Legislators and Government: A Lesson the Hard way

LEGISLATORS AND GOVERNMENT:
A LESSON THE HARDWAY

“The Hindu”, Madras

The Indian political scene today presents a strange picture of paradoxes. First, a new party has come to power at the Centre for the first time and has been holding office for nearly a year and, yet the cohesion that one expected among the constituents has not taken place. The Janata party comprises such diverse elements as former Congressmen, Socialists, Jan Sanghites and landed interests, it is still to be seen whether they would pull their weight together and for how long. Their political ideologies have been so different that at one time it was thought that they would never be able to forge an united opposition and give a fight to the well-entrenched Congress party. This has happened which itself is an achievement worth recording. Secondly, the Janata party which made its appearance in the national horizon with a bang has strangely been not able to make any impact in the southern part of the country judged by the results in the elections held. So there is a situation in which the party which has made a tremendous impression on the electorate in one part of the country has absolutely no locus standi in another part and yet, it is at the helm at the Centre. This has put it in an awkward position and there does not seem to be any way by which this distortion could be corrected. Thirdly, with all the power and prestige it has acquired by virtue of its success, the Janata party is still groping in the dark for an identity. It has not been able to spell out its policies in various spheres of activity and the main reason for this doubtless is the lack of clear ideas as well as the difficulty in reconciling conflicting viewpoints held by its leaders. The Prime Minister is an outstanding figure and it is this that has made it possible so far to keep the party united. He is hoping that sooner than later, the party will emerge as a cohesive unit submerging their individual loyalties. It is only when this happens that many of the paradoxes that one now witnesses will be erased.

The most encouraging feature however is their total commitment to democracy and democratic ideals. Their sense of devotion to democracy is understandable considering the harrowing experience they went through for nearly eighteen months when the country was under Emergency. And paradoxically too, the Emergency was imposed by the former Prime Minister in the very name of democracy. It was during this period that the foundations for a real opposition party were laid, unconsciously though. The regime was dictatorial but it gave birth to a new party that made possible the re-emergence of democracy in the country. A bigger paradox cannot be found and India is fortunate that this has happened much sooner than one ever thought would be the case. The Congress party which was the first to lay down firmly the foundations for democracy in the country became an instrument of oppression–all because its supreme leader chose to do so. Dictatorship was ushered in. It was just as well that this was so; it became counter productive and thus strengthened the people’s faith in democracy. The former Prime Minister tried to perpetuate one-person rule through seemingly democratic processes. Elections were, therefore, ordered and paradoxically with all the power and prestige the party then in office commanded, it suffered an ignominious defeat at the hands of what seemed to be a combination of desperate elements. But it is the latter that put democracy on the rails. The country is today enjoying the fruits of its efforts. An even more pronounced paradox was that eminent leaders who sacrificed their all for securing freedom for the country from the British less than 30 years ago were dubbed as traitors by a “democratic” government. They were put in jails and allowed to suffer a miserable existence of the kind even the British did not choose to inflict and today these leaders have become the rulers. A year ago, none would have imagined this would happen and it is a set of paradoxical circumstances that brought about this strange political phenomenon.

All this should serve a lesson to the political parties that aim to get into power in this country. India is too vast a country to admit of any kind of regimentation. Democracy is ingrained in every man and woman. This can perhaps be suppressed for a little while but not for all time. The country has withered many a storm in the last two thousand years. It will continue to do so. Therefore, it should be obvious to any person or group of persons that any attempt to deviate from the right path would prove disastrous to the person or persons so attempting. Where Akbar failed, Mrs. Gandhi could not have succeeded. This is the lesson that history has taught and our leaders would do well to remember this hard fact. If they do not, it is at their peril. A time there was when even well-informed intelligentia wondered whether the country was fit for democracy. And when the country passed into dictatorship, there were quite a few who thought that this type of shock treatment might do good to the nation and to the people while some others looked on helplessly unable to resist the many acts perpetrated to subvert both the Constitution and the democratic processes. It was soon apparent to the powers-that-be that unless the so-called people’s sanction was obtained, they would not be able to continue exercising authority any more. And it was in this light that Mrs. Gandhi decided to hold elections to the Lok Sabha so that if her party won at the polls, she could carry on for another six years without let or hindrance. This would also create an impression to the outside world that it was a legitimate government–legitimately elected by the people–that was at the helm. As Mrs. Gandhi is now professing, it is not respect or love for democracy that prompted her to seek the people’s verdict. Only, she miscalculated and thought that the verdict would be in her favour. In fact, in the circumstances in which the elections were held, any other conclusion would have been difficult to arrive at. She utilised the intelligence wings to gauge the situation and they too felt that it was the right time to go to the polls and she would win a comfortable majority in the Lok Sabha. When once she was convinced that this was bound to happen, she did not hesitate for a moment as to what she should do; came the dramatic announcement that the Lok Sabha was dissolved and elections would be held a few weeks later. The leaders who were languishing in jails were all set free. Here is where she did not size up the situation correctly. She did not know her people well. She ignored the fact that the people could retaliate as well at the poll as they would do in case of a war with an enemy country. Yes, it was a war with an enemy. The enemy was no other than Mrs. Gandhi who suppressed the people, oppressed its leaders, subverted the Constitution and  made a mockery of all democratic institutions including Parliament and the Press–all in the name of keeping the torch of democracy burning!

It was at the elections that the people’s real power was exhibited. The leaders who came out of jails had no difficulty in mobilising the people in their favour for they could easily see everywhere discontent and disenchantment with the dictatorial form of government. They could see that the people were not happy with the state of affairs and they were only waiting for an opportunity to strike. The elections provided this opportunity. They did not care which other party came to power. They were eager to unseat the party then in power. This explains why the Congress party in spite of a great record of unblemished public service for over 90 years was completely wiped out without trace. Imagine that in Uttar Pradesh, the biggest State in the country and from which all the stalwarts of the freedom struggle hailed, not a single congressman could get elected. When that was the spirit that dominated the people how could Mrs. Gandhi continue in power for long? A revolution was in the making and if the party was not thrown out in an electoral battle, it would have been smashed by the people in some other way–maybe there would have been a revolution. The Baroda dynamite case is only one instance which came to light. Therefore, it would be wrong to imagine that Mrs. Gandhi would have continued in power if she had not opted for a poll. It was in retrospect a wise decision that she thought of elections or else there would have been a conflagration of the worst type.

But what is amazing is the manner in which her partymen completely surrendered to her. The party as a whole did not rise to the occasion. Its leaders lost all sense of propriety and meekly submitted to Mrs. Gandhi’s dictates. If eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, this was not exercised. No prominent leader has so far come out with an explanation for this that is reasonably credible. All that they had been saying was that they were forced to accept the decisions that Mrs. Gandhi took. This is entirely unconvincing. It only shows that they were originally indifferent to what was happening and Mrs. Gandhi cashed in on it. Step by step she was eroding all democratic values and perpetuating one-person rule and by the time it blossomed into full dictatorship, it was too late for the leaders to rebel. And it was precisely this task that the leaders of the opposition assumed and unmindful of the consequences, they raised the banner of revolt which led them to jails. Even the bureaucracy was threatened into yielding to the party in power. The so-called political neutrality of Government servants was given a clean go-by and they were made instruments to further the ends of the political bosses. The theory which is alien to democratic functioning of Government that the administration and the party in power must act in close unison was also propounded with great gusto. This was accomplished in no time and the entire apparatus was geared to serve the interests of a clique led by Mrs. Gandhi. Now she is advancing the theory that but for this, the country would have been thrown into utter confusion and chaos she has even said that the Janata party has become dictatorial, little realising that by her deeds and actions in the eighteen months of Emergency, she threw to the winds all cannons of responsible government. In fact, the Janata party is trying to rebuild the structure that was dismantled by her and there is no one who is prepared to believe that the party now in power is acting in a manner that smacks of authoritarianism.

All this apart, the important point that the people and those who profess to represent them in legislatures and Parliament should remember is that they cannot take democracy for granted. While it is a means by which the aspirations of the people, their welfare, development and prosperity could be achieved, it could also turn out to be their biggest enemy. It all depends on how it is utilised. Democracy is a double-edged weapon capable of hurting both ways. Therefore, the people will have to be alert at all times; their representatives cannot function merely as part-time servants of the people. While professionalisation of politics has its evils, the parliamentarians will have to be wholetime workers both inside the legislatures and outside. There can be no relaxation on their part and if they fail to recognise this, they must have known by now where they land the country and themselves. Democracy can breed dictatorship without the people knowing about it. Dictatorship can thrive in a democracy in which the people do not choose to play their part. Democracy is not an easy form of government as people quite often imagine. It is not a bed of roses all the way. It has been the experience in the last several years that the people’s representatives in legislatures have not been taking an abiding interest in their work. This is due to a variety of circumstances over all of which no doubt they have no control but they do not seem to be even aware that their authority as legislators was being corroded. Ithas been said that this is not peculiar to India and this is a theme which has engaged the anxious consideration of intellectuals and others elsewhere.

This phenomenon has been described more than 50 years ago by Lord Bryce as a decline in legislatures. It is a pity that this important limb of the Government should be reduced to an insignificant position in all democracies more so when they have adopted a parliamentary form of government by choice. In Britain, forinstance, from which country India has imbibed a lot, the Parliament has been on the decline and this is because of the ascendancy of the Cabinet. The Cabinet form of government with all its collective responsibility and answerability to Parliament has come to mean nothing more than domination of the executive over the legislature. It is this that has caused dismay and Lord Bryce could not help warning the country of the dangers involved in executive dictatorship. For this is the surest way of making a mockery of all popular institutions. And yet in the last fifty years, this trend has not been reversed and today we find that even in India, it is the Cabinet that matters and not Parliament.

Even in the Cabinet, it is again the Prime Minister that is important and the other ministers do not count for much, unless they happen to be men of standing with their own political support and, therefore, are in a position to exert pulls and pressures on the Prime Minister. The country has just witnessed a situation where a Prime Minister could reduce all the colleagues in the Cabinet to nullity. In India under the Constitution, the Prime Minister is given a special place unlike in Britain where he is regarded as first among equals and no more. It is the Prime Minister more than the other ministers in the Cabinet that decides policy. All governmental business originates of course in the Cabinet. All matters of public policy are determined by the Cabinet. A Cabinet form of government, though does not really mean a government by the Cabinet, has become so for all practical purposes in India. What does the legislature then do? Its main function is to ratify the policies of the Government as enunciated by the Cabinet. Where the opposition is insignificant, as had been the case all along, any discussion in Parliament on measures is nothing more than a formality. The readings given to a bill become a matter of procedure. In short, the Parliament at the Centre and the Assemblies in the States are rubber-stamps. And so little wonder that the legislatures are on the decline–thanks to the strengthening of Cabinets.

It does not need much of an argument to show that this is a most undesirable trend. Take for instance the way the Constitution was amended in Parliament. The Constitution provides for amendments but the procedure is fairly complicated so that a party in power does not go about tinkering with it as and when it likes. But with a massive majority in Parliament constitutional amendments were carried through as easily as ordinary bills. The basic structure itself was altered. And now the members of the Congress party who were instrumental in doing this are agreed that they had set their seal of approval in haste and they have now consented to undo this mischief. The point here is not whether the amendments were effected legally or not. In fact, all the constitutional requirements were satisfied. The legislators who were expected to bestow care in undertaking a job of this importance did not do so because they were under pressure by the party bosses. The Prime Minister wanted that this should be done and, therefore, the party men agreed–not because of conviction but because of pressure. The result of all this was that Parliament instead of being a watchdog of the actions of the executive became an instrument to further the ends of the Cabinet of which the Prime Minister is the head. Does one say that our legislators acquitted themselves well? Even granting that party discipline would require that the members should support the Cabinet, could it be said that before undertaking such legislation, they were given a hearing or that they pressed for a hearing? Neither happened with the result that Parliament’s status was reduced to almost nothing. Representative government, therefore, has lost all credibility and a great share for this unfortunate and undesirable consequence should be borne by the legislators themselves. It is not unoften that Government resorts to ordinances and they are placed before Parliament for approval which is given automatically. This is another way of subordinating the legislature to the executive.

Therefore, if parliamentary democracy should survive in the country and if it should have any meaningful content, the members constituting the legislatures should realise their responsibilities. It is they who can act as a check on the arbitrary behaviour of the executive. If they find that under the system as it exists today they have no scope for making their influence felt on the executive, they should devise ways and means by which they can do so effectively. For, a parliamentary form of government where legislatures have no decisive voice in the making of policy is worse than dictatorship. A dictator is not ashamed of proclaiming that he is one and at least the people know where they stand vis a vis the Government. But a concealed dictatorship, or one in the garb of democracy, creates a great deal of uncertainty in the minds of the people. The only way this danger can be averted by legislators asserting themselves both within the party and in Parliament. They must be free and frank in expressing their views and it is their business to keep the executive on its toes all the time. This is a hard task and calls for hard work too. Legislators even though they belong to the ruling party cannot afford to be complacent. They have to fully understand the implications of legislative proposals that are brought before Parliament. It is their duty to point out the lacuna if any in them. Politics cannot be treated as a pastime any more. Unless legislators take to their work in earnest, they cannot help degradation of legislatures. What could be more important in a parliamentary democracy than a vigilant legislature? And a vigilant legislature would certainly need vigilant legislators. How they exercise this vigilance and how effectively they do so are all matters for them to decide but what is vital is that they do this. Otherwise, the kind of aberrations that India went through may become more frequent with greater ill-consequences than have been witnessed so far.

(28-1-1978)