Parliament remains a theatre of frequent disruptions as the ruling and opposition parties repeatedly lock horns over issues raised on the floor. What should have been a healthy democratic contest has grown into a cycle of obstruction, where disruption overshadows deliberation and legislative purpose. The spectacle of MPs storming the well or shouting slogans has become almost routine, eclipsing the nuanced policy discussions that ought to define the nation’s foremost lawmaking body. As per parliamentary practices, the formal power to admit or reject discussion motions in Parliament lie with the Speaker in the Lok Sabha or the Chairman (Vice-President) in the Rajya Sabha- both who act under the respective Rules of Procedure. The decision to allow or disallow rests on whether the motion genuinely meets the criteria of urgency and importance, and on maintaining the orderly conduct of business. Practically however, the presiding officers more often than not, do not deviate from the wishes of the ruling party. When exercised with restraint, it ensures focus on legislation and topics of genuine national importance. Yet it smacks of evasion when this prerogative is used to insulate the ruling party against opposition demands. This translates into a tactic to dodge scrutiny rather than a mechanism to prioritize the public good. Any presiding officer acting independently of the government risks being moved out, a fate that befell Jagdeep Dhankar, then vice president and chairman of the Rajya Sabha. On the part of the opposition, the goal is to corner the government at every turn. This may not be a crime but when heckling and sloganeering become the norm, then the very purpose of parliamentary oversight falters. Aggressive challenges give way to sound bites, and the distinction between genuine accountability and performative outrage blurs. A robust Parliament relies on an active ruling side that does not shy away from debate and a vigilant opposition that brings real issues to light. Evading debates on critical questions not only undermines confidence in governance but also erodes the principle of equal participation enshrined in the Constitution. Since 2014, the approach toward opposition voices has at times verged on discrediting or denigrating opposition members. That move away from respectful engagement toward strategic silencing betrays a discomfort with challenge and invites accusations of authoritarian impulse. Marginalizing opposition voices corrodes democratic norms and suggests that political rivalry has superseded the higher calling of public service. The opposition’s part in this breakdown is equally clear. Resorting to sloganeering and thronging the well of the House stalls genuine discussion. To add to the tragedy is the fragmentation of opposition ranks-several parties without a single unifying leader or coherent ideology-magnifies the dysfunction. When disparate parties cannot even agree on basic principles, their efforts to hold the government accountable lose force and credibility. All this points to a deeper malaise- a collective absence of political maturity on both sides of the aisle. Parliamentary disruptions carry real costs as it means critical legislation is delayed, policy initiatives lose steam, and public faith in democratic institutions weakens. Parliament was designed to be a venue for reasoned debate, informed dissent and transparent lawmaking. Restoring its integrity demands that both government and opposition rise above one-upmanship, recommit to substantive dialogue and reaffirm their responsibility to the nation. Only then can the highest forum of democracy fulfill its founding purpose and rekindle citizens’ trust in representative democracy.
Monday, July 28, 2025