In a parliamentary democracy, the ruling party and the opposition are like the two wheels of a vehicle. Both are needed to keep democracy moving smoothly. For this, they must talk to each other regularly. When communication stops, democracy starts to suffer. That is why constant dialogue is very important. In the last parliamentary session, a lot of time was wasted because of arguments over the intensive voter list revision (SIR). This damaged the dignity of Parliament. Even though the government used its majority to pass several bills, the opposition did not take part in the process. But in a true parliamentary democracy, the opposition should also be involved in discussing every bill. It is true that the majority has the final say, but the opposition’s role is equally important. After all, opposition members are also elected by the people. Even if they are fewer in number, they still represent the public and must raise people’s concerns in Parliament. That is why Parliament must keep functioning under all circumstances, with both sides participating.
There is no doubt that the majority wins in this system, but this majority government remains accountable to the people through the opposition. Majority rule does not mean the tyranny of the ruling party, but rather the art of taking the opposition along. The opposition informs the government about the ground realities and the impact of its policies. This is the biggest responsibility of the opposition because the government is ultimately accountable to the general public. Three days have passed since the start of the parliamentary session, and the government has agreed to a debate on the SIR issue, which is being widely welcomed. Certainly, according to parliamentary rules, the opposition cannot directly debate the SIR itself because the Election Commission is an independent and autonomous constitutional body. However, a debate on the electoral system is definitely possible because electoral reforms and amendments are a major issue in India. The issue of electoral system reform has been pending since 1974.
This year, the demand for electoral reforms across the country was raised under the movement led by Jayaprakash Narayan (JP). JP wanted electoral reforms to make elections less expensive so that any enlightened voter could dare to contest. JP wanted the Government of India to constitute a fund for elections and to make maximum use of government media for election campaigning. During the movement for electoral reforms, he also constituted a committee under the chairmanship of retired Justice V.M. Tarkunde. The suggestion to establish an election fund was made by this Tarkunde Committee. The committee made several other important suggestions which were never implemented. This was because in 1975, Indira Gandhi imposed a state of emergency throughout the country, and after its lifting in 1977, Lok Sabha elections were held in which Indira Gandhi’s Congress was badly defeated, and a coalition government of the Janata Party, under the leadership of Morarji Desai and under JP’s guidance, came to power. This government sidelined the recommendations of the Tarkunde Committee and constituted a new electoral reform commission under the leadership of the then Chief Election Commissioner, S.L. Shakdhar. When this commission’s report came out, there was another change of government at the center in 1980, and in the mid-term Lok Sabha elections held that year, Indira Gandhi again became Prime Minister, due to which the Shakdhar Commission’s report was shelved. Well, that’s history, while currently, there is much discussion about the SIR (Special Summary Revision of Electoral Rolls). The government’s agreement to discuss this can be considered in line with the glorious traditions of democracy. The SIR will be discussed in the Lok Sabha next Tuesday. After that, it will also be discussed in the Rajya Sabha. The SIR has created considerable controversy throughout the country, and the suicides of the enumerators (BLO) conducting it have raised the political temperature considerably. The government also wants to discuss the national song Vande Mataram before this. The Lok Sabha has scheduled a discussion on this matter for December 8th, followed by a debate on the SIR the next day. Apparently, this agreement was reached after the intervention of the Lok Sabha Speaker, Mr. Om Birla.
Last Monday, Mr. Birla summoned the parliamentary leaders of all parties for discussions twice and sought a solution. In fact, the Speaker is ultimately in charge of running the Lok Sabha, although there is also a Minister of Parliamentary Affairs in the government. The latter’s main function is to maintain continuous dialogue with the opposition. However, when a deadlock arises on any issue in the House, the Speaker also has to take the lead in resolving it because he is the guardian of the House. His protection extends to every member of every party; therefore, Mr. Birla’s intervention is of great significance. However, all this happens only on a rational basis between the ruling party and the opposition. Therefore, the Speaker facilitated the agreement on the SIR (Special Investigation Report) after taking into account the arguments of both the ruling party and the opposition. Democracy dictates that when there is a storm raging on the streets, its echoes should resonate within Parliament. Therefore, a discussion on the SIR will satisfy both the ruling party and the opposition.
