Coerced legislators' resignations : A question for survival of Parliamentary democracy

Y Devendro Singh *

Manipur Legislative Assembly Building at Chingmeirong, Imphal in June 2017 :: Pix - Lamdamba Oinam

Coerced resignations of legislators raise grave concerns about the survival of Parliamentary democracy. Such actions challenge foundational democratic principles and prompt critical inquiries into political ethics and legislative stability. While some argue that these resignations might serve societal good, their coercive nature raises serious ethical questions.

It’s crucial to examine whether coerced resignations align with Parliamentary democracy’s principles. In India, legislators have vital roles, including representation, legislation, and accoun- tability, which are key to stable governance. Scholars highlight that the disruptions resulting from coerced resignations weaken democratic responsiveness and hinder effective governance.

Such resignations disrupt the principle of representation in a democracy, and without representation, the foundation of democratic governance will naturally weaken. These resignations naturally affect vital legislative functions, which are sine qua non for accountable governance. Scholars have discussed at length how such disruptions erode trust between the electorate and representatives, thereby undermining governance effectiveness.

The societal impact of coerced resignations extends beyond politics and harms the socio-economic stability of society. Political instability hinders economic development and social welfare, reducing investment and leaving vulnerable sections of the population unsupported, thereby creating long-term socio-economic risks.

Coerced resignations also impact political culture, increasing polarization and factionalism, leading to survival-instinct-driven decision-making. Such an environment deters emerging leaders from taking new initiatives, stifles new perspectives and participation, and leads to the stagnation of democratic processes. Such actions compromise the political system’s integrity and challenge democratic foundations.

Dr Subhash C Kashyap warns that they harm legislative stability and ethical standards, necessitating critical examination of their dangerous ramifications.

Coerced resignations of Legislators in Parliamentary Democracy have several critical unwanted repercussions:

1. Representation and Constituency Impact: When legislators resign under pressure, constituents are left without proper representation, leading to the neglect of grassroots voices. This absence diminishes the legislative body’s ability to respond effectively to the needs of the community until a by-election is held.

2. Disruption to Legislative Functioning: Coerced resignations can significantly disrupt the legislative process, halting important law- making activities and government oversight. This inte- rruption weakens essential checks on the executive branch, thus jeopardizing critical governance functions.

3. Political Stability and Governance : Multiple coerced resignations can destabilize Government structures, leading to shifts in power dynamics that affect effective governance. Such instability may deter economic investments as investors perceive the political environment as uncertain and volatile.

4. Preserving Democratic Integrity: The practice of pressurizing representatives to resign undermines fundamental democratic principles, corroding public trust in elections and institutions. Scholars like BL Shankar and Valerian Rodrigues highlight how this erosion of trust impacts the very foundations of democracy.

5. Precedent for Future Political Conduct : If coercive tactics are normalized and go unchecked, they set a dangerous precedent, allowing unethical behaviour to become part of political culture. This deters principled individuals from entering politics, depriving the system of committed leaders.

6. Legal and Ethical Considerations : Coerced resignations raise serious legal and ethical concerns, potentially violating laws designed to protect the inde- pendence of elected representatives. Such issues can lead to legal complicities that may threaten the democratic framework.

7. Media and Public Perception : Media portrayals of coerced resignations can heighten perceptions of political instability and contribute to general disillu- sionment in political processes. However, responsible journalism can counter such development by fostering informed public engagement and debate.

8. Role of Civil Society Organizations : Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) can play a crucial role in promoting accountability and transparency by educating the public and advocating for policy reforms. CSOs can pressurize policymakers to uphold democratic values and protect public representatives.

9. Socio-economic Impact: Political instability resulting from coerced resignations poses threats to economic development and social welfare projects. It reduces investor confidence, weakening the prospect of economic development.

10. Political Culture and Participation : Coerced resignations can intensify political factionalism and discourage the emergence of new political leaders with new ideas and innovation. This atmosphere also discourages active political participation and engagement, risking stagnation within the democratic process.

The effectiveness of parliamentary democracy relies on Legislators representing their constituents without undue pressure. Ensuring the democratic process and free performance of duties by elected representatives are essential features of democracy. Addressing the problem of coerced resignations with legal, ethical, and procedural safeguards is key to preserving democratic values and legislative functions.

In our legislative and legal framework, while legislators can voluntarily resign, it may be undemocratic to coerce them to resign against their own volition. For this reason, stronger legal protections may be considered necessary to shield Legislators from undue pressures. Upholding transparent legal processes and ethical standards is crucial to safeguarding the nation’s democratic fabric.

In the context of Manipur, Rule 315 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Tenth Edition) clarifies how a member can resign. It emphasizes that resignations must be a voluntary and deliberate act by the member.

Further, in a Parliamentary democracy, it is widely understood that the relationship between the executive branch and the legislature is foundational. The executive, typically the Cabinet Council, derives its authority from the majority in the Legislative Assembly and is tasked with implementing governance and policy decisions.

BL Shankar and Valerian Rodrigues, in “The Indian Parliament: A Democracy at Work,” emphasize the separation of roles where the Cabinet is primarily responsible for the execution of laws and policies. Therefore, when it comes to governance failures, such as the inability to protect public lives and properties, these responsibilities fall within the remit of the executive.

Granville Austin, in “The Indian Constitution : Cornerstone of a Nation,” notes that the executive’s accountability to the legislature is a central tenet of parliamentary democracy, ensuring that those holding executive power are directly answerable for their actions or inactions concerning public safety and governance.

The issue of coerced resignations among Legislators should not be confused with governance failures, as such resignations do not inherently reflect the Legislative Body’s capability or authority. Ramachandra Guha, in “India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy,” notes that while the legislature is crucial for law-making and Government oversight, the execution of policies falls within the purview of the executive.

Therefore, accountability for governance failures should principally rest with the Cabinet Council. Subhash C Kashyap, in “Our Parliament,” emphasizes the principle of collective responsibility, indicating that the Cabinet, as policy implementers, should bear scrutiny for governmental shortcomings to maintain the integrity of the parliamentary system.

Thus, coerced resignations among Legislators should not be resorted to for governance failures or inadequate safeguarding of public lives and properties, responsibilities that specifically lie with the Cabinet Council. Ultimately, moral responsibility for governance failures should primarily rest with the Cabinet Council, not the entire Legislative Body.

In conclusion, Legislators, as representatives of the people, must uphold high standards of conduct, fulfilling their duties and roles in a responsible manner towards safeguarding the sustenance of Parliamentary Democracy. The role of citizens, who continually strive to understand the ethos and practices of Parliamentary Democracy, and work to protect the sanctity of the democratic process, is also very important.