Opinion - Who Takes The Credit For Efficient Functioning Of The Parliament
Effective functioning of the parliament is of paramount importance to Democracy. Parliament is at the heart, soul and purpose of democracy where representatives discuss and formulate policies for the welfare of the people. How much elected representatives make use of this time reflects the commitment of our representatives towards. Through the following statistic we will arrive at how well our representatives have performed besides we will also ponder who takes the credit for a proper functioning of the house, is it the ruling party? the opposition? or both?
All the below mentioned data is from PRS Legislative Research
2.) Lok Sabha had an unblemished record in conducting question hour so far with 100% productivity while question hour functioned 63% of the time in RS.
The above numbers are significant given the dismal numbers of the previous Lok Sabha under UPA II
1.) The then Lok Sabha utilized only 61 per cent of the total time allocated, compared to 91 per cent and 87 per cent utilized by the 13th and 14th Lok Sabhas respectively.
2.) The Upper House, the Rajya Sabha, functioned for only 66 per cent of the allocated time.
3.) During the Winter Session of 2010 was a complete wash out. Lok Sabha worked for only 52 per cent of the allotted working hours and the Rajya Sabha for 55 per cent.
The corruption scandals ensured brought the opposition parties and the ruling dispensation at loggerheads which drastically reduced the normal functioning of both the houses of Parliament. Which leads to the question we wanted to ponder and debate on. Who takes the credits for a efficient functioning of the Parliament?
During UPA II, the opposition headed by the BJP was relentless in its stance and partly it was right given the scams which began to surface during UPA II. However the never give-in attitude resulted in Parliament not being allowed to function by the opposition. There is a consensus that the ruling party is there to legislate and the opposition as a check and balance to keep the ruling dispensation on their toes. However, that should not as a consequence mean an opposition which hinders the working of the Parliament as disruptive force as in the case of UPA II, the opposition need to strike a fine balance in opposing and debating. There is not definite line which can be drawn that defines what can be considered a constructive behavior and destructive behavior by the opposition parties. It is for the good for all that ruling parties and opposition maintain cordial ties. On those lines, both the ruling party and opposition party deserves to share the credit for the effective functioning of Parliament with a mild bias towards opposition parties.