous charge that the opposition parties were howling because they were not given time to manoeuvre their unaccounted cash. Meanwhile, what of propriety? The charge against the opposition conveniently implied that the BJP itself did not need to manoeuvre their cash and stocks.

Just as well, I believe that our PM avoided a debate. It was evident, after just four days down the line from November 8, that demonetisation had let loose chaos in the large (rural areas and) unorganised sectors suggesting a major deficit of due deliberation prior to the theatrical announcement. The PM lost out on the benefits of: careful consideration, consultation by reaching out, and crucially, avoiding over-hasty decision. His advisors failed to spot problematic points in the economy and society as a result of demonetisation.

Twenty notifications

The 20 notifications so far extending the dates for exchange of notes, tightening withdrawal of cash, relief to farmers, despatch of 'war teams' of officers to the rural areas to identify immediate needs of credit to cooperative banks and so on, are testimony to the deficit of deliberation, anticipation and planning. Such "on-the-job-learning" is an inexcusable luxury when crores of people are visibly suffering.

We may not be in a vicious circle but the government, caught in a vortex of blanks and gaps, is compelled to improvise everyday on its administration of demonetisation. No wonder, the PM's advisors grabbed the only oxygen mask they readily found in the form of "PM's App" to conduct what they called a 'survey' or 'referendum', another instance of direct reach with citizens by bypassing parliament.

The PMO claimed that 10 lakh people had responded to PM's questions. The question is: how valid is the survey itself? Most were leading or loaded questions and some were far too vague. The question, 'does black money exist?' has confused people. Is money 'saved' by women at home, but not deposited or reported, 'black'? 'Do you think the evil of corruption and black money needs to be fought?' squeezes two questions into one as if the two concepts are the same. Likewise, what the respondent thinks of the "government's efforts" becomes, in the next question, "Modi government's efforts" and so on.

A genuine survey or referendum should be designed and implemented by an independent authority, and not by those in the government, so that questions leading people to give desired answers are not asked. The Modi App survey may also provide opportunities for others to play havoc with so-called 'public opinion'.