New Delhi, August 31
If you thought Members of Parliament (MPs) enjoyed the freedom to say what they thought was right, you need to think again. The first survey to study the democratic character of the Indian Parliament reveals that MPs don’t have the right to voice opinions that are contrary to party stance and most of them feel stifled on this count.

Moreover, excessive use of money is excluding vast sections of population from the election process, threatening the representative character of the Parliament. Religious and caste identities are still perceived as greater factors in re-election of MPs than their performance.

Based on interviews with 100 serving and former MPs and analysed on the basis of the toolkit the International Parliamentary Union has developed for “evaluation of world parliaments”, the study titled “Democratic Quotient of the Indian Parliament” found that though the Indian opposition was strong (40 per cent opposition MPs said they had opportunity to speak in Parliament), MPs in general were not so free to express their minds. The survey was conducted over the past one year under the Lok Sabha’s research internship programme.

Two-thirds (65 per cent) of the interviewed MPs said their political parties didn’t permit them to express views divergent from the party stance. Even within the party, few opportunities exist for members, with just 28 per cent saying they had “high opportunity” to speak their mind.

“This is symptomatic of a malaise that can threaten Indian democracy. The situation is akin to oligarchic rule where few party leaders are deciding the course of the nation. MPs also feel they don’t have the choice to participate in debates and such chances are being pocketed by some people,” states the study authored by Ajit Phadnis, an electrical engineer from the IIT, Mumbai, and MBA from the IIM, Bangalore; he was one of the five interns for the last year’s programme.

The findings question the representative character of Parliament, with 71 per cent MPs admitting it was very difficult for a person with average means to contest elections. This confession substantiates the composition of 15th Lok Sabha where 58 per cent MPs declared assets over Rs 1 crore; average assets of members are Rs 5.33 crore. Worse still, 61 per cent MPs said their parties showed low transparency in disclosing financial accounts and election expenditure.

Disturbingly, caste and religious identities are perceived by MPs as greater factors (than performance) in influencing voter choices; 66 per cent said religion and caste had high significance in impacting voters’ mind; a quarter said such identities impacted voters “very heavily”. Only 27 per cent MPs believed election results could be influenced by a high degree of work.

On parliamentary oversight of the executive, MPs feel Question Hour and Public Accounts Committee - the only tools available for oversight - are yet to live up to their potential. Low attendance in standing committee meets is a huge concern, they say. Most LS members confessed the average time and quality of parliamentary debates was diminishing. In 2009, 27 per cent Bills were discussed in less than five minutes; average member participation in each being just nine.

Ironically, half of Independent MPs said they didn’t have the opportunity to speak in Parliament. Though 45 per cent private members said they introduced Bills in the LS, data shows that 14th Lok Sabha discussed only 4 per cent of these Bills.