The Hollowing of Parliament, When Institutions Become Ceremonial Shells in the Service of Political Theater

The Hollowing of Parliament, When Institutions Become Ceremonial Shells in the Service of Political Theater

A recent, intense parliamentary deadlock—sparked by the expulsion of the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) from the chamber—has been treated by much of the political class and media as a procedural skirmish, a clash of inflated egos, or simply another episode of noisy democratic friction. However, to view it merely as a political spat is to profoundly misunderstand its significance. This event is not an anomaly but a stark symptom of a deeper, more systemic malaise: the deliberate and accelerating hollowing out of India’s democratic institutions, with Parliament as its central and most symbolic casualty. The standoff is a microcosm of a larger struggle between the substance of parliamentary democracy and its ceremonial performance, where the former is being systematically evacuated to serve the latter.

The Unplayed Scenario: A Missed Lesson in Democratic Confidence

As the columnist Suhas Palshikar incisively notes, the deadlock could have unfolded in a manner that would have strengthened, not weakened, democratic norms. Imagine an alternate reality: as the LoP rises to speak, amidst predictable heckling from the treasury benches, the Prime Minister himself intervenes. He could assert that a confident government has no fear of scrutiny, and that the LoP must be heard. Such a gesture would have been a masterclass in democratic magnanimity. It would have projected supreme confidence, robbed the Opposition of a potent victimhood narrative, and, most importantly, reaffirmed the sanctity of the parliamentary floor as a space for unfettered debate, even—especially—for harsh criticism.

That this path was not chosen is revealing. It points not merely to a failure of political tact but to a fundamental ideological and operational shift in how the ruling establishment views institutions. The refusal is rooted in a perception where the Opposition is not seen as a legitimate, constitutionally mandated counterweight—a “government-in-waiting”—but as an existential adversary to a larger, divinely-ordained national mission. In this worldview, parliamentary accountability is not a virtue but an inconvenient procedural hurdle. The House, therefore, must be managed, not engaged with; its disruptive potential neutralized, not negotiated.

The Erosion of Parliament’s Core Purpose: From Answerability to Acclamation

The parliamentary system, at its heart, was designed for continuous, real-time accountability. The executive is meant to be on trial every single day the House is in session, forced to explain, defend, and modify its actions under the relentless glare of elected representatives. This daily dialectic is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy, ensuring that power is constantly questioned and public interest remains paramount.

What we are witnessing is the systematic replacement of this culture of answerability with a culture of acclamation. Parliament is increasingly being used as a stage to broadcast pre-decided narratives, launch political campaigns, and pass legislation with minimal substantive debate. The “essence of the system”—the right to question, delay, and dissent—is treated as “dispensable.” Key legislative changes are pushed through as Money Bills to bypass the Rajya Sabha, committees are bypassed or rendered toothless, and sessions are truncated, minimizing opportunities for detailed scrutiny. The House is becoming a venue for ratification, not deliberation.

The Twin Pillars of Institutional Hollowing: Cultural Contempt and Ideological Override

This hollowing is not occurring in a vacuum. It is propelled by two powerful, mutually reinforcing forces:

1. A Pre-existing Culture of Instrumentalism: Since Independence, India has suffered from a paradoxical relationship with its institutions. While a remarkable constitutional and institutional framework was erected, a culture of truly internalizing their spirit was often lacking. Across the spectrum—among civil servants, judges, and politicians—there has been a tendency towards formalism over substance. Institutions were often seen as structures to be navigated, bent, or bypassed for personal, partisan, or bureaucratic convenience. The independent spirit of institutions was frequently undermined by patronage, corruption, and a lack of courage. This created a fertile ground where institutional decay could take root.

2. An Ideology of Majoritarian Missionism: The current political moment adds a potent new ingredient to this pre-existing weakness. It is characterized by a deep-seated belief that the ruling party embodies the national will in a unique, almost metaphysical sense. Its electoral victories are interpreted not just as political success but as a popular mandate for a civilizational reawakening. In this framework, institutional checks and balances, particularly those that empower the opposition or enable dissent, are viewed not as democratic safeguards but as “colonially inspired” Western baggage, remnants of a Nehruvian past that must be overcome. Opposition is not legitimate dissent; it is an obstacle to the nation’s pre-ordained destiny. This belief system justifies overriding institutional norms in the name of a “higher purpose.”

The convergence of these two tendencies—the old habit of bending rules meeting a new ideology that considers some rules obsolete—has created a perfect storm for institutional erosion.

The Metastasis of Hollowing: Beyond Parliament

The decay is not confined to Parliament alone. It has become a metastatic pattern visible across the institutional landscape, demonstrating that the parliamentary crisis is merely the most visible tip of a vast iceberg:

• The Executive: Investigative agencies are widely perceived not as independent arbiters of law but as instruments of political targeting. Their actions often appear synchronized with the political calendar, creating a chilling effect on dissent.

• The Judiciary: While delivering landmark judgments, the higher judiciary is also critiqued for perceived delays and abdications on crucial questions of civil liberties, electoral integrity, and executive overreach. Its legitimacy is fraying in the public eye.

• Constitutional Bodies: Governors in opposition-ruled states frequently act as partisan agents, creating unending discord. The Election Commission, once a globally revered institution, now faces serious questions about its autonomy and its handling of the electoral process, from voter harassment allegations to the timing of its actions.

• The Blurring of Constitutional and Sacred Authority: Perhaps the most profound symbolic shift is the deliberate conflation of state and religious authority. When senior armed forces personnel attend religious ceremonies in official uniform, when judges participate in overtly religious-political rituals, and when the Prime Minister’s public persona seamlessly merges that of a head of government with that of a religious-cultural head, it represents a profound deinstitutionalization. It signals that the neutral, secular, procedural authority of the state is being subsumed into a majoritarian, culturally-specific identity. This fundamentally alters the nature of the state itself, moving it from a neutral arena to an embodiment of a particular belief system.

The Long-Term Consequences: From Meaningless to Malevolent

The short-term fallout of the parliamentary deadlock will likely follow a familiar script: partisan blame-gaming, fleeting media outrage, and eventual resumption of a hollowed-out normalcy. Commentators will preach balance, blaming “both sides” and equating the procedural aggression of a dominant executive with the desperate protests of a marginalized opposition.

But the long-term consequences are far more dangerous. As Palshikar warns, the destination of this process is institutions that become not just meaningless, but actively harmful to citizens’ rights. A Parliament that does not debate ceases to represent. A judiciary seen as compliant fails to protect. Investigative agencies that act as political weapons destroy the rule of law. When institutions lose their core purpose—to check power, ensure fairness, and protect liberty—they do not simply become inert. They can be weaponized. They become tools for the very oppression they were designed to prevent.

Once this hollowing is complete, the final step becomes frighteningly easy: replacement. The pathway is cleared for discarding the old, “burdensome” institutional framework altogether in favor of a new, streamlined system designed not for balance but for efficacy in fulfilling the ruling ideology’s mission. The hollowed-out shell of the old Parliament can be kept for its photogenic grandeur, even as its soul is extinguished.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Substance

The current crisis in Parliament is therefore a clarion call. It is a fight not over a single speech or suspension, but over the very soul of Indian democracy. The question is whether India will remain a parliamentary democracy, where power is contested and answerable in a vibrant, often chaotic arena of equals, or whether it will morph into a plebiscitary democracy, where popular acclaim, mediated through a controlled public sphere, replaces daily accountability, and institutions are reduced to theatrical props in a pageant of power.

Defending Parliament is not about defending politicians. It is about defending the only mechanism that forces the mighty to answer to the powerless, not just every five years, but every single day. The choice is between a living, breathing, arguing House that gives meaning to democracy, and a hollowed-out monument that merely echoes the commands of those already in power. The silence in that hollowed chamber would be the silence of democracy itself.

Q&A: Understanding the Institutional Hollowing of Indian Democracy

Q1: The article argues that the recent parliamentary deadlock is a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself. What exactly is this “larger problem”?

A1: The larger problem is the systematic hollowing out of democratic institutions, with Parliament being the prime example. This involves preserving the external, ceremonial form of institutions while gutting their core substantive function. Parliament’s function is real-time executive accountability and rigorous debate. The “hollowing” occurs when its sessions are shortened, debates curtailed, opposition voices gagged, and its role is reduced to a stage for government announcements and the mechanical passage of legislation. The deadlock over the LoP’s speech is a flashpoint that reveals this deeper erosion: the unwillingness of the executive to subject itself to unfettered, immediate questioning within the House, which is the very raison d’être of a parliamentary system.

Q2: What does the article mean by the “coexistence of two tendencies” that are driving this hollowing? Explain both.

A2:

• Tendency 1 (Cultural): A Pre-existing Instrumentalist Culture: Since Independence, many Indian elites—politicians, bureaucrats, judges—have often treated institutions formally rather than spiritually. There’s a history of bending rules, using patronage, and bypassing procedures for personal or partisan gain. This created a weak institutional culture where the letter of the law was often subverted, lacking a deep-seated, uncompromising commitment to their independent spirit. Institutions were seen as tools to be used, not norms to be revered.

• Tendency 2 (Ideological): The Rise of Majoritarian Missionism: The current ruling ideology views its electoral success as a mandate for a civilizational reclamation. It sees itself as the sole authentic representative of the “true” nation. From this vantage point, institutional checks (like a robust Opposition, an independent judiciary, a neutral Election Commission) are perceived not as democratic necessities but as obstacles left over from a “Westernized” past. This ideology believes in a “higher purpose” that justifies overriding procedural norms.

The convergence is deadly: the old habit of cutting corners meets a new ideology that provides a righteous justification for doing so, accelerating institutional decay.

Q3: How is the “hollowing” manifesting in institutions beyond Parliament? Provide specific examples from the text.

A3: The hollowing is a metastatic pattern visible across the state:

• Executive Agencies: Investigative agencies (like the CBI, ED) are perceived as weapons of political harassment, losing credibility as independent arbiters.

• The Judiciary: Accused of abdication by delaying or avoiding crucial constitutional questions regarding executive power and civil liberties, eroding public trust.

• Constitutional Bodies: Governors act as partisan agents in opposition states. The Election Commission faces allegations of partisan conduct and voter harassment, damaging its image of neutrality.

• Blurring of State and Religion: Armed forces officers in uniform at religious events, judges participating in political-religious rituals, and the Prime Minister adopting the public imagery of a religious leader. This deinstitutionalizes the state, merging secular, constitutional authority with majoritarian religious identity.

Q4: The article warns that hollowed-out institutions can become “harmful.” How can an institution that is meaningless become actively harmful?

A4: An institution that has lost its core purpose of checking power and protecting rights doesn’t just fade away. It can be repurposed as a weapon. For example:

• A hollowed-out Parliament can be used to pass draconian laws without scrutiny, harming minority rights.

• A hollowed-out investigative agency can be used to jail activists and opposition figures on trumped-up charges, harming political freedom.

• A hollowed-out Election Commission can tilt the electoral playing field, harming the right to free and fair elections.
  Thus, the institution’s remaining shell—its legal powers, its police force, its official stamp—is detached from its democratic soul and is instead used to legitimize and execute actions that violate the very principles it was meant to uphold. It becomes a tool of authoritarianism wearing the mask of legality.

Q5: What is the ultimate danger or endgame of this process of hollowing, as suggested in the conclusion?

A5: The ultimate danger is the complete replacement of the democratic constitutional order. Once institutions are rendered meaningless and public faith in them is destroyed, the final step becomes politically easier. The ruling ideology could argue that the old “Western” system is broken and inefficient. It could then propose a new, streamlined system—perhaps with a powerfully centralized executive, a weakened legislature, and a compliant judiciary—designed not for balance and rights protection, but for the “efficient” realization of its ideological goals. The hollowed-out shells of the old institutions (the Parliament building, courtrooms) might remain for symbolic show, but the living, breathing, adversarial democracy they were meant to house would be gone. The pathway from a hollowed democracy to an outright authoritarian system is tragically clear.