Indeed, why should there be only two extreme alternatives of either a toothless debate or a no-confidence motion? as Baijayant 'Jay' Panda asks in his piece on the functioning of the parliament (IE,6/12/11). Once an M.P. is elected, he should be entitled to speak up his mind and views of this constituency on all matters. 'Whip' should be issued only for a no-confidence motion. Adjournment motion is a tool to attract attention to an urgent issue and the Opposition should not be denied its privilege.Dissent is the essence of a debate.The House should also avail the wisdom of all its members and not restrict their freedom of expression. Most of our parties impose some ideological position on their members making them just robots to raise their hands whenever the party wants.
In a developing country like India, there are many issues where consensus could be easily found if there is no rigid party line. Members should be encouraged to introduce private bills on issues that they and their constituents strongly feel about, and canvass support across the parties. Members should be made accountable to the people who have elected them. They should meet, discuss and report to them every quarter. They should monitor development works in their constituency and help the administration in implementing them. This will restore the faith of the people in the representative government and this will restore the dignity of MPs/MLAs and that of the legislature. Now the MPs/MLAs go to the people only during the election.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/restoring-the-house/884369/0
December 6,2011.
*******
