By Narayan Prasad Mishra
In a parliamentary system, the government is formed under the leadership of a party or coalition that commands the trust of a majority of the members of the House of Representatives, who are elected and nominated according to the constitution of the country. Thus, the House of Representatives is the birthplace of a government. In a bicameral system, both Houses of Parliament are considered the cornerstone of democracy. In this setting, elected representatives debate policies, pass laws, and ensure governance reflects the will of the people. It is also assumed that the leader of the government would be the best among the best and would always prioritize the highest welfare of the country and its people.
At the same time, it is expected that parliament will continuously formulate laws that benefit the country and its citizens. It is also assumed that parliamentarians will not act as puppets and servants of party leaders, refraining from speaking the truth based solely on conscience for the overall benefit of the country and its people. The system never anticipates that it serves only the interests of a leader or party. With these considerations, the parliamentary system of democracy is regarded as the best form of governance. For this purpose, countries spend a large portion of their budget on the election and running the parliament.
Parliament as a Puppet
However, in many so-called backward or underdeveloped countries, where the majority of people are uneducated and unaware of their civil duties, the parliamentary system often fails to function as intended. If we analyze the reasons, we find several key factors. First and foremost, within political parties, only those who are close to powerful leaders receive opportunities to run as candidates in elections. As a result, these candidates learn to be loyal to their leaders, whether they are right or wrong. Consequently, parliamentarians blindly obey their leaders, even when those leaders act against the interests of the people and the country.
Elections in such nations are often manipulated through vote-buying, intimidation, or outright fraud. Parliaments do not function as independent legislative bodies; instead, they become tools in the hands of powerful leaders, business tycoons, and foreign influences. Parliamentarians lack the courage to speak their conscience for the nation and its people, instead tailoring their words to align with the expectations of their influential party leaders. Once in power, these so-called representatives rarely work for the people; instead, they serve the interests of their leaders and financial backers. As a result, parliaments turn into mere rubber-stamp institutions that approve decisions made elsewhere.
Parliament is supposed to be the heart of democracy, where elected representatives freely debate issues, pass laws, and hold the government accountable. However, in many countries, parliamentary democracy has been reduced to a mere formality. Members of Parliament (MPs) act not as independent voices of the people but as obedient followers of their political parties. The enforcement of the “party whip”—a system that compels MPs to vote according to their party’s instructions—undermines the very essence of parliamentary democracy. It reduces parliament to a rubber-stamp institution rather than a platform for meaningful deliberation, making it ineffective and transforming it into a symbolic entity that serves the ruling elite rather than the people.
Rampant Corruption and Misuse of Power
Corruption is perhaps the most significant reason why parliaments in backward countries serve little purpose. Lawmakers often prioritize personal enrichment over national progress, engaging in bribery, nepotism, and embezzlement. Parliamentary debates become theatrical performances meant to deceive the public, while real decisions are made through backdoor deals. When laws are passed, they frequently benefit the wealthy elite rather than addressing the struggles of ordinary citizens. In such a system, the very essence of parliamentary democracy is lost.
Political Instability and Chaos
Another major issue is political instability, which plagues many developing nations. Frequent changes in government, power struggles between factions, and opportunistic alliances prevent parliaments from functioning effectively. Rather than focusing on governance and policymaking, politicians spend their time plotting how to overthrow opponents or secure more power. This instability results in weak institutions, economic stagnation, and a lack of long-term planning for national development.
Lack of Public Trust and Participation
Due to these systemic failures, the general public in backward countries often loses faith in parliamentary democracy. People become disillusioned, seeing no real difference between one corrupt politician and another. Civic engagement declines, and protests or violent uprisings become the only means for citizens to express their frustration. When a government loses legitimacy in the eyes of its people, the very foundation of democracy crumbles.
Condition of Our Country
The situation in our country closely mirrors the issues described above. The key problems are outlined below:
1. The parliament does not function as an independent body.
2. Parliamentarians lack the courage to speak their conscience.
3. Excessive control through party whips.
4. Opportunities are available only to those close to powerful leaders.
5. The same political figures, including prime ministers and ministers, remain in power.
6. Disregard the opinions and views of opposition leaders.
7. Rampant corruption and frequent corruption scandals.
8. Widespread nepotism and favoritism.
9. Political instability and frequent changes in government.
10. A decline in good governance.
11. Lack of opportunities and justice for free citizens not affiliated with any party.
12. Erosion of public trust in the government.
We have a parliamentary system of government, but it hardly functions as envisioned. We rarely feel that our prime minister is elected as the best among the best from the members of the House of Representatives, nor do we see parliament and the government working for the benefit of the country and its people. The general perception is that they serve themselves, their parties, and their loyal followers rather than working for the country and its people. We often see the same political figures from various parties becoming prime ministers and ministers repeatedly for decades, leaving behind young, knowledgeable, and energetic.
As a result, we see a decline in all aspects—morally, economically, politically, and socially—while people suffer from unbearable corruption, irregularities, mismanagement, injustice, exploitation, and fraud. We all know the burning example of recent times that millions of people were cheated out of billions of rupees by cooperative organizations run by fraudsters like Iccha Raj Tamang, the former UML parliamentarian closely linked to the political parties. Millions of victims have been crying for justice for years, yet the government has taken no effective action beyond opening some offices to address the issue. It is hard to comprehend why our government cannot implement an effective solution to such urgent and legitimate problems and deliver justice without delay. At the same time, the bold President Trump of the USA was able to enact even controversial and undesirable measures by establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) through an executive order.
Similarly, when we analyze the activities and performance of our parliamentarians, we hardly see the presence of many MPs in parliamentary debates. Some remain idle, while most merely echo their party’s directives. Bills are passed based on party guidelines rather than genuine deliberation. Some active and dynamic parliamentarians, such as Chandra Bhandary, Amresh Kumar Singh, Chitra Bahadur K.C., Gyanendra Bahadur Shahi, Prem Suwal, Dhawal Shumsher Rana, Prabhu Sah, Sumana Shrestha, Biraj Bhakta Shrestha, Swarnim Wagle, Manish Jha, Gagan Kumar Thapa, Bishwa Prakash Sharma, Rajendra Lingden, Janardan Sharma, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal, speak well. However, their speeches seem valuable only when they are in the opposition, with some exceptions, such as Chandra Bhandary. The same people, when they are in government, speak just the opposite from their record, keeping aside their conscience and courage. It suggests that parliamentarians act as true representatives of the people only when they are not in government and when they speak against the opposition party or its members. Even in this context, they hardly show courage and honesty when speaking based on facts and truth, criticizing their own party or colleagues, and appreciating their opponents when there is a point for it. However, even the most valuable views and opinions of opposition parliamentarians are often disregarded in our system. If a parliament is merely a place for gossip, biased accusations, and unproductive debates, fails to foster creative criticism, and passes everything through the party whip, it does not justify its existence.
This highlights the uselessness of parliament and its members in our context. This highlights the waste of large sums of money taxed from poor citizens or given by donor countries to alleviate our poverty. It demonstrates that there is no real purpose or advantage in having a parliamentary system in our country where a high command outside the legislative process dictates all decisions. Our parliament exists merely for show. We know that our constitution was drafted and formulated not by a true Constitutional Assembly but by the top leaders of eight political parties that had united to dismantle the previous system, even with foreign influence. The recently published views of President Trump of the USA and the speaker Johnson have brought out the fact that the USA had invested a large amount of money in making our country a secular instead of a Hindu where more than 90 percent of Hindus live and the federal nation which is so tiny – smaller than many states of India or the USA. They passed the constitution without considering public opinions or allowing any genuine debate, removing the centuries-old Kingship with conspiracy. The same pattern continues today, as seen in the likely approval of controversial bills ignoring widespread criticism, such as the Media Bill (Contradictory to press freedom ), the Land Bill (which contradicts good governance), and the Citizenship Bill (which proposes a 10-year visa for NRN citizens, a provision contradictory to the concept of citizenship).
Alternatives to a Dysfunctional Parliament
Given these realities, one must question whether a parliamentary system is truly beneficial for backward countries. In theory, parliamentary democracy should provide checks and balances, foster debate, and ensure representation. However, when it becomes a mere tool for powerful elites, serving their personal and party interests rather than the nation’s welfare, its very purpose is defeated.
In such cases, alternative governance models may be more effective. A strong, centralized leadership with clear accountability, efficiency, and a focus on national development can sometimes achieve more than a dysfunctional parliament. Countries like China and Singapore, for example, have demonstrated that economic progress and governance can be achieved without a traditional parliamentary model. However, their success is not just due to strong leadership but also to strict enforcement of law, institutional discipline, and meritocracy—elements that many underdeveloped countries lack.
A complete shift to authoritarian rule is not the answer, as history has shown that unchecked power often leads to abuse and oppression. Instead, a hybrid model may be worth considering—one that retains parliamentary institutions but minimizes their inefficiencies. For example:
A system where key government positions, including ministers, are appointed based on expertise rather than political loyalty. This could help ensure competent leadership while maintaining democratic accountability.
A model like the one used in France, where both an elected president and a parliament share power. This could prevent the concentration of power in one party while ensuring that governance does not become stagnant due to legislative deadlock. The key is to strike a balance. A nation cannot afford to have a parliament that exists merely for formality, nor can it risk dictatorship. The challenge for backward countries is to design a system that ensures effective governance while preserving democratic values. Until such reforms are implemented, the parliamentary system will continue to serve as a mere façade of democracy rather than a true instrument of national progress.
Comments:
Leave a Reply