But more than that I question the very uprightness of a 'whip' issued by any party for that matter on any issue. A whip is a dictatorial tool of the party high command which in principle claims to believe in democracy, but in practice , by using the whip defeats that very purpose. If any MP strongly feels for an issue, so be it. Tommorow, going by the same logic, why should not the Govt. impose emergency just because it feels the people are going to vote it out in the next election ? So 'charity begins at home'. Let all parties abolish 'whip' and then it will bring a sense of democracy within the party and hence in the country.
RE:I question the role of a whip in a democracy...
by Bharat Prashar on Jul 24, 2008 05:39 PM Permalink
Party whip is a part of the democratic process especially in a country like India where electoral set-up actually recognises the party system. If there were to be no party whip then India with such a large proportion of unscrupulous MPs might have a change of government every weeks well as the elections much more frequently. It will an open invitation for parliamentary anarchy and indeed be a recipe for disaster.
RE:I question the role of a whip in a democracy...
by Rajesh Shetty on Jul 24, 2008 05:54 PM Permalink
Dont forget it was the BJP which started the nuclear process, but opposed it just for opposing it. Now tell me was not that unscrupulous ? In fact India would be better off without party system, let all candidates contest as independents, and then let the majority opinion prevail in parliament. Else there is nothing wrong in dictatorship that way. Remember a good dictatorship is better than a bad democracy. And talking of anarchy, there is already enought of it even with this system. It has only encouraged boot licking on one side and chair pulling dissidents on the other side. So let the parliament function for 5 fixed yrs come what may, and the leader be chosen for a fixed term of 5 yrs. Thats a better way to avoid this present farce.
RE:I question the role of a whip in a democracy...
by Bharat Prashar on Jul 24, 2008 06:11 PM Permalink
I wont nothing to add to your comments about BJP and the nuclear process as you put it. So you would have all independent MPs and a fixed term of 5 years and the leader chosen for the full term? Do you really think that in that scenario any contentious legislation no matter how important or trivial will actually will actuall get passed. Fixed term of the house as well as the leader will not stop the elected representative from behaving in an obstructive manner an explaining it away as voice of their inner conscience. Untill a few decades ago Italy used to have some along those line (fixed tern for the parliament)and some governments only used to last only weeks. Italy at that time was laughing stock of the western world. Whip as the term suggests is a tool of discipline and in case of indiscipline a tool of punishment. As for as your ideas about dictatorship less said the better (though I am told that during the Emergency (the brief taste of a mild version of dictatorship in India) "trains did run on time" and "there was much less overt (but a lot more covert) corruption". But some people, especially the old ones, will also proclaim that things were much better under the British!!!!!
