Parliament washout: Politicians have decided TV is the place to speak, Parliament to shout

Sonia Gandhi’s accusation that the protests by Opposition MPs in parliament was not being shown on television may be misplaced. For one, the Lok Sabha TV, and likewise the Rajya Sabha TV, is the property of the respective Houses. The RSTV says it is “owned and operated” by the Rajya Sabha. The Doordarshan may be a vehicle through which private channels get to telecast them. If she were serious, the complaint should go to the Speaker or the Chairman of the Houses. The other point is she ought to be sensitive to the public opinion that political parties, and especially when they are in the Opposition, make Parliament redundant by not enabling it to function. It is not as if the people have voted politicians to go to Delhi and convert Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha into a platform for slogan shouting, not adhering to the purpose. President Mukherjee had recently spoken plainly: absence of discussion “impacts the law-making role of parliament. It breaches the trust reposed in by the people. It is not good for democracy”. [caption id=“attachment_2361926” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Representational image. AFP[/caption] Sonia Gandhi’s grievance aired on Friday is in the present context of the Opposition demand for resignations of Sushma Swaraj and two state chief ministers, failing which, the Parliament would not be allowed to function. Not allowing the law-making body to function is the new tool with the opposition – as it was with the now ruling BJP’s when it was in the Opposition. It completely negates the very purpose of a representative democratic system because those who are elected don’t even want to speak but block the business from being carried out. However, there is a link between what is not happening in Parliament and television. What the political parties, especially the Opposition, do not want to say in their legitimate forum, come up to speak in television studios. There is meticulousness in planning their spokespersons’ – or more appropriately, motormouths – presence. Some are so active by design that they can and do switch from one channel to the other swifter than one would from one room to another. There is another design: if there is no argument, they just tirelessly and loudly filibuster, even outshout and deny TV time to the rival. But they don’t sabotage the show. This is seen on TV every night when instead of news, noise is purveyed. In these debates which have replaced, in one sense, the Parliament as a forum, there is more an attempt at putting spin, repeating stuff to give it an endurance. There are such party spokespersons who pick up a point which had not occurred to them in a debate spoken by analysts – often print journalists who ought to be writing their reports in their offices - and carry it to the next studio. The television stations, averse to spend on newsgathering, which indeed is expensive for the visual media, insist that these nightly debates – in which some spokesperson come with a ready with and little else – are the begetters of their TRPs. If the MPs are complicit in rendering Parliament redundant, there is a case to state that television has been an accessory to it by providing an alternative platform which is purposeless because even there, one sees more madness than sense. It is by now a pattern of Indian politics that Parliament’s functioning is obstructed and then points are sought to be made on the TV. The Indian politician is setting much store by the TV studios where the anchor needn’t be as benign as the presiding officers. They can order the crew to lower the volume of a microphone. As in a few instances on Arnab Goswami’s News Hour, even ask a guest to leave. It is amazing that the Indian politicians are willing to be held to ridicule on the television screen and attend the same channel the next evening. But stern warnings by presiding officers against misbehaviour in parliamentary misconduct – derailing proceedings, which are decided upon by all-party business advisory committees – is ignored. The fault may be with the presiding officers for not giving some bite to their words of warning. It is rare, given the number of disruptions, for MPs to be named and sent out. Sonia Gandhi ought to know one thing. That people who routinely vote are not amused by the antics of the MPs where, for instance, by not debating why there should be resignations, instead demand action first to enable discussion later. Also, by shifting the venue for discussion — if what transpires on TV is discussion – to TV studios, Parliament itself has been demeaned. However, the BJP in its past role as Opposition as well as other parties are all culpable in this crime against democracy.