The government and the opposition accuse each other, as seen in the ongoing standoff over issues such as the Manipur violence and the Adani controversy
Dr. Viswanath Pandey
The recurrent adjournments in the Indian Parliament have raised serious concerns regarding the loss borne by taxpayers and the economy. Over the past five years, parliamentary disruptions have consumed significant time and resources. Between 2018 and 2023, Parliament has lost nearly 1,700 hours due to adjournments and protests, resulting in an economic loss estimated at over ₹2,000 crore. These figures reflect not just wasted resources but also the undermining of democratic processes.
For example, the recent 30-hour disruption during the current session has cost the exchequer approximately ₹45 crore, considering the operational cost of ₹2.5 lakh per minute. This is equivalent to the lifetime earnings of thousands of middle-class Indians. Yet, this colossal waste seems to be normalized, with neither ruling parties nor opposition taking accountability for their actions.
Senior journalist Prakash Jha criticized this culture, stating, “Parliament is a temple of democracy, but repeated adjournments indicate a loss of respect for this institution. The ultimate victims are the taxpayers, who deserve transparency and accountability for every rupee spent.”
Accountability and Responsibility:
One of the primary reasons for these disruptions is the lack of clear mechanisms to hold members accountable. The government and the opposition accuse each other, as seen in the ongoing standoff over issues such as the Manipur violence and the Adani controversy. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, in a recent statement, revealed his attempts to convene all-party meetings to resolve the deadlock. However, he lamented, “Despite our efforts, the opposition has not cooperated, leading to continuous disruptions.”
The opposition argues that the government is avoiding critical debates, particularly on sensitive issues like Manipur and corporate malpractices. While both sides have their reasons, the real casualty is parliamentary productivity and public welfare.
Western democracies offer examples of efficient parliamentary functioning. In the United Kingdom, disruptions are rare due to strict rules and penalties for members causing unnecessary interruptions. Canada follows a similar approach, where lawmakers face deductions in allowances for misconduct. India can learn from these practices by enforcing financial penalties or suspensions for members responsible for disrupting sessions.
A Heavy Burden on Taxpayers
The financial implications of parliamentary disruptions are staggering. According to data from the Lok Sabha Secretariat, each minute of parliamentary functioning costs ₹2.5 lakh. Considering the cumulative time lost in disruptions over the past five years, India has incurred losses exceeding ₹2,000 crore. This amount could have been allocated to critical sectors such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
For instance, ₹2,000 crore could fund the construction of over 1,000 schools or provide scholarships to 20 lakh underprivileged students. Instead, this money has been wasted on unproductive sessions.
Economist Usha Sunil from Mumbai highlighted this issue, stating, “The recurring disruptions not only waste taxpayer money but also erode public trust in democratic institutions. If this culture continues, it will have long-term economic and social consequences.”
Solutions for a Healthier Democracy
To address this issue, India must adopt measures to fix accountability and ensure smoother functioning of Parliament:
Legislators causing disruptions should bear the financial cost of adjournments. This would discourage unnecessary interruptions and ensure a focus on constructive debates.
Parliamentary functioning should be assessed using metrics such as hours worked, bills passed, and debates conducted. Members failing to meet these standards should face repercussions.
Drawing lessons from countries like the UK and Canada, India can implement stricter rules to minimize disruptions. For instance, Canada’s Parliament ensures accountability by deducting allowances for non-performance.
Citizens should have access to detailed reports on parliamentary productivity and the performance of their elected representatives. This would empower voters to demand better governance.
Despite these solutions, some experts argue that disruptions are part of democratic processes and signify robust opposition. However, this perspective does not justify the economic losses and inefficiencies caused by frequent adjournments. As political analyst Anil Sharma noted, “While dissent is a cornerstone of democracy, it should be expressed through debates, not disruptions. The current scenario is more about ego clashes than genuine concern for public welfare.”
Learning from Global Practices
India can learn valuable lessons from Western democracies that prioritize parliamentary discipline. For instance, the UK Parliament operates under strict rules that discourage disruptions. Members who violate these norms face immediate suspension or penalties. Similarly, the Canadian Parliament enforces accountability through regular performance reviews and financial deductions for unproductive behavior.
These practices ensure that parliamentary sessions are productive and focus on addressing citizens’ issues. By adopting similar measures, India can restore the sanctity of its legislative institutions and prevent the misuse of taxpayer money.
In Zimbabwe, the government’s loss of credibility among citizens, coupled with allegations of election manipulation, led to significant political unrest. The ruling ZANU-PF, under President Emmerson Mnangagwa, has faced accusations of authoritarian practices, including voter suppression, intimidation, and biased state-controlled media during elections. These tactics have drawn criticism from international observers, such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the European Union, highlighting flaws in Zimbabwe’s democratic processes.
The most recent elections in 2023 further underscored these issues. Opposition parties, particularly the Citizens’ Coalition for Change (CCC), rejected the results as fraudulent, accusing the government of rigging the electoral process. The crisis was exacerbated by economic challenges, including hyperinflation, unemployment, and widespread poverty, leading to increasing public disillusionment with the ruling party. While calls for re-election and structural reforms have been voiced, the regime’s tight grip on power has impeded substantial change.
In previous instances, such as the 2008 elections, public dissatisfaction and political pressure forced similar discussions on accountability. However, in Zimbabwe, a combination of repressive governance and limited institutional checks has allowed the government to maintain control, even amid growing discontent. These developments highlight the fragility of democratic institutions in countries where elections are routinely manipulated to maintain power.
The frequent adjournments in Indian Parliament highlight a need for systemic reforms. While dissent and debate are integral to democracy, they should not come at the cost of public resources and trust. By enforcing accountability and adopting global best practices, India can ensure that its Parliament remains a beacon of democracy and governance. The onus lies not just on the government or opposition but on every elected representative to uphold their responsibilities and work towards the nation’s progress.
The essence of a thriving democracy lies in the collaborative efforts of its stakeholders, particularly the ruling party and the opposition. Political analysts frequently underline that Parliament is a space for collective problem-solving rather than a battlefield for partisan egos. Senior journalist Harish Khare aptly articulates this sentiment, stating, “The Parliament is not a battleground for egos; it’s a platform for collective problem-solving. Disruptions betray the mandate of the people.” This observation is especially pertinent in the Indian context, where parliamentary disruptions have increasingly become a norm rather than an exception.
The repeated adjournments in Parliament highlight a failure to uphold the principle of deliberative democracy. Disruptions not only undermine legislative productivity but also betray the trust of citizens who expect their representatives to debate and address pressing national issues. For instance, critical discussions on economic policies, welfare schemes, and national security often take a backseat due to political posturing. This negligence exacerbates policy paralysis and delays solutions to urgent problems.
Drawing lessons from other democracies, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, offers valuable insights into fostering bipartisan cooperation. In the UK, stringent rules discourage misconduct. Lawmakers are penalized for disruptive behavior, ensuring that decorum in legislative proceedings is maintained. Similarly, Canada exemplifies a commitment to bipartisan cooperation. Its parliamentary culture encourages cross-party dialogue, emphasizing consensus-building over confrontation. Such practices ensure that the focus remains on governance rather than political rivalries.
Indian democracy can benefit significantly by adopting similar measures. First, enforcing stricter rules for parliamentary conduct can deter disruptions. Penalties for repeated misconduct, such as fines or suspension, would ensure accountability among legislators. Second, creating institutional mechanisms for dialogue between the ruling party and opposition outside Parliament could address contentious issues without stalling legislative proceedings. For example, bipartisan committees could deliberate on polarizing topics and present a unified stance within the House.
Furthermore, empowering parliamentary committees and ensuring their independence can enhance the quality of deliberations. These committees provide a platform for nuanced discussions away from the public and media glare, fostering a more focused approach to policymaking. Additionally, incentivizing constructive participation by linking lawmakers’ performance with tangible rewards, such as increased allocations for their constituencies, could promote responsible behavior.
Public accountability also plays a crucial role. Transparent reporting of session productivity, disruptions, and individual contributions by lawmakers can enable citizens to make informed choices during elections. The media and civil society must also actively critique the culture of adjournments and disruptions, pushing political actors to prioritize governance over partisanship.
The path to a more effective democracy in India requires a paradigm shift in the functioning of its Parliament. As Harish Khare notes, Parliament must serve as a crucible for problem-solving. By drawing lessons from global practices and instituting reforms, India can transform its legislative processes, ensuring that public welfare remains at the forefront of democratic governance. This vision demands collective accountability and a commitment to the democratic mandate from both the ruling party and the opposition.
(Author is a former P.R. Officer at B.H.U., renowned for writing extensively researched books, and a staunch advocate for strong democracy and democratic values globally, standing as a prominent voice among intellectuals and thought leaders.)
