Absenteeism
among MPs during critical sessions threatens effective democratic governance in
South Asia. MP absenteeism underscores their priorities lie elsewhere, rather
than contributing their time to the process of good governance and the
development of their country. Their
apathy amounts to deceiving both the people and the country.
In the South
Asian parliamentary democracies, the issue of absenteeism among Members of
Parliament (MPs) during pivotal sessions has emerged as a pressing concern.
These sessions, where critical decisions are made and laws debated, are the
lifeblood of democratic governance. However, the frequent absence of MPs raises
profound questions about accountability, representation effectiveness, and the
overall health of democratic institutions.
South Asian
countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and others face a
myriad of challenges—from economic development to social reform and regional
stability. The role of MPs in addressing these challenges is crucial. Yet,
despite the significance of parliamentary sessions, absenteeism has become
alarmingly common.
Several factors
contribute to this absenteeism. MPs often juggle multiple responsibilities,
including party duties, constituency work, and official obligations, which can
clash and result in missed sessions. Moreover, the vast geographical spread of
constituencies in some countries leads to logistical challenges, making it
difficult for MPs to attend sessions due to travel constraints or occasional
health issues. In addition, some MPs may perceive their participation in
parliamentary proceedings as inconsequential, leading to disinterest and
absenteeism. There are also strategic reasons for absenteeism, especially
during contentious debates or votes, where avoiding a stance or disrupting
quorum requirements can be advantageous.
In India, the
attendance of members in both Houses of Parliament – the Lok Sabha and the
Rajya Sabha – is crucial for their effective functioning. However,
parliamentary attendance rarely garners public debate, typically only making
headlines when celebrity MPs show low attendance rates. The recent monsoon
session, which concluded on 11 August 2017, brought the issue of MP attendance
to the forefront. On 21 July 2017, the Rajya Sabha had to adjourn due to an
insufficient number of MPs, and a critical vote on a constitutional amendment
bill was lost because government MPs were absent. Prime Minister Narendra Modi
also emphasized the importance of MPs being present and actively participating
in parliamentary proceedings. ( https://scroll.in/article/848512/parliament-attendance-on-most-days-is-70-so-what-explains-the-empty-benches-during-sessions)
In Bangladesh,
in the eighth parliament, attendance was notably low, with 113 MPs present on
half of the working days, and only 16.1% attending one-fourth of the days.
Sixty-four MPs were present for 76% or more of the working days. Notably, 46
MPs were absent for more than three-quarters of the days, including 18 from the
ruling party, 28 from the opposition, and three from other parties. Overall,
104 MPs were absent, with 47 from the ruling party alone. In contrast, during
the ninth parliament, there were 417 working days across 19 sessions. On
average, MPs attended 221 days per year, representing 63% of the total members.
Forty-one percent of MPs were present for more than 75% of the working days,
while 14% attended only 25% or less. Among ruling party MPs, 46.9% were present
for more than three-quarters of the sessions. Overall, ruling party members
attended 99.76% of the 418 total working days across 19 sessions. The main
opposition party members attended one-fourth of the sessions (25%), (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349095169_Inactivity_of_Parliamentarians_in_National_Parliament_of_Bangladesh_Impacts_on_Parliamentary_Democracy).
Pakistan is no
exception regarding absenteeism of MPs in the Parliamentary session. On September 19, 2020, despite holding a
majority in the joint session of parliament, the opposition failed to block
'controversial' legislation on Wednesday. As a result, the government smoothly
passed eight bills, including three related to the implementation of Financial
Action Task Force (FATF) laws. The joint
session comprised a total of 446 members from the Senate (104) and the National
Assembly (342), but only 390 members participated in the voting process—200
from the ruling coalition and 190 from the opposition. Notably, 53 members were
absent from the session. It was
disclosed that 41 legislators were among the absentees—32 from the opposition
and nine from the ruling coalition (https://www.dawn.com/news/1580462).
Absenteeism in
the Sri Lankan Parliament has become a major issue highlighted in media
reports. As the Ninth Parliament completes two years, attendance records,
spanning from August 20, 2020, to August 23, 2022, reveal concerning trends,
especially among Cabinet and State Ministers. The data shows that during 182
sitting days, several long-serving MPs and Cabinet members maintained
irregular attendance in the sessions. According to the records, the attendance
of several experienced MPs was similarly underwhelming. Within the Cabinet, the
Minister of Internal Security attended the fewest meetings, with only 67. The
Minister of Justice managed just 68 meetings, while the Minister of Tourism and
Land attended for 90 days, and the Minister of Health for 98 days. (https://www.sundaytimes.lk/220911/news/records-show-poor-attendance-by-parliamentarians-as-9th-parliament-marks-2-years-494859.html).
Eventually, unable to suppress public outrage sparked by indiscipline and
corruption, Sri Lanka's President and Prime Minister were compelled to flee the
country.
In Nepal, there
is a popular saying, "Haa Taa," which refers to the practice of
signing the attendance book but not fulfilling the duties among civil servants.
This practice also extends to parliamentarians. On 20 June 2024, Prime Minister
Pushpa Kamal Dahal expressed disappointment over the absence of senior leaders
during the question-and-answer session in Thursday's House of Representatives
meeting. After addressing MPs' inquiries, PM Dahal highlighted his concerns
about the decreasing attendance of key leaders and ministers during these
important sessions.
The implications
of absenteeism are profound and wide-ranging. It results in a deficit of
representation, where constituents' voices may not be adequately heard during
critical legislative discussions. This, in turn, undermines the effectiveness
of legislative processes, delaying important decisions and potentially
derailing policy-making efforts. Moreover, continued absenteeism erodes public
trust in democratic institutions, as constituents perceive their elected
representatives as neglecting their responsibilities.
Addressing this
challenge requires a multifaceted approach. Implementing stricter attendance
policies with penalties for absenteeism could incentivize MPs to prioritize
their parliamentary duties. Enhancing parliamentary facilities and improving
logistical support can alleviate travel-related issues that contribute to
absenteeism. Engaging MPs through training sessions on the importance of active
participation and reinforcing public accountability through transparent
attendance records are also crucial steps. Furthermore, fostering a political
culture where parliamentary attendance is valued and seen as a fundamental duty
can help shift norms and expectations within political circles.
Absenteeism
among MPs during critical sessions poses a significant obstacle to effective
democratic governance in South Asian countries. To overcome this challenge,
concerted efforts are needed to reform policies, improve institutional
frameworks, and cultivate a culture of active engagement and responsibility
among elected representatives. By doing so, South Asian nations can strengthen
their democratic foundations and better serve the diverse interests of their
populations, ensuring that parliamentary democracy thrives and fulfills its
promise of representation and governance.
(vidhukayastha@gmail.com)
