The Central Government cannot strictly be faulted for clearing the proposal to revive the Legislative Council in Tamil Nadu and create a new one in Punjab. After all, the Union Cabinet has only acted upon the resolutions passed by the Assemblies of the concerned States. But what is questionable is the very rationale for the resolutions. Will the return of the Councils reinforce the system of self-governance in any way or to any extent? Can an optimistic conclusion on this count be drawn from the performance of the Council in Tamil Nadu in the past or of their counterparts in other States?

There is nothing to suggest that Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, which have Vidhan Parishads, are better administered states than say, Kerala or Himachal Pradesh, which have a unicameral system. The abolition of the Tamil Nadu Council over a decade ago may have been widely seen as an AIADMK bid to spite and stymie the Opposition, which was then led by the DMK, but does that make its revival an electoral diktat? Were the State's voters, while rejecting Jayalalitha's corrupt regime, asking for the resuscitation of a legislative mechanism that did not guarantee the optimal use of public money? Was the Council's rehabilitation, similarly, a crucial part of Punjab's electoral mandate for the Akali-BJP combine? The answers can hardly be both honest and affirmative.

The rationale for the Upper House in constitutional theory and, more particularly, the peers' place in the Westminster model, is of course well known. The Elders are supposed to enhance the quality of parliamentary debate and life. They are expected to complement the passions and populism of the people's directly chosen representatives with restrained and reflective contributions. A political discourse of decorum and dignity is what they are presumed to pursue in sharp contrast to the power struggle that often rages in the Lower House without let or hindrance. In this process, they are supposed as well to serve the practical purpose of preventing unduly hasty legislative action on issues that call for the country to pause and ponder. Is this the role that our Legislative Councils and Vidhan Parishads have, in reality, played? Have they not witnessed the same unedifying spectacle of petty, partisan politics as provided by the State Assemblies? Has the legislative conduct in the Upper Houses been any less unparliamentary on any occasion of political acrimony? And, where the political complexions of the two Houses have differed, bicameralism has only spelt continuation of the battles of parliamentary attrition.

Far from creating new Legislative Councils there is, in fact, a strong case for doing away with such white elephants. This is easier said than done as those in power use the Upper Houses to accommodate their favourites like Laloo Prasad Yadav's brother-in-law in Bihar. They also know that as long as the Rajya Sabha serves a similar purpose at the Centre in the name of federalism, they have a right to retain or demand an Upper House. How does it matter to them that enormous sums of public money are wasted as a result of maintaining a large army of MLCs and ex-MLCs?

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.