On a day when debate returned to Parliament, it was certainly not business as usual. Following a Wednesday morning decision by the NDA to end its boycott, the debate on the motion of thanks to the President’s address was predictably laced with acrimony over developments in Goa and Jharkhand. This is, of course, good news. For Parliament to be stilled while confrontations set off by the governors’ acts rage elsewhere is to confirm deep fears about our democracy. It indicates that politics now responds to narrow partisan stirrings. That it is so enfeebled it does not have the heart to place party positions alongside democratic ideals. The Opposition has assembled for a less shrill interrogation of the government. On the ruling coalition, now, lies the onus for incorporating concerns raised in the scheduled business before the two Houses. Both need to restore Parliament to its stated status: the highest forum in the land. Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are meeting after a dangerous pause. In the past fortnight the last vestiges of bipartisan trust in the high offices of governor and speaker have been lost. In this moment of crisis, the site for debating and agreeing upon guidelines for procedures for votes of confidence must be Parliament. Instead debate has escaped to staged encounters at television studios. Parliament demands a certain duality from its members. They do represent specific political organisations, and it is inevitable that their perspective is shaped by party positions. But MPs are also expected to clear space in Parliament that is free of personal interest, space in which the national interest informs proceedings. On Jharkhand, for instance, politics stood so polarised and the governor so controversialised that it was Parliament’s call to stabilise the situation. Instead, it vanished into adjournments, leaving it to the Supreme Court to step in. The Budget session is a long one. MPs have ample time to determine whether to accept ownership of constitutional responsibilities, or to abdicate. If they abdicate, they lose as a collective. And if they finally begin a reclamation act, the treasury benches must know that their burden is heavier: being in power, the onus is on them to be transparent and accountable.
