Is Parliamentary Democracy Collapsing in India?

Independent Media Analyses the Mass Suspension of Opposition Parliamentarians

Newsreel Asia Insight #80
Dec. 22, 2023

The recent suspension of over 140 Members of Parliament in India marks a pivotal moment in the country’s political journey. This action, as noted by Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Contributing Editor at The Indian Express, signals a potential shift away from the established norms of parliamentary democracy. It’s a symptom of a broader transformation in India’s political landscape, raising significant concerns about the future of democracy and its institutions.

On the surface, there seems to be adherence to constitutional processes and institutions, but a growing concentration of power, fundamentally changing the nature of India’s political regime, as per Mehta’s analysis, titled “The collapse of parliamentary democracy in Bharat that is not India.”

The suspension of the opposition lawmakers after protests in both houses over the Dec. 13 Parliament security breach represents more than a mere political dispute; it is indicative of a deeper, systemic alteration in the governance of India, Mehta says.

Journalist Vir Sanghvi, in an op-ed for The Print, expressed alarm over the ease with which young protestors breached parliamentary security on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack which resulted in nine deaths. The incident’s gravity was underscored by revelations that a Member of Parliament from the governing party, Pratap Simha, allegedly facilitated their entry. However, the government and constitutional officers overseeing Parliament (the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Lok Sabha Speaker) did not respond by suspending Simha or by having the Union Home Minister address both Houses about the breach. Instead, they suspended 141 opposition lawmakers who had demanded a statement from the minister on the incident.

Mehta points out that the Chief Justice of India has emphasised the importance of constitutional morality in his speeches, but there is a noticeable decline in the Supreme Court’s commitment to uphold these principles.

As far as the news media is concerned, with some exceptions, it tends to either align with the prevailing power or distract from these critical issues, Mehta says.

While elections are still held, their aftermath often sees a suppression of policy debate and accountability, Mehta continues. The separation of powers, essential to democratic governance, is becoming more symbolic, with executive and legislative powers increasingly merging. This has sparked discussions about the possibility of adopting a presidential system. While this system is more transparent about the concentration of power, it does not inherently guarantee greater liberty, he explains.

The current government represents a version of democracy that focuses on the embodiment of popular will, with minimal constitutional checks, Mehta points out. This approach stands in contrast to a democratic model that values rules, norms and the distribution of power. The government’s assertive power projection prompts questions about society’s preference for strong leadership over adherence to constitutional principles, he says.

This trend towards centralisation is evident in legislative actions aimed at diminishing individual rights and expanding state surveillance and control.

A report by the media outlet Article14 highlights recent bills passed by the Lok Sabha, such as the Telecommunications Bill and the Criminal Code Bills. These laws, while purportedly aimed at decolonisation, in reality, consolidate state power and normalise constitutional overreach.

Additional concerns arise from the draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill of 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023.

Experts at a Digipub meeting on Dec. 20, voiced their worries about these laws’ potential to censor news, compromise encrypted communication, facilitate internet shutdowns and allow interception of communications with minimal oversight.

Ritu Kapur, CEO of The Quint, criticises the ambiguity and scope of these legislations, especially the broadcasting bill’s content evaluation committees, which pose significant challenges for the news media. “There is a reason news organisations have editors. Why do we need this content evaluation committee?”

Digital content creator Meghnad S. points out the blurred distinctions between journalists and content creators, with the broadcasting bill imposing restrictive programming codes.

Advocate Apar Gupta highlights the Telecom Bill’s implications for surveillance, internet shutdowns and encrypted services. The bill’s provisions for message decryption could compromise the privacy of communication services like WhatsApp. Advocate Vrinda Bhandari emphasises the bill’s extensive search-and-seizure powers and the lack of safeguards against interception.

Journalist Anna M.M. Vetticad observes increasing self-censorship in the Hindi entertainment industry, with the broadcasting bill’s content evaluation committees adding another layer of censorship. The bill’s broad scope, covering television, internet and radio, gives the government significant power to regulate or censor content.