The Role of the Opposition is that of a Watchdog

This happened in 1996. The erstwhile Soviet Union had disintegrated and the economy of Russia was in dire financial straits. Under Boris Yeltsin, Russia was headed for elections and the Sukhoi factory, located in his constituency was on the verge of closure, rendering multitude of workers jobless. It would have affected Yeltsin’s campaign adversely.

Invoking decades of close friendship and military assistance, Yeltsin requested India’s caretaker prime minister Narasimha Rao for an advance for the Sukhoi factory even before concluding the deal for the aircraft. It was conveyed that such a gesture would be considered as a special favour. The advance was to be subsequently adjusted against the final contract. Undoubtedly, it would have been a patently irregular act but Rao realised the political and diplomatic benefits for the country. In addition, Sukhoi was a first-rate aircraft. However, he knew that the opposition parties would term it as a scam to fault his government.

With a view to pre-empt such a situation, it was decided to get the main opposition party on board. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh were invited by the then defence minister Mulayam Singh to attend a presentation on the subject. They were taken in confidence and their concurrence obtained. Consequently, the said irregular advance of USD 365 million never became a scam and no controversy was ever generated. The country benefited by getting a modern aircraft at highly favourable terms as Yeltsin remembered the favour done to Russia in its hour of need.

Thus an act done in good faith by the government with national interests in mind was supported by the opposition party as well. Vajpayee understood the rationale and did not want to scuttle the deal for an excellent aircraft. It was a pragmatic approach and the matter was never made an election issue. The above incident has been recalled here to highlight the fact that the national interests can best be served when both the ruling and opposition parties rise above narrow political goals and work in tandem. Rao, Vajpayee and Mulayam joined hands to ensure that the national interests remained supreme.

Role of the Opposition Parties

India opted to follow the British parliamentary system wherein the majority party is invited to form the government and is referred to as the ruling party. The political party with the second-largest number of seats gets the respectable tag of being the main opposition party. In Britain, the main opposition party is formally known as Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition or the Official Opposition and the leader of this party takes the title of Leader of the Opposition. It demonstrates the importance that is assigned to the role of the opposition parties in democracy.

For many, the term opposition is a misnomer with negative connotations, affecting the psyche of most politicians. According to lexicon, opposition means resistance, hostility, antagonism, antipathy, enmity, objection, dissent, criticism, defiance, non-compliance, obstruction, obstructiveness, counteraction, conflict, clash, difference, contrast, disparity and antithesis. Unfortunately, in the developing democracies, most opposition parties interpret their role literally and have thus come to believe that their sole role is to be oppose the government; and India is no exception.

The most vital role of the opposition in a democracy is that of a 'watch dog'. It holds the government accountable through close oversight of its functioning and making all shortcomings public. Regular scrutiny of executive’s functioning and persistent questioning helps vigilant opposition in constantly reminding the ruling party of the promises made to the electorate while seeking votes. An alert opposition is the best preventive antidote to governmental slackness and complacence.

It is for the opposition to expose misuse of power, misdemeanours and financial irregularities, thereby generating public pressure for prompt action against the guilty. While all acts of omission and commission must be highlighted; malicious witch-hunt to malign political opponents by planting fabricated accusations through presstitute media must be avoided. Criticism must always be well-informed and all allegations duly substantiated.

As the opposition always projects itself as a ‘government in waiting’, it should be able to suggest alternate approach to the nation’s problems through different policy statements and strategies. Through well-reasoned debates in the parliament, it should apprise the people of its views and ideologies. By studying and scrutinizing legislative proposal, it can force the government to be transparent in its functioning.

An active and constructive opposition is the best guarantee of a functional and healthy democracy. It imposes caution on the government against despotic tendencies through public awareness. It ensures that the government follows the provisions of the constitution in letter and spirit, thereby looking after the interests of all segments of the populace.

Need for Mutual Accommodation

It should never be forgotten that both the ruling party and the opposition are two pillars of a democracy. Both have important roles to play and both have their responsibilities as well. As it happens between two contestants in sports, once the match is over both shake hands and applaud each other. There is no bitterness between the winner and the loser. The same should apply to the elections and the accusations made against each other during the heat of electioneering should be quickly forgotten. Howsoever antagonistic mutual equation may be, basic decorum should never be lost sight of.

It is for the ruling party to make the first move towards reconciliation with the opposition. Despite winning the elections, it should not develop an attitude of arrogance. By engaging opposition in discussions, it can benefit from their inputs to evolve well-rounded policies. The government should always remember that the opposition members represent their respective constituencies and hence are equally responsible for the betterment of the country. They are not the enemies of the state who need to be shunned.

On the other hand, the opposition must be mature enough to respect the verdict of the people and not be seen as a whining and disgruntled bunch of losers. Instead of sulking and throwing tantrums like a poor loser, it should perform the role of constructive opposition and thereby project itself as a competent alternative, worthy of people’s trust in future elections.

The practice of forming shadow cabinet for focussed oversight has been a success in Britain. India could also adopt the same. Instead of a few spokespersons parroting standard party lines, it will be far better if the talented opposition leaders are assigned ministry-specific oversight responsibilities, thereby keeping the government alert through penetrating observations.

Need to Shun Unbecoming Conduct

Parliament provides an ideal forum for an effective opposition to corner the government. The opposition can demand that time be set aside for discussing legislative proposals and other specific issues. The question hour is another big tool and incisive questions can be asked to make the government take note of their concerns. The system of parliamentary committees can be intelligently exploited to suggest alternate courses. Apparently, the opposition has to do considerable home-work to be able to put the government on the defensive. It is the quality of debate and not the numerical strength of the opposition that matters.

Unfortunately, the functioning of the parliamentary sessions has degenerated to such an abysmal level that the public has started wondering whether democracy is collapsing in the country. It is simply disgusting to see the opposition members storming the well of the house, displaying placards, tearing papers, shouting slogans and even resorting to heckling to prevent the house from transacting any business.

A new issue is concocted every day to disrupt the house. Worse and quite unabashedly, they seem to be enjoying themselves; joking and goading each other to shout louder. Smug smiles appear on their faces on forcing adjournment of the house. Many people are demanding a change in the rules of business. Any member entering the well of the house or shouting slogans or displaying placards should attract automatic suspension for the rest of the session with due deduction in pay and pension. The people of India are not paying taxes to reward members for indulging in hooliganism.

Finally

Ideological differences do not mean harming national interests. The role of the opposition in parliament is basically to check the excesses of the ruling or dominant party, and not to be totally antagonistic. The opposition has every legal right to question the policies/bills that the government proposes. However, it must respond to them on their merit. It is understandably a tight rope walk: supporting the government boosts the standing of the government while opposing it may show the opposition in a poor light amongst the masses. But the, statesmanship means both constructive support and well-reasoned criticism.

Let me end with a revealing experience on a flight to Delhi. It was Jul 2014 and Modi had taken over a few months earlier. During a casual conversation, a co-passenger, who turned out to be a middle level opposition leader, ominously declared, “Modi’s honeymoon period will not last for more than six months. Thereafter, we will create so much social upheaval in the country that he would regret coming to Delhi.” At that time, I dismissed it as an empty boast but now in hindsight realise the viciousness of his statement. Do we see a pattern in intolerance campaign; unrest in JNU and other universities; converting Rohith Vermula’s unfortunate suicide into an attack on dalits; ‘Not-In-My-Name’ protests, intolerance campaign and beef controversies? It is anti-nationalism at its worst.

In a democracy, the relationship between the electorate and the elected leaders is of reciprocal trust. It is based on solemn commitments. Leaders seek support on the basis of certain promises; people trust them and vote them to power. As elected leaders are expected to deliver on the promises made, people demand accountability at the end of their tenure in power. The opposition should not act as an impediment and stall all progressive measures.