Regarding the London School of Economics event:
I agree with the point that Rahul Gandhi made, on how parliamentarians (in India) are losing their degree of control over the law-making process.
But I need to make a distinction, and suggestions:
According to me, the strengthening of the committee system, over the years, has moved some of the legislative process to committees, and this has often ensured more wholesome participation in creating legislation than previous floor-of-the-house processes have (though there's room for a new wave of improvement there as well).
There are a number of logistical improvements that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha could bring about, to ensure that draft documents are meant to reach (and do reach) a wide audience, including MPs of all parties, way before the papers are laid on the table of the house.
And that the process of voting makes more space for step-by-step analyses by the members of parliament.
There is also much left to be desired when it comes to how the media reports these events, and Media will need to be to be trained further on how to report on legislative processes.
No doubt, the fact that official TV channels for both houses were introduced did create transparency, but the fact that these channels exist ought not to drive the agenda of the house.
That said, I do agree with the view that MPs ought to concentrate on law-making, and their energies should not be diverted towards acting like local NGOs by having to practically 'oversee' Local Area Development Funds. That scheme should be cancelled.
Some of these points, I've touched upon in my latest book, EARTH REPUBLIC.
I agree with the point that Rahul Gandhi made, on how parliamentarians (in India) are losing their degree of control over the law-making process.
But I need to make a distinction, and suggestions:
According to me, the strengthening of the committee system, over the years, has moved some of the legislative process to committees, and this has often ensured more wholesome participation in creating legislation than previous floor-of-the-house processes have (though there's room for a new wave of improvement there as well).
There are a number of logistical improvements that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha could bring about, to ensure that draft documents are meant to reach (and do reach) a wide audience, including MPs of all parties, way before the papers are laid on the table of the house.
And that the process of voting makes more space for step-by-step analyses by the members of parliament.
There is also much left to be desired when it comes to how the media reports these events, and Media will need to be to be trained further on how to report on legislative processes.
No doubt, the fact that official TV channels for both houses were introduced did create transparency, but the fact that these channels exist ought not to drive the agenda of the house.
That said, I do agree with the view that MPs ought to concentrate on law-making, and their energies should not be diverted towards acting like local NGOs by having to practically 'oversee' Local Area Development Funds. That scheme should be cancelled.
Some of these points, I've touched upon in my latest book, EARTH REPUBLIC.
No comments:
Post a Comment