Push button parliament-why India needs a non-partisan, recorded vote system
| Autor | Shalaka Patil |
| Cargo | SMs. Shalaka Patil graduated with a Bachelors in Law degree in 2009 from Government Law College, Mumbai, India |
| Páginas | 163-241 |
ACDI, Bogotá, ISSN: 2027-1131/ISSNe: 2145-4493, Vol. 4, pp. 163-241, 2011
163
Push button parliament–why India needs a
non-partisan, recorded vote system
Fecha de recepción: 06 de septiembre de 2009
Fecha de aceptación: 16 de junio de 2010
Shalaka Patil*
Abstract: Decisions of national importance are made by Parliamentary voting.
Yet Indian Members of Parliament (MPs) vote with a remarkable lack of
freedom and accountability. The introduction of the Tenth Schedule in the
Constitution has crippled free expression, since it provides that MPs voting
against ‘any direction -
gislature. In addition, except for Constitutional amendments, Indian Parlia-
mentary Procedure Rules do not require votes of MPs to be recorded unless
the Speaker’s decision is contested in the House. The result is that voting in
the House has become mechanical, controlled by Party politics and devoid
of responsibility. This paper comments on a general theory of democratic
accountability through the lens of Parliamentary voting. It suggests that the
voting system adopted in the Parliament is an effective indicator to measure
the level of accountability of its Members. In the context of India, this paper
argues that the level of accountability will increase to a desirable extent only
when there is adoption of a recorded system for every important House
* SMs. Shalaka Patil graduated with a Bachelors in Law degree in 2009 from Government
Law College, Mumbai, India. Thereafter she worked in dispute resolution in a leading law
with a focus on dispute resolution and public law in 2011. She has previously worked as a
research assistant at the Parliament of India and at a think tank (Liberty Institute) in New
Delhi. Shalaka is currently a Rajawali Asia research fellow at the Ash Center for Democratic
Governance at Harvard Kennedy School. Her areas of focus are parliamentary accountability,
the role of political par ties, and voting. shalaka.patil@gmail.com
Para citar este artículo: Patil, Shalaka (2011), Push button parliament–why india needs a non-partisan, recorded vote
system, Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional n.° 4, pp. 163-241.
ACDI, Bogotá, ISSN: 2027-1131/ISSNe: 2145-4493, Vol. 4, pp. 9-458, 2011
Push button parliament–why India needs a non-partisan,
recorded vote system
164
vote. Upon examination of India’s record thus far (through the sample of
the 14th Lok Sabha) it becomes evident that the level of divisions (recorded
votes) is substantially lower than other countries. This leads the paper to
probe, as to why that might be the case. Part II of the paper answers that
question by examining the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
in decision making in the Parliament. Apart from dealing with the inherent
problem of the Tenth Schedule, this paper suggests two procedural changes
to make parliamentary expression more meaningful. Firstly, the recording
of all important votes within the Parliament and secondly, registering Party
whips with the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs so that the voter knows
the clear stand of every Parliamentary continuum. The focus of the paper
is thus to bring back the attention of the legislators to their central function,
which is deliberation on and the passage of legislation.
Key words: India, recorded votes, anti-defection, political parties, comparati-
ve constitutional law, parliamentary procedure, division, voice-votes, Tenth
Schedule, accountability.
Resumen: La toma de decisiones de importancia nacional se hace por votación
parlamentaria. Aún así, los Miembros del Parlamento de la India (MPs por
sus siglas en inglés) votan con una falta notoria de libertad y responsabilidad.
La introducción del Décimo Anexo en la Constitución ha lisiado la libre ex-
presión, en la medida en la que establece que los MPs que voten en contra
la legislatura. Adicionalmente, excepto por las enmiendas a la Constitución,
las Reglas de Procedimiento Parlamentario de la India no requieren que los
votos de los MPs sean registrados, a menos de que la decisión del Orador sea
disputada en la Cámara. El resultado es que la votación en la Cámara se ha
convertido en mecánica, controlada por las políticas partidarias, y desprovista
de responsabilidad. Este trabajo se una teoría general de la responsabilidad
democrática a través del una mirada a la votación parlamentaria. Sugiere que
el sistema de votación adoptado en el Parlamento es un indicador efectivo
para medir el nivel de responsabilidad de sus Miembros. En el contexto de
la India, este trabajo argumenta que el nivel de responsabilidad incrementará
a un nivel deseable, solo cuando se de la adopción de un sistema registrado
para cada voto importante en la Cámara. En la revisión del registro en la India
hasta ahora (a través de la muestra de la 14ª Lok Sabha) se hace evidente que
el nivel de divisiones (votos registrados) es sustancialmente menor que en
ACDI, Bogotá, ISSN: 2027-1131/ISSNe: 2145-4493, Vol. 4, pp. 163-241, 2011
Shalaka Patil
165
otros países. Esto lleva a que este artículo demuestre el por qué ese puede
ser el caso. La Parte II de este artículo responde a esa pregunta examinando
el Décimo Anexo de la Constitución.
la toma de decisiones en el Parlamento. Además de tratar con el problema
inherente del Décimo Anexo, este escrito sugiere dos cambios procesales
registro de todos los votos importantes dentro del Parlamento y en segundo
lugar, el registro de las bancadas del Partido (Party whips) con el Ministro
de Asuntos Parlamentarios, para que el votante conozca la postura clara de
cada bando/grupo (continuum) Parlamentario. El enfoque de este artículo
es, por ende, retomar la atención de los legisladores hacia su función central,
que es la deliberación y la aprobación de la legislación.
Palabras clave: India, grabación de votos, anti-deserción, partidos políticos,
derecho constitucional comparado, procedimiento parlamentario, división,
votos a viva voz, Tenth Schedule, responsabilidad.
“It is not only what we do but also what we do not do for which we are accountable.”
Moliere1
I. Introduction
-
med from voting in the Parliament.2 Yet there is scant record of how its
Members of Parliament (MPs) vote, how often they vote and most impor-
1 Quote by Jean Baptiste Moliere, in Tryon Edwards, A Dictionary of Thoughts: Being a Cyclo-
paedia of Laconic Quotations from the Best Authors of the World, Both Ancient and Modern 528 (F.B.
Dickerson Co. 1908).
2 See e.g., P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State through CBI (1998) 4 S.C.C. 626 (India) (famously
known as the JMM Bribery case); R. Suryamurthy, Cash for Questions, The Tribune, December
12, 2008, http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20051213/main1.htm; Passage of Acts such
as the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2006, consideration of bills such as the
National Investigating Agency Bill, 2008, The Companies Bill, 2009, etc. For a complete list
of bills considered and passed in the Monsoon Session 2008 of the Parliament, see http://
www.prsindia.org/index.php?name=Sections&id=5&parent_category=&category=1&acti
on=bill_details&bill_id=544.
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba