Rajya Sabha, which is also known as council of states was originally established to espouse state interests at the federal level. But, we rarely observe MPs of rajya sabha from our respective states highlighting the states issue. What will be the difference between two houses if the dialogue process/debate on issues remain in same context.....
What needs to be done?
Members shall be elected from states where they currently reside for at least 10 years prior to their election. This will bring greater accountability of the MP to raise state-specific concerns and increase chances that member will actually do it because he/she has interest in the state they represent...Nominated members.....
In Rajya Sabha, we have a provision of nominating 12 members on the basis of their special knowledge or practical experience in the fields of literature, science, art and social service, but our experience says that nominated members rarely attend the Rajya Sabha sessions but enjoy all the benefits and privileges of being MP at the expense of our taxes
Instead of appointing arbitrarily we could give a public call and ask interested eminent people to apply for the post and then president could appoint among them so that we could actually appoint those people in house who are interested in public affairs...
Respecting Constructive Criticism....
A provision must be included in the rules of the both houses that at least one day per week, must be allocated towards discussions that are recommended by the members of the opposition parties.Participatory democracy doesn't start and end only through voting but also through active participation of citizens in policy making. So, at least half a day per week shall be allotted to the questions raised by citizens. The raising and selection of questions could be through online platform or postal way for non metros or any other way. This would make citizens feel that they have some say in country's policy making and would make them feel that "Paying tax is not a liability but responsibility"
Are MPs responsible to their constituency or Party.....?
Parliamentary whip can now be issued on any vote or matter pertaining to the stance taken by a party in parliament. Hence, if a member differs with party even on a law which doesn't favors his constituency from where he was elected to the house, he could be made guilty of defection under constitutional provisions and removed from the house... Is this not undermining and disrespecting the basic feature of our constitution i.e., DEMOCRARY?There are few good reasons to ensure that members continue to represent parties they were members of at the time of their election but at the same time such a restriction should apply only to particular kinds of voting that are crucial to the survival of the government. The application of the law of defection should only apply when a MP votes against the party whip on a finance bill or no-confidence motion...
Distinction between a ‘disruption’ and an ‘interuption'
Lets leave this to the wisdom of our honorable Members of Parliament..
As Plato said "One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors" .So as Citizens its our responsibility to keep or democracy vibrant and dynamic....
