Central idea 

The central theme highlights parliamentary dysfunction due to procedural stagnation and a historical cycle of disruptions. The ongoing impasse, evidenced by the suspension of MPs, underscores the need for a nuanced institutional response and a redefined role for the Opposition in shaping parliamentary discourse. The article advocates procedural changes to grant the Opposition more influence, fostering collaboration and preserving public trust in Parliament.

Key Highlights:

• The parliamentary dysfunction is rooted in the absence of procedural mechanisms for deliberation on contentious issues.
• The ongoing impasse between the government and the Opposition has led to the suspension of 141 MPs.
• The Opposition demands a statement from the Home Minister regarding a security breach, while the government defers to the Speaker’s directions.
• Disruptions in Parliament have historical roots, dating back to the 1960s, and have evolved into a political tool.
• The institutional response to disruptions has been simplistic, focusing on penalizing MPs rather than addressing the underlying issues.

Key Challenges:

• Procedural stagnation in the parliamentary system has led to a cycle of disruptions and disciplinary actions.
• The government’s control over the legislative agenda limits the Opposition’s role, contributing to parliamentary standoffs.
• The current approach of penalizing MPs for disruptions is deemed ineffective in ensuring the smooth functioning of Parliament.

Key Terms and Phrases:

• Parliamentary dysfunction
• Security breach
• Disruptions as a political tool
• Institutional response
• Legislative and fiscal priorities
• Opposition’s role and space in Parliament
• Procedural stagnation
• Westminster parliamentary principle
• No-confidence motion
• National legislature

Key Quotes and Statements:

• “The standoff in Parliament is not new…result from years of procedural stagnation.”
• “Disruptions were going to become the norm in our parliamentary discourse.”
• “The smooth functioning of the legislature was the responsibility of the government.”
• “For Parliament to work effectively, penalising MPs will not be enough.”
• “The recent disruptions and en masse suspension of MPs should be a wake-up call for our national legislature.”

Key Examples and References:

• Suspension of 141 Opposition MPs in the ongoing winter session of Parliament.
• Historical instances of MPs like Ram Sewak Yadav and Mani Ram Bagri being warned and suspended for disruptions.
• Speaker Chatterjee’s remark in 2005 on the difficulty of regulating proceedings if a group of members disrupts the House.

Key Facts and Data:

• Disruptions in parliamentary proceedings by MPs began in the 1960s.
• The current parliamentary system reflects pre-independence British templates.
• Private members get two-and-a-half hours every Friday for discussion, but there is no mechanism for a group of MPs to require a specific discussion.

Critical Analysis:

• The article highlights the historical context and evolution of parliamentary disruptions.
• It critiques the current institutional response, emphasizing the need for a more nuanced approach.
• It challenges the existing view of Parliament as a platform primarily for the government to transact business.

Way Forward:

• Proposes a change in parliamentary procedures to allow the Opposition to set the agenda for debate.
• Suggests incorporating specific days in the parliamentary calendar for Opposition-led discussions.
• Urges Parliament to find better solutions for fostering debate to prevent the erosion of public faith.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now