Democratic institutions need to be transparent, responsive, accountable to people: Speaker Om Birla

Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla's recent emphasis on democratic institutions being transparent, responsive, and accountable to the people, while advocating for both consensus and dissent within parliamentary propriety, offers a crucial lens through which to examine the health and future of India's democratic framework. This statement was made in the context of a conference discussing "Parliamentary challenges in the age of AI and social media," highlighting the contemporary pressures on legislative bodies.

The **background context** for such a statement is multifaceted. India, the world's largest democracy, frequently grapples with balancing robust debate with parliamentary decorum. In recent years, sessions of Parliament have often been marked by disruptions, walkouts, and heated exchanges, sometimes leading to reduced legislative output. The Speaker, as the guardian of the House's dignity and traditions, frequently intervenes to ensure smooth functioning. Furthermore, in an era of increasing public scrutiny, fueled by digital media and the Right to Information Act, 2005, there is a growing demand from citizens for greater openness and answerability from their elected representatives and institutions. The rise of Artificial Intelligence and social media presents both opportunities for enhanced public engagement and challenges in maintaining factual discourse and decorum.

**What happened** was a reiteration of fundamental democratic principles by the Lok Sabha Speaker. Om Birla underscored that transparency allows citizens to understand decision-making processes, responsiveness ensures that institutions address public concerns effectively, and accountability holds those in power responsible for their actions. His nuanced point about consensus and dissent being strengths, provided they adhere to 'parliamentary propriety,' is key. This implies that while diverse viewpoints are essential for a vibrant democracy, their expression must align with the established rules, traditions, and decorum of the legislative body, avoiding disruptions that impede legislative work.

**Key stakeholders** involved in this discourse include: the **Lok Sabha Speaker (Om Birla)** himself, whose role, as outlined in Article 93 of the Constitution, is to preside over the House and maintain order; **Members of Parliament (MPs)**, who are elected representatives tasked with debating, legislating, and holding the executive accountable; **political parties**, whose strategies often dictate the nature of consensus and dissent; and ultimately, the **citizens of India**, for whom these institutions exist and to whom they are ultimately accountable. The **media** (traditional and social) also plays a significant role in disseminating information, shaping public opinion, and sometimes amplifying or scrutinizing parliamentary conduct.

**Why this matters for India** is profound. Firstly, it goes to the heart of **strengthening democratic governance**. Transparent and accountable institutions foster public trust, which is vital for the legitimacy and stability of any democratic system. When citizens perceive their institutions as opaque or unresponsive, it can lead to disillusionment and erosion of faith. Secondly, it directly impacts **parliamentary functioning**. Adherence to propriety allows for meaningful debates, efficient passage of legislation, and effective oversight of the executive, all critical for national development. Disruptions, while sometimes a legitimate form of protest, if excessive, can paralyze legislative business, leading to a backlog of important issues. Thirdly, it is intrinsically linked to the concept of **good governance**, which emphasizes efficiency, effectiveness, participation, rule of law, and accountability.

Historically, India's parliamentary democracy, since its inception in 1947, has witnessed a dynamic interplay between government and opposition, consensus and dissent. The Constituent Assembly debates themselves were a testament to vigorous dissent and eventual consensus on the Constitution. Over the decades, Speakers have consistently upheld the rules of procedure, derived from **Article 118** of the Constitution, to ensure orderly conduct. However, the nature of political discourse has evolved, bringing new challenges to maintaining decorum while allowing for robust opposition. The concept of parliamentary privileges, mentioned in **Article 105**, grants MPs certain immunities to function without fear, but these are not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of propriety.

Looking at **future implications**, the discussion on AI and social media is particularly pertinent. These technologies can democratize information and enhance citizen participation, potentially making institutions more transparent and responsive. However, they also pose risks like the spread of misinformation, deepfakes, and the amplification of polarization, which could undermine democratic discourse and parliamentary processes. Future parliamentary reforms might focus on leveraging technology for greater transparency (e.g., live streaming of committee meetings) while simultaneously devising mechanisms to counter digital threats to democratic integrity. The emphasis on propriety will likely gain more traction as a means to counter the 'noise' and ensure productive legislative work. Ultimately, the continuous striving for transparency, responsiveness, and accountability, coupled with a balanced approach to consensus and dissent, will be crucial for India's democratic institutions to adapt, thrive, and serve its vast and diverse population effectively in the 21st century.