Explore
Settings

Settings

×

Reading Mode

Adjust the reading mode to suit your reading needs.

Font Size

Fix the font size to suit your reading preferences

Language

Select the language of your choice. NewsX reports are available in 11 global languages.
we-woman
Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Why Is There A Need For Whips? V-P Dhankhar Questions Party Discipline Over MPs

Vice President Dhankhar questions the role of party whips in Parliament, urging that they stifle MPs' independent judgment and freedom of expression.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Why Is There A Need For Whips? V-P Dhankhar Questions Party Discipline Over MPs

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar


On Wednesday, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar raised significant concerns about the use of party whips in Parliament, questioning their role in restricting the independent judgment of elected representatives. His remarks have sparked a fresh debate over the balance between party discipline and the freedom of MPs to exercise their judgment on crucial legislative matters.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

A whip, in parliamentary terms, is a written instruction issued by a political party to its members, directing them to attend parliamentary sessions and vote according to the party’s position. This practice is particularly important during the passage of key bills and resolutions, where party unity is critical. MPs who fail to adhere to the whip’s instructions can face penalties such as suspension or disqualification. Senior party members are often appointed as whips to ensure party discipline is maintained within the legislature.

While the system is designed to ensure efficient functioning of Parliament and smooth passage of legislation, Vice President Dhankhar contended that it infringes upon the fundamental rights of MPs. According to Dhankhar, the whip system diminishes the autonomy of elected representatives and curtails their freedom of expression, which is essential for the healthy functioning of a democracy.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

In a statement that resonated with many, Dhankhar emphasized that the presence of a whip undermines the ability of MPs to make independent decisions. “You don’t allow such a person to use his or her mind… Political parties are supposed to promote democracy, but do the elected representatives have the freedom of expression? Whip comes in the way,” he remarked.

By preventing MPs from voting according to their conscience, Dhankhar argued, political parties hinder democracy and place their members under unnecessary pressure. He further stated that the system of issuing a whip subjects lawmakers to “servility,” implying that their primary allegiance becomes the party line rather than the interests of their constituents.

In a further critique, Dhankhar questioned the inconsistency in the voting rights of MPs. He highlighted that while an MP can cast a secret vote during the election of the president or vice president, they are not allowed the same privilege when voting on the election of members to the Rajya Sabha. This inconsistency, according to Dhankhar, is a flaw that undermines the principles of fairness and transparency in the parliamentary process. He also pointed out the oddity of nominated members being allowed to vote in vice-presidential elections but not in presidential ones, suggesting that the rationale behind such decisions is “on quicksand.”

Dhankhar’s comments bring attention to the complexities and contradictions inherent in the political system. While party whips are often justified as tools for maintaining discipline, they also have the potential to stifle individual thought, which could lead to a breakdown in democratic principles.

Despite Vice President Dhankhar’s critique, the necessity of the whip system is widely acknowledged by many experts and political leaders. Party whips play a pivotal role in ensuring that MPs follow the party line on key votes and attend important sessions. Their role is seen as critical for the orderly functioning of legislative bodies, especially in large democratic systems like India.

In the context of India’s political landscape, where coalitions and alliances are often fragile, party whips help maintain stability. The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs has noted that the effective functioning of Parliament depends significantly on the office of the whip, highlighting the importance of party discipline in ensuring that legislative procedures are carried out efficiently.

While the importance of party discipline cannot be undermined, Vice President Dhankhar’s comments offer a valuable perspective on how the system could evolve to allow MPs greater independence. He suggested that MPs should be able to exercise their judgment freely, without fear of punitive action, when casting votes. Striking a balance between party control and individual autonomy could be the key to fostering a more democratic and transparent political system.

Dhankhar’s remarks may pave the way for discussions on reforming the whip system to ensure that it is not used to suppress the voices of MPs. A more balanced approach could help restore faith in the democratic process, allowing elected representatives to serve the people with greater autonomy and responsibility.

Vice President Dhankhar’s critique of the whip system serves as an important reminder of the complexities involved in balancing party discipline with individual rights. While party whips are integral to maintaining order in legislative processes, they must be scrutinized to ensure they do not erode the fundamental freedoms of elected representatives. As India’s democracy continues to evolve, the discussion surrounding the role of whips in Parliament will likely remain a focal point for those advocating for reforms in political processes.

ALSO READ: US Raises Concerns About Irregular Immigration; India Reaffirms Openness To Returnees

Filed under

Jagdeep Dhankhar

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

mail logo

Subscribe to receive the day's headlines from NewsX straight in your inbox