India is a populist democracy

If the British Parliament is often referred to as the mother of Parliaments its Indian variant which recently completed 60 years of its existence can lay claim to be the people’s Parliament. Its detractors would call it the nosiest.

The British connection is deep and bears repetition. Both in substance and style; the Indian Parliament House was originally known as the Council House and owes much to the Montague-Chelmsford reforms of 1919. The Foundation stone of the Parliament house was laid on February 12, 1921 by the Duke of Connaught, the third son of Queen Victoria. Like the Rashtrapathi Bhavan [the Presidential palace] it was designed by Lutyens and the distinctive circular design evolved out of a Roman coliseum style of design.

The bicameral nature of having two houses-the lower and upper, the rules and conventions of conducting business are some of the similarities however there are major departures as well. No British minister appointed by the House of Lords can go into the Commons, not so in the Indian Parliament, similarly the Attorney General is appointed by the President of India, where as in Britain he is a cabinet minister. The Election Commission is another; it is not a creature of Parliament, it is independent and a constitutional entity consequently gives it a higher stature that it’s British counterpart.

The Indian Parliament like its British equivalent can also aspire to an iconic status. As a post colonial instrument of change it was and still is a beacon for a number of countries stepping out into the brave new world of democracy. Has this icon however delivered on its promise? Is adult suffrage the very heart and soul of this citadel the cause for this disenchantment?

Many Indians make uninformed and caustic comments on this touch-stone - one vote one man and cite that as the real reason for the poor quality of parliamentarians and for this icon’s pathetic track record. If this is a holy cow then at least insist on minimum educational standards for those who wish to stand for Parliament, this perhaps might stem the rot. Nehru and the framers of the constitution wrestled with all these issues for a long time but refused to budge despite India’s peculiarly unsuitable conditions-poverty and mass illiteracy. They stood firm. Why?

Anything else would have smacked of elitism they declared. And more importantly only the disadvantaged will truly be able to guide Parliament legislate and frame laws to redress their problems. In practice however this abstract idea has flattered to deceive. Sadly we see a total mockery of these lofty ideals with constant interruptions in the House and Parliament’s inability to legislate. Bills languish indefinitely-the women’s reservation bill and the Lok Pal [the ombudsman] bill being the more obvious examples.

The standard of the debates has also fallen precipitously not to mention the sense of humor-witness the recent uproar over a cartoon that attracted a needless tirade when the victim of the slur-Ambedkar the framer of the constitution never objected to it himself.

Nonetheless the central hall of Parliament has also been a witness to soaring oratory and to momentous declarations. The 1955 Protection of Civil Rights (Anti-Untouchability) Act, Indira Gandhi‘s announcement in December 1971 - “Dacca is the free capital of a free country’’, the Passage of the Right to Information Act in 2005 which proved to a game changer for governance are just a few. It was also here that Nehru made his famous Tryst with destiny speech. Notwithstanding these highs the cash for vote’s scandal and members shouting and screaming in the well of the house are likely to be enduring images in the mind of the public.

Interestingly these theatrical and rabble rousing performances are of more recent origin. Some cite the introduction of televised proceedings of the House to be main culprit, the legislators mistakenly assuming that this is one way to impress their constituents. All this is however a far cry from what Parliament was in its early days.

It then had giants and even the less well known were there for a serious purpose. They were dedicated to a cause. As Max Weber the German sociologist remarked ‘there are two ways of making politics one’s vocation: Either one lives ‘’for’’ politics or one lives ‘’off’’ it’. And this fall from grace has none to blame than-the voter. Truth be told, Indians do not take their electoral responsibilities seriously enough.

Having started with the monikers of people’s Parliament and the mother of Parliaments let us end with the writings of historian Ram Guha, the sociologist André Béteille and others. They make a clear distinction between constitutional democracies of the Westminster mold and populist democracies like what we have in India. Mass movements shape democracies like India consequently impatience and short term solutions will continue to plague the legislative process. In older western democracies strikes and protests are not as common as in India where populist methods have a strong appeal. Constitutionalism is yet to grow roots strong enough to rebuff the coercive tactics of populism.

Ravi Menon is a Dubai-based writer working on a series of essays on India and on a public service initiative called India Talks.