Dolly and Sudha are debating about the efficiency and effectiveness of the Parliament in recent times. Dolly believed that the decline of Indian Parliament is evident in the less time spent on debate and discussion and increase in the disturbances of the functioning of the House and walkouts etc. Sudha contends that the fall of different governments on the floor of Lok Sabha is a proof of its vibrancy. What other arguments can you provide to support or oppose the positions of Dolly and Sudha?
Both Dolly and Sudha present valid perspectives on the functioning of Parliament, and additional arguments can support or oppose their positions.
Supporting Dolly's view of decline: In the last two decades, there has been a gradual decline in sessions of the Lok Sabha and time spent on debates. The Houses of Parliament have been plagued by absence of quorum and boycott of sessions by opposition members. This deprives the House of its power to control the executive through discussion. In most democracies, legislatures are losing central place to the executive, and in India too, the Cabinet initiates policies and sets the agenda for governance.
Supporting Sudha's view of vibrancy: Parliament is recognised as one of the most democratic and open forum of debate. On account of its composition, it is the most representative of all organs of government. It is vested with the power to choose and dismiss the government. Even very strong cabinets must retain majority in the legislature, and a strong leader has to face the Parliament and answer to its satisfaction.
Additional perspective: The sheer presence of members from diverse social backgrounds makes the legislatures more representative and potentially more responsive to people's expectations. Parliament can effectively control the executive and ensure a more responsive government, provided there is adequate time, members participate effectively, and there is willingness to compromise between government and opposition.
Explanation
This question tests students' understanding of the debates around parliamentary effectiveness. The textbook context provides arguments for both positions: evidence of decline (reduced sessions, boycotts, executive dominance) and evidence of vibrancy (representative character, power to dismiss governments, democratic forum for debate). A balanced answer acknowledging both perspectives with specific examples from the text would receive full marks.