6 ms·
While that is true on rhetoric - on practice it is not. While 60% of bills went through parliamentary scrutiny prior to 2014 - the number today is just above 10
by anuraj 4y ago
While that is true on rhetoric - on practice it is not. While 60% of bills went through parliamentary scrutiny prior to 2014 - the number today is just above 10%. Also Modi has the distinction of passing maximum bills without debate and bypassing the state senate altogether.
- TheArcane 4y agoA sad consequence of one political party having a majority in the parliament. Modi supporters tout it as a harbinger of efficiency bill passing when in reality it's just eroded democracy.
- woweoe 4y agoHaving a majority in parliament is the normal way of doing things
- rajup 4y agoUnless you support the minority party in which case democracy is definitely not working and/or the voters for the majority party are deluded ;)
- ngcc_hk 4y agoMajority rule and minority rights are democracy. Otherwise once vote in everyone is save … might as well no democracy.
- didibus 4y agoThank you. The minority rights and individual rights are cornerstone, democracy does not mean majority act as Emperors. There has to be strong guaranteed equal rights to all individual and minorities that allows them equal opportunity and recourse. Its foundation is that all agree what we should all have as rights were we to ever find ourselves the minority, and those become the principles we cannot break and we owe to each individual to uphold. Beyond that, majority can decide, hopefully not stupidly and still considering minority's input, as any good leader should do, consider all data points relevant to best decision making.
- simiones 4y agoTo be fair, in many parliamentary systems it is very unusual for any one party to have an absolute majority. In most such systems, the winning party of an election often only wins a plurality of votes, and has to woo other parties to govern - either through a coalition or just a minority government.
- woweoe 4y agoIndia does not have a single party majority either but an alliance majority
- valarauko 4y agoThe BJP by itself has a simple majority in the Lok Sabha, and makes up over 87% of the NDA's members in the Lok Sabha.
- portpecos 4y agoIn 2009, Congress Party made up 78% of the UPA's members in the Lok Sabha.
- valarauko 4y agoSure, though the UPA was still short of even a simple majority in the Lok Sabha, and was held up by outside support from the Left Front. The BJP's simple majority in the Lok Sabha from 2013 onwards is the first time any single party has held a majority since the 80s.
- blueblisters 4y agoA majority in a parliamentary system still allows some room for debate and dissent since MPs are, in principle, representatives of their constituency and not of the party. However, in India, it is illegal for an MP to vote against the party line - that is grounds for their disqualification - due to the anti-defection law. Any debate is pure theatrics at this point and the party leadership is free to pass any law they want.
- happyopossum 4y ago> in India, it is illegal for an MP to vote against the party line Inn what way is this a functioning parliamentary system then?
- portpecos 4y ago> In what way is this a functioning parliamentary system then? You can ask other parliamentary systems the same questions. For example, the Australian Labor Party requires its members to pledge their support for the collective ui decisions of the caucus, which prohibits them from "crossing the floor" as well. Just as importantly, the Anti-“Crossing the Floor” law was passed in 1985 by the Congress Party under the leadership of Rajiv Gandhi (Son of Indira Gandhi, Husband of Sonia Gandhi, and Father of Rahul Gandhi). India’s been functioning under that system for almost 40 years, and I doubt Rahul Gandhi and Congress Party will repeal that law when they come back into party. That’s because it’s their law. They wrote it.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoDo Indian MPs explicitly pledge to toe the party line?
- valarauko 4y agoExplicitly? No. At no point does a member sworn in as an MP have to then swear to affirm their party affiliation. In practice, however, the Anti-Defection Law deems anybody voting against the will of the party to have vacated their membership of the party, which can then be pursued to strip them of membership of the house.
- tw600040 4y agoSo, when majority of the people support one political party that's called eroding democracy?
- ridiculous_leke 4y agoHow did it erode democracy?
- jitix 4y agoMany countries operate like this. It's the downside of having a parliamentary system (which IMO is better than a presidential one). Greece and Japan are good examples. Canada to a certain extent too in the past (with the LPC). Also for a good chunk of its history, India has been run on super majorities as pointed out in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32346371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32346371
- dustypotato 4y agoWow. Do you have the source for the numbers? It's very surprising
- portpecos 4y agoI also need clarification on what he means by Modi bypassing parliament to pass his own bills. That’s not how a parliamentary system works. Imagine Tony Blair bypassing the House of Lords and the House of Commons to pass his own bill. Or Obama bypassing the Senate and House of Representatives to pass his own bill. It’s a very strange claim to me.
- valarauko 4y agoNot GGP, but I assume they mean that bills were passed through parliament without any real debate or amendments, since the governing party holds a super majority.
- portpecos 4y agoThe UK has done the same when having a party majority in the House of Lords and House of Commons. In the US things are different. Even if there is a party majority in the Senate and House, the Filibuster is powerful enough to table the party majority’s bills.
- valarauko 4y agoUnfortunately, the way things proceed in India tend to be more crass - where the opposition often tries to physically prevent the tabling of controversial bills. We've had occasions where members grabbed papers off the Speaker's desk, and members routinely try to block proceedings by entering the well of the House and sloganeering. This leads to the Speaker adjourning the session and/or the opposition staging a walkout during the actual vote. It's not uncommon to see parliamentary sessions with only the treasury benches full for the vote.
- 4y ago
- dumty37 4y agoMight well have the distinction of withdrawing bills without debate a la Farm bill.
- givemeethekeys 4y agoIn a parliamentary democracy, if the elected party in power has a majority, they can do what you're describing.
- portpecos 4y agoIn a presidential democracy, if the Senate and House of Representatives is majority Democrats, then yes, the Democrats can do the same. Obama once had majority in House of Reps and Senate as well. There is one thing that is different. The Filibuster is very powerful in the US. I’m not so sure the filibuster is a powerful tool in UK’s parliament and India’s Parliament.
- valarauko 4y ago> There is one thing that is different. The Filibuster is very powerful in the US. I’m not so sure the filibuster is a powerful tool in UK’s parliament and India’s Parliament. The filibuster isn't a thing in the Indian system, but even in the US it can be broken by a super majority - which the governing alliance in India does have. Besides, the filibuster has rarely been used in recent times - more often than not, it's simply the threat of one.
- stereoradonc 4y agoSource for your assertions? 1. What were the number of bills passed in the "zero hour" 2. Which bills didn't meet the quorum and were passed off as ordinance and allowed to lapse? 3. Which bills were passed bypassing the time honoured state versus federal relations? You make hollow assertions without backing up your claims.