The real question is the quality of democracy

Recently, intense discussions have resumed in India on topics like increasing the number of Lok Sabha members, delimitation of constituencies, and new representation based on population. While the ruling party projects this as a democratic necessity, opposition parties are responding in terms of regional balance and political gains and losses. Television studios, political forums, and social media discussions are all revolving around numbers. But in the minds of the country's people, a more fundamental question exists. How many of the current MPs are working properly? In a dysfunctional system, would increasing the number of members benefit the country, or would it just increase the burden?

In a democracy, MPs are elected to speak on behalf of the people, question the government, scrutinize laws, and decide the country's direction. But looking at Parliament's performance over the past decade, it is clear that it is the quality, not just the number, that has declined. The number of sitting days of Lok Sabha has significantly decreased. Parliament, which once met for 120 days a year, is now limited to an average of 55–70 days. The total number of sittings during the entire term of the 17th Lok Sabha was also recorded as low compared to the past. This means the country's problems are increasing, but the platform that should discuss them has less time.

The attendance percentage is somewhat decent. Many members attend the sessions. But how many of them spoke about public issues? How many brought issues like farmer suicides, unemployment, price rise, health, education, and poverty to the government's attention? How many engaged in deep debate on laws? Many crucial bills were passed in minutes. The tradition of sending bills to committees for scrutiny has weakened. Question hour has also frequently been disrupted by interruptions. In these circumstances, talking about increasing the number of MPs is like planning to build an upper floor while the house is collapsing.

An even more serious problem is that Parliament is gradually becoming a platform dominated by the wealthy. Among recently elected members, an overwhelming majority are millionaires (crorepatis). People with massive assets, business empires, and corporate connections are coming in as public representatives. While this may not be illegal, it is questionable from a democratic perspective. Because will individuals with significant business interests look out for the people? Or will they try to shape policies favorable to their sectors, businesses, and investments? This is a natural public suspicion.

The poor, the middle class, workers, small farmers, unemployed youth, small traders… these are the backbone of the nation. But their voice often appears weak in policy discussions. Whether it's rising education costs, high medical expenses, soaring fuel prices, the urban middle class crushed by EMIs, or rural poor fighting for employment, there is no sustained pressure in Parliament. Political strategies, electoral math tactics, and power struggles have become the main topics of discussion, overshadowing people's daily hardships.

Another issue that frustrates the public is party defections. One ideology before the election, another party after the election. People vote for one flag, but some members defect to other parties for positions, ministerial posts, fear of past criminal cases, or the desire to stay close to power. This is not just a problem of political morality; it is a shameless, open betrayal of the voter. In a democracy, the value of a vote is not just for the individual candidate but also for the ideology he professed with conviction. If leaders who trample that value and move towards power increase in number, will democracy really strengthen?

The number of members facing criminal cases is also a blemish on democracy. Individuals facing serious cases sitting in legislatures sends a wrong message to the people. If people with legal doubts wield influence in a forum that should respect the law, trust in the system erodes.

So what will happen if the number of members is increased now? More salaries, allowances, residences, security, staff, offices, pensions, and administrative costs will increase. Ultimately, this is the people's tax money. If the people do not get better laws, strong debates, transparent governance, reduced corruption, and accountable representatives, this expense cannot be justified.

Before increasing the numbers, what the country needs are clear reforms. There should be annual public reports on the performance of members. Attendance, participation in debates, committee work, questions asked, and utilization of public funds should all be transparent to voters. The trial of candidates with criminal cases must be expedited. Strict laws against party defections must be enforced. Disruptions in the house should invite penalties. Sending bills to committees should be mandatory. Crucially, electoral reforms are needed so that genuine representatives from ordinary sections can enter politics.

The country needs a great Parliament, not a large one. Democracy will not be strengthened by increasing chairs; it will be strengthened only by increasing responsibility. If Parliament becomes a chamber of millionaires, a platform for opportunists, a refuge for defecting leaders, and a silent forum on public issues, then whether the number of members is 543 or 800, it is useless.

The question the people are asking now is very simple and direct: First, give us MPs who work… then increase the numbers. This is the real awakening for democracy.