Why do societies need Parliament? Because democracy is not simply about elections. It is about what happens between elections, how laws are debated, governments are held accountable, opposing views are accommodated, and political power is restrained by institutions.
Human beings, in the absence of an ordered system of governance, would lead a life which, to use the expression from legendary political philosopher Thomas Hobbes’s magnum opus ‘Leviathan’, is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Hobbes, along with the equally well-known political philosophers Locke and Rousseau, propounded the social contract theory.
According to them, individuals voluntarily surrender certain natural rights and freedoms to a commonly accepted authority so that this agency may exercise the power needed to regulate society in a manner conducive to civilised, healthy and productive life. To fulfil that role, the concept of the state came into being. In a democratic country with a parliamentary form of governance, the state usually comprises three wings: the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. It is nobody’s case that the world we live in today is perfect by any stretch of the imagination.
All the evils mentioned by Hobbes continue to pervade the ambient environment. What is more, new and hitherto unknown scourges such as climate change and terrorism have added to the challenges and threats facing humanity. Therefore, the need for a duly empowered, competent and effective state apparatus to deliver good governance is felt now more than ever before.
How Democratic Governance Works
The phenomenon of governance manifests itself in several forms around the countries of the world. One finds countries which have dictatorships, monarchies, and democracies. In a democratic form of governance, the legislature makes the laws that create the framework required for citizens to lead a safe and productive life, while the executive implements those laws.
The judiciary, in turn, acts as an arbiter between the people and the other two wings of the state, ensuring that the processes of law-making and implementation are fair, just and inclusive, and aim at securing “the greatest good of the greatest number,” to quote the well-known British philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham.
In the discussion which follows, an attempt has been made to examine the manner in which legislatures, where such bodies exist, function across the world. Also quoted are examples of some famous pieces of oratory and interesting events that have dotted the history of legislatures.
European Parliament
To begin with, the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community was established in 1952, marking the first transnational parliamentary assembly. Thereafter, the European Parliamentary Assembly met for the first time in 1958 in Strasbourg, France, with purely consultative powers. The European Parliament is today one of the primary legislative bodies of the European Union (EU). It consists of 720 directly elected Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) representing nearly 450 million citizens. Along with the Council of the European Union, it passes EU laws, negotiates the budget and scrutinises the functioning of other institutions such as the European Commission. It evolved from a consultative assembly into a powerful co-legislator.
From Consultative Assembly to Powerful Legislature
Important milestones include the first direct elections in 1979, when member states voted directly for their MEPs for the first time, replacing appointed national delegates; the Single European Act of 1986, which formalised the “cooperation procedure” and gave the Parliament its first meaningful voice in amending legislative proposals; the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which established the “co-decision procedure” and made the Parliament an equal co-legislator with the Council in many areas; and the Lisbon Treaty of 2009, which renamed co-decision the “ordinary legislative procedure,” expanded the Parliament’s powers to over 40 new policy areas, and cemented its authority across most EU legislation and budgetary decisions. In 1999, it flexed its ultimate supervisory muscle by forcing the resignation of the entire European Commission over allegations of mismanagement.
Historic Legislatures
The world’s oldest continuously functioning Parliament is the Althing of Iceland, established in 930 AD. Originally founded by Viking chieftains as an open-air assembly to debate laws and settle disputes, it continues to operate as Iceland’s modern national parliament in Reykjavík. Armenia is widely considered as the most recent country to transit its system of government into a full parliamentary democracy, successfully completing this constitutional shift in 2018.
One House or Two?
The question whether bicameral legislatures, such as Parliament in India, and some of the state legislatures are desirable or not, has often been the subject matter of debate.
In favour of arrangement, it is often argued that it provides robust checks and balances and facilitates diverse regional representation, apart from preventing a single body from becoming tyrannical or pushing through fraudulent and emotionally driven legislation. The structure is conducive to intensive debate and committee review in two houses, improving overall quality and legality of the laws passed. Also, upper houses typically have longer terms or staggered elections, providing political continuity during times of rapid changes in the ruling parties.
Those critical of the idea point out that legislative processes slow down, operational costs increase and, in the event of the two chambers being controlled by different political parties, even result in deadlocks, paralysing the government process and preventing essential laws from gaining approval. They also observe that many of the upper houses serve little purpose as they often act as rubber stamps for their lower counter parts.
To begin with, the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community was established in 1952, marking the first transnational parliamentary assembly. Thereafter, the European Parliamentary Assembly met for the first time in 1958 in Strasbourg, France, with purely consultative powers. The European Parliament is today one of the primary legislative bodies of the European Union (EU). It consists of 720 directly elected Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) representing nearly 450 million citizens. Along with the Council of the European Union, it passes EU laws, negotiates the budget and scrutinises the functioning of other institutions such as the European Commission.
It evolved from a consultative assembly into a powerful co-legislator. Important milestones include the first direct elections in 1979, when member states voted directly for their MEPs for the first time, replacing appointed national delegates; the Single European Act of 1986, which formalised the “cooperation procedure” and gave the Parliament its first meaningful voice in amending legislative proposals; the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which established the “co-decision procedure” and made the Parliament an equal co-legislator with the Council in many areas; and the Lisbon Treaty of 2009, which renamed co-decision the “ordinary legislative procedure,” expanded the Parliament’s powers to over 40 new policy areas, and cemented its authority across most EU legislation and budgetary decisions. In 1999, it flexed its ultimate supervisory muscle by forcing the resignation of the entire European Commission over allegations of mismanagement.
The Case for Two Houses
1983 in Andhra Pradesh, N.T. Rama Rao was the new Chief Minister. I was Joint Secretary in the Chief Minister’s Office. A resolution had earlier been passed by the State Legislative Assembly recommending the abolition of the State Legislative Council (LC). Every LC is constituted through a resolution of the Assembly, subsequently approved by Parliament. The Ministry of Home Affairs, government of India, processes the matter. The same procedure is followed for its abolition.
The budget of the state government had to be passed. The provisions of the Constitution of India lay down that if a state has two houses, the lower house first passes the budget, and the upper house endorses it and returns it. What the upper house says about the budget is not as important as the need for it to consider and return it. While the State Assembly had passed the resolution abolishing the LC the government of India had not processed its approval yet, thus creating an anomalous situation with reference to the LC in Andhra Pradesh.
Not passing a year’s budget had never happened in any state until then. A suggestion was made to promulgate an ordinance, which also would have been an unprecedented step. The Constitutional validity of such a course of action was also not certain.
A financial emergency or the collapse of the constitutional machinery are the two crises no state government wants.
At this point, I suggested to NTR that the practical and constitutionally safe method would be to summon the LC (technically still in existence). The opposition parties may embarrass him by boycotting his call, since his Telugu Desam Party (TDP) had no members in the LC yet. I pointed out that the numbers of the Assembly were such that TDP could have nine members in the LC, and nine was the quorum of the LC. Surely, the nine TDP members, (who needed to be nominated yet and would be members only for a short while until Parliament approved the proposal for abolition of the LC), would attend the LC. When the budget was tabled in the LC, that house would be formally in order in terms of the requirement of quorum. Because of the lack of majority, the budget would not be endorsed, but that was not necessary. The LC only needed to consider and return the budget to the Assembly. In the event, the Budget of Andhra Pradesh for 1983 was passed without further ado.
A possible emergency in the state was avoided by using the extant law and procedures although the solution may not have been politically palatable.
Many Faces of Parliamentary Democracy
The first session of independent India’s Parliament convened on May 13, 1952, following the nation’s historic first general elections. This momentous gathering marked the final transition from colonial rule to a sovereign democratic republic and established the foundational precedents for India’s legislative procedures.
Delivered by Jawaharlal Nehru on August 14, 1947, ‘A Tryst with Destiny’ is a historic address made on the eve of India’s independence. It celebrates the end of British colonial rule and outlines the new nation’s core responsibilities, emphasizing unity, democratic values, and global peace. Nehru began by reminding the Constituent Assembly of the promise made long ago: to fight for freedom from British rule. He noted that at the stroke of midnight, while the rest of the world was asleep, India would wake up to life and freedom, transitioning from a suppressed era into a new age. He made it clear that freedom and power brought great responsibilities which rested upon the Constituent Assembly, as the representative body of the Indian people. He emphasized that it was not a time for petty arguments or blaming others, but for constructive action and building a free India for all citizens. True freedom, according to him, did not just mean the end of foreign rule; it required the eradication of poverty, ignorance, disease, and inequality of opportunity. He called on citizens to dedicate themselves to serving the millions of impoverished and suffering people across the country. He also stressed that the destiny of India was closely tied to the rest of the world, arguing that peace, freedom, and prosperity are indivisible in a world that can no longer be split into isolated fragments. He pledged that free India would work alongside other nations to promote global peace and the welfare of all humanity. Nehru concluded by paying tribute to Mahatma Gandhi, referring to him as the architect of their freedom and the “father of our nation”, whose goal was to wipe every tear from every eye, and acknowledging the sacrifices made by the people and urging the nation to face the future with courage and faith.
The history of independent India can boast of many great orators who have, from time to time, delivered rousing and inspiring speeches, both in the country and abroad. Those addresses spanned a spectrum of styles, from marathon diplomatic defences and powerful indictments of terrorism to the championing of Hindi on the global stage.
Throughout the drafting of the Constitution of India, the legendary jurist, economist and social reformer, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar delivered several brilliant and guiding speeches. His address during the adoption of the Constitution stressed the need to safeguard democracy and avoid the pitfalls of hero worship.
Ram Manohar Lohia, the maverick socialist leader, delivered a groundbreaking economic speech. He highlighted that a vast majority of Indians survived on just 3 annas (less than a rupee) a day, sparking a massive debate on poverty under Nehru’s government.
Another such a great piece of oratory was that of the legendary Indian statesman V.K. Krishna Menon, delivering, in 1957, the longest speech in UN history. Speaking for 7 hours and 48 minutes across multiple sessions, he passionately defended India’s sovereign position on Kashmir, displaying astonishing endurance and oratorical resilience. Another memorable speech was the one made by Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1977. As India’s External Affairs Minister, he became the first Indian leader to address the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in Hindi. His stirring poetry and eloquent oration on global peace and the Non-Aligned Movement brought a deeply rooted Indian identity to the world body. Likewise, the speeches of Sushma Swaraj, who was known for her commanding presence and hard-hitting delivery, are celebrated for sharply holding Pakistan accountable for state-sponsored terrorism. She contrasted India’s rise as an IT superpower with Pakistan’s role as an ‘export factory for terror’. Also noted for their significance were the addresses of Prime Minister Modi who, in 2021, utilized his UNGA addresses to position India as the ‘mother of democracy’ and a global leader in combating climate change. He emphasized India’s trajectory of inclusive development and warned the international community against the perils of terrorism.
Indira Gandhi’s fieriest and most celebrated speech in Parliament was delivered in the Lok Sabha on December 18, 1971, following India’s decisive military victory over Pakistan and the liberation of Bangladesh. Addressing the House after receiving a standing ovation from Members of Parliament, she delivered a fiercely triumphant, patriotic, and sharp retort to international critics, famously declaring, “All the world admires a deed well done and I think with all modesty we can say that we have done this action well”. Passionately defending the morale and spirit of the Indian Armed Forces and the people of Bangladesh against international powers, proving India’s capability to secure its sovereignty without outside interference, she cautioned the nation that “the road ahead is still long and very steep,” inspiring MPs and the country to scale “new heights of quality and of excellence.”
In August 1976 Janata Party MP Dr. Subramanian Swamy staged a historic defiance during the Emergency by walking into the Rajya Sabha. During obituary references, he raised a point of order questioning why the “death of democracy” in India was not included in the list of recent obituaries. He was subsequently expelled from the House.
On May 27, 1996, Vajpayee, whose Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had emerged as the single largest party, stood before the lower house. Because his minority government lacked numbers to prove its majority, he realised that the opposition had united against him. Instead of simply conceding defeat, he delivered a resolute and dignified hour-long address defending his democratic values and his party’s commitment to the nation’s interests. The address is best remembered for his iconic and timeless words expressing his philosophy on power and democratic resilience:
“Satta ka khel toh chalta rahega, sarkarein aayengi, jayengi, partiyan banengi, bigdenge. Magar yeh desh rehna chahiye, is desh ka loktantra amar rehna chahiye.” Or, the game of power will go on, governments will come and go, parties will be formed and dissolved. But this country must remain, the democracy of this country must remain immortal.
Famed for his quick wit and sharp humor, Veteran Parliamentarian Piloo Mody delivered some of the most memorable and witty speeches in the Lok Sabha, bringing levity to serious debates while sharply criticizing opposing policies.
The fiery, impassioned, and articulately structured speeches of Sushma Swaraj, as the Leader of the Opposition, on foreign policy, security, and domestic issues are widely regarded as modern parliamentary masterclasses.
Educational institutions often organise what are known as ‘mock parliament sessions’. Mock Parliament sessions in educational institutions are experiential learning exercises designed to simulate legislative and democratic processes. Students assume Parliamentary roles, such as the Speaker, Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, and Members of Parliament, to debate bills, address national issues, and navigate parliamentary decorum. Such events help students understand the constitutional structure, the law-making processes, and the nuances of governance. They also foster critical thinking, negotiation, leadership, and public speaking abilities, apart from encouraging active discussions on current socio-political and economic affairs.
Several instances, both instructive and amusing, can be found in the history of the proceedings of legislatures around the world.
The rich and remarkable history of the functioning of the Houses of Congress in the USA, for instance, is marked off by many significant milestone events.
Among the defining moments of congressional oratory which altered American history, five stand out, each demonstrating the power of the spoken word within the hallowed precincts of the Halls of Congress, whether in the context of defending the Constitution, advancing civil rights, or guiding the nation through war. One was when, during a fierce debate over tariffs and state sovereignty in 1830, Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts delivered a spellbinding, two-hour defence of the Union. His resounding conclusion, “Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!” defined the constitutional foundation of the United States. Another was the case of John Quincy Adams who, after leaving the Presidency in 1829, served in the House of Representatives and became known as ‘Old Man Eloquent’. For over a decade, he fiercely utilized congressional oratory and petitions to battle the ‘gag rule’. which forbade antislavery petitions and vehemently condemned the slave trade. Yet another was during the Watergate proceedings in 1974, of Representative Barbara Jordan of Texas delivering a masterful address, morally compelling the House Judiciary Committee. With unwavering authority, she famously stated, “My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total.”
In a similar manner, following the brutal violence of “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Alabama, President Lyndon B. Johnson, in 1965, addressed a joint session of Congress to urge the passage of the sweeping voting rights legislation, famously closing the speech with the rallying cry of the civil rights movement, “We shall overcome.”
A striking personality in that history was Congress woman Rankin, the first woman elected to Congress and the only member to vote against both World War I and World War II. Her solitary, courageous declarations challenged the institution and remain enduring symbols of pacifist conviction.
The story of the proceedings of Parliament and State Legislatures in India offers several moments that provided welcome relief from the otherwise mundane tedium. In that context, this columnist recollects an amusing incident. Justice Hidayatullah, in his capacity as the Chairman ex officio, of the Rajya Sabha, was once presiding over the question hour in the Upper House. The inimitable Piloo Modi, Mrs. Margaret Alva and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi were the principal actors in the incident. After some heated exchanges the Chair recited a Persian couplet apt to the situation. Piloo rose, protesting that he, of all people, failed to understand the couplet! Hidayatullah obliged, translating the meaning as “steel cuts steel”. Having earlier pleaded ignorance of Farsi, Modi this time said, “why not use the other couplet which says diamond cuts diamond”? Hidayatullah looked at both sides of the House in turn, and wryly observed, “I see no diamonds here on either side!”
Another witty exchange took place on a Thursday, the Prime Minister‘s day for replying to questions in the Rajya Sabha. While the discussion was going on Piloo Mody found that Hidayatullah was repeatedly leaning to his right, craning his neck and turning his ear towards the Prime Minister whenever she spoke. Having observed this for a few minutes, he stood up and asked the Chairman whether, while the Prime Minister was undoubtedly a strikingly good-looking lady, was there any need for the Chair to look in her direction so many times. Bashfully, Hidayatullah was forced to make a confession that brought out a fact that even this columnist had not known earlier. Apparently, he wore a hearing aid on the left side of his spectacles and, had, had to turn his neck to hear clearly, whenever someone spoke from his right side!
An amusing incident once took place during the proceedings of the Andhra Pradesh Assembly in Hyderabad. Veteran Congress leader K. Rosaiah, who subsequently rose to become the Chief Minister of the state and, subsequently, the Governor of Tamil Nadu state, was then the Finance Minister. The budget of the state was being presented and, at a point during the speech, Rosaiah referred to the marriage of Lord Siva, to his consort Goddess Parvathi, to illustrate a point being made. Promptly, Bejavada Papi Reddy, the witty and extremely articulate legislator from the then Nellore district, stood up and remarked that the Finance Minister’s description of the divine event was so detailed that one would think that he was present at the event! The whole house burst into spontaneous laughter!
The legendary NTR had entered politics after three decades and more in the celluloid world, where he had led a sheltered and largely cloistered life. He found himself bewildered and dismayed by the harsh realities of the political world. Just as in the case of his career as an actor, however, he soon mastered the tricks of the trade, an exercise to which I had my own humble contribution to make. But, on several occasions he continued to display a sort of innocence and disarming frankness, that left even his opponents totally flummoxed. I remember how, on one occasion, he was responding to a question in the Legislative Council of the state. Seated in the opposition benches were stalwarts, such as the veteran communist leader, P. Sundarayya. Sensing the discomfort the Chief Minister was feeling in fielding the query, Sundarayya got up and suggested that NTR might want to take my assistance, as I was available in the officers Gallery. NTR, however, declined the offer and proceeded to read the whole text of the Note for supplementaries which had been given to him, but only in order to help him answer the question. It contained many details, which need not, and, in fact, should not have been divulged! Such was his charisma, and the trust people reposed in him, that the Members of the House exchanged smiles and carried on with the business of the day!
Following a feeling in informed circles in the country that proceedings of Parliament and State Legislatures ought to be opened to the public of the country, efforts were made to infuse into them an element of transparency and accountability. They have, however, sometimes had unintended repercussions. Live telecasts of Parliamentary proceedings, for instance, certainly promote democratic transparency and public accountability, by allowing citizens to directly observe how lawmakers debate and vote on policies. They not only promote democratic transparency and public accountability, by allowing citizens to directly observe how lawmakers debate and vote on policies but also enable the public to witness the proceedings actions and hold their elected representatives accountable for their stances. The facility also offers citizens firsthand insight into how governments function, the legislative processes, and policy priorities, as open cameras act as a deterrent against unethical behaviour, bribery, or arbitrary actions during crucial decision-making processes. However, ever since the practice began, the medium’s nature frequently altered the behaviour of the Members, incentivizing grandstanding for the cameras, oversimplifying complex legislation, and sometimes resulting in partisan media censorship. The presence of cameras often encourages politicians to perform for the media, prioritize sensational soundbites over substantive debate, and stage dramatic walkouts for attention. What is more, state-owned and commercial networks may selectively edit footage – such as focusing exclusively on ruling benches while muting or blacking out protests from the opposition – leading to state censorship. MPs have also been known deliberately to disrupt proceedings or create an uproar, knowing that aggressive confrontations attract more media coverage and airtime than quiet, detailed policy discussions.
The attack on the Parliament Building in Delhi on 13 December 2001, was a terrorist act, carried out by five Jaish-e-Mohammed militants and resulting in the deaths of six Delhi Police personnel, two Parliament Security Service personnel, and a gardener. All five militants were killed by security forces. Strangely enough and as destiny would have it, it happened to be a Saturday, and I was attending to some important paperwork in my office close by in Nirman Bhavan. I was then the Additional Secretary in the Department of Land Resources of Ministry of Rural Development, and it was my habit to reserve holidays for work which required undisturbed concentration and attention. I suddenly heard sounds which, initially, I thought were firecrackers being burst by some enthusiastic group, although it was nowhere near Diwali time. It was only much later, after I had reached home, that I learnt about the dastardly attack.
Among the greatest achievements of India as a Republic has been that the form of governance, she has chosen for herself, a Parliamentary democracy, would certainly appear to have come of age and matured into a responsible and civilised system. One fondly hopes that, going forward, legislators, both at the national and state levels, will perfect the act of rising above narrow political barriers and represent the people who have elected them effectively and with a sense of patriotism.
To end this somewhat serious discussion on a lighter note, a couple of snippets.
A Speaker of the House of Commons of Britain, while on a visit to India, was making the customary courtesy call on the Vice President of India. During that meeting, the Speaker related the funny instance of his refusing to allow a question in his House, by a member who had asked what the time was, on the ground that it had been asked, and answered, earlier in the same session!
There is also this story, probably apocryphal, between Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone, both formerly Prime Ministers of England. The issue was what a disastrous event was to be called, a calamity or a catastrophe. Disraeli reportedly said that if Gladstone fell into the Thames river, it would be a misfortune; however, if someone rescued him, it would be a calamity!