Unparliamentary politics

In recent weeks the National Assembly has been the scene of shouting matches between members, exchange of insults and copies of the budget being flung at one another.

A truce was eventually reached between the government and opposition only to be breached a few days later when some lawmakers again reverted to conduct unbecoming.

This triggered considerable debate on television and comment in the social media. Much of this assumed a partisan nature. It was said this wasn't the first time parliament had seen such a fracas and mayhem.

Examples were cited of the past as also of brawls in the legislatures of other countries. But this missed the point. Past uncivil behaviour doesn't make it any more acceptable today. Nor does the breakdown in norms and civility elsewhere mean that it is alright to repeat the same conduct here.

Members of parliament have a responsibility to the people who elected them; to do the job for which their constituents have sent them to the legislature.

They have a responsibility to the country's taxpayers too. After all it is taxpayers' money that pays for their salaries and the many perks they enjoy. Therefore, they also have a responsibility to the country, not just to their political constituency.

Of course, it is the deepening political polarisation in the country which often drives unparliamentary conduct. The unrestrained and intemperate language used by many MPs is a reflection of this as well as the dominant political culture that sees the ethic of war - to subdue the 'enemy' - rather than the ethic of competition as their guiding 'principle'. This rules out efforts to engage rivals or show them any respect.

Unseemly conduct by members of the National Assembly has political costs for all sides.

What gets lost in this deeply polarised environment is the obligation to work parliament in the public interest. If parliament's role is to legislate, debate and inform, then disorderly behaviour is tantamount to a dereliction of duty and responsibility. Political leaders and members of the assemblies never cease to declare their commitment to parliament's supremacy, but these claims sound hollow coming from those who engage in rowdy behaviour on the floor of the House.

The Senate has demonstrated more sobriety in the conduct of its business. Debates in the Upper House are often substantive. Several members of the National Assembly have also been diligent in their work and have acted with dignity. But the behaviour of some of their colleagues in the Lower House has been anything but civil.

It is the majority party that sets the substance and tone for parliamentary activity. Thus, its attitude is fundamental for the smooth - and peaceful - functioning of the Assembly. But if the treasury benches and their leadership regard all those sitting on opposition benches as venal politicians who should be in jail rather than parliament that makes for a charged environment. It also obviates efforts to elicit the cooperation needed to carry out parliament's actual functions.

Moreover, if the ruling party treats parliament as a means only to maintain the government in power rather than as an instrument of governance this has a bearing on parliament's functioning. Its role as a forum to initiate and shape laws, articulate and debate policy is left diminished. When the leader of the House barely comes to parliament this not only signals lack of interest but also sets an example for senior ministers to routinely skip attending the Assembly.

Lawmaking by executive fiat also marginalises parliament's role. The PTI government has relied more on promulgating ordinances for its legislative agenda than legislating by parliament. It may be following an inglorious tradition but it has now beaten the record of two predecessor governments in issuing ordinances, according to an assessment by Pildat.

The great value of parliamentary debate is that it mobilises consensus, builds legitimacy for government measures and galvanises support for its policies. Lawmaking by ordinance denudes the government of these benefits and prevents wider ownership of laws that are decreed in this manner or rushed through parliament without discussion.

The opposition too has an obligation to participate with earnestness in parliamentary proceedings. But the major opposition parties have not engaged in a sustained or consistent way in the Assembly. They have often swung between boycotts, walkouts, disruptive actions and even threats to resign from membership.

The opposition should use parliament as a forum to articulate policy alternatives and present solutions to national problems in addition to subjecting government measures to critical scrutiny.