Rajya Sabha deputy leader from Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Raghav Chadha has been removed from his position. In an official communication to the Rajya Sabha secretariat, the party leadership requested that Chadha should not be allotted speaking time from AAP’s quota in the Rajya Sabha.
Raghav Chadha, a Rajya Sabha, MP from Punjab, who has been associated with the AAP since its inception, has off late raised issues related to ‘aam admi’ in Rajya Sabha— from highlighting menstrual hygiene to the practice of ‘sarpanchpati’, and right to recall, including spending a day with gig workers working as a delivery partner to understand their challenges.
Therefore, his being barred from speaking from his party’s time quota came as a surprise to many. Though it’s an internal matter of the AAP, it has raised questions about an MP’s identity vis-à-vis his party.
In a parliamentary democracy, an MP is elected to the Lok Sabha by the people from a party ticket. There are also provisions for an individual to contest as an independent candidate.
As an MP, one can raise questions on the floor of the House as a party member. Their speaking time in debates is usually allotted party-wise, not MP-wise. The party decides which MP will speak and the MP is expected to toe the party line. In other words, most debate speaking time comes through the party quota.
MPs are controlled by party whips, which are official instructions issued by a party to its MPs on how to conduct themselves in Parliament, especially how to vote. If an MP defies the party whip, especially by going against the party in voting, they can be disqualified.
Over the years, control of parties over MPs has increased. Critics are of the view that India has moved from a parliamentary democracy to party democracy, where party leaders are more powerful than MPs. While this has strengthened political parties, many argue that the voices of people have been lost in the process, which, in turn, is creating deep problems for democracy.
Parliament is a forum of debate. When the MPs are denied the opportunities to speak because of their party leadership, this foundational purpose collapses. Bills are passed without adequate discussion.
Besides, with adjournments becoming a norm in both the House, thanks to sloganeering, many MPs fail to get a chance to speak, which in turn affects their image among the voters in their constituency. In other words, MPs are increasingly finding themselves accountable to party leadership rather than to the electorate.
Moreover, it has led to the rise of a ‘high command culture’. Decision-making is increasingly becoming centralised in a handful of leaders. Lobbying has become rampant. MPs, regardless of their experience or expertise, are either getting sidelined or being reduced to political functionaries.
This has resulted in weak debates in both Houses. This is leading to a steady erosion in the quality of parliamentary functioning. So, what is the way forward? Well, the solution lies in adopting a balance while keeping the party discipline in place.
Parliament must move from party-controlled speech to member-based participation. MPs should be given time to speak beyond the party quota. In other words, each MP should get a minimum number of speaking slots per session; there should be guaranteed time in zero hours or special mentions.
Special committees should be given more power by making their recommendations binding. The MPs should be selected based on their expertise instead of loyalty.
The 10th schedule of the Constitution that deals with the anti-defection law should be revamped. It should be limited to voting rights during no-confidence motions, money bills or important issues related to the survival of the government.
In short, political parties must ensure discipline to maintain the stability of the government, but not at the cost of silencing their own members.
The writer is a journalist.
