Parliamentary Practice
Mandate And Democratic Values

By Ram Bahadur K.C.

THE mandate empowers the parliament and the members to act in their respective capacity. There is a vacuum without such mandate. The mandate comes through election, be it general or by-election. The mandate is the authority given by the sovereign people-the legal voters-to the candidates competing for being the representatives of the sovereign people. Hence the election, the key element of parliamentary democracy, requires to be regular and quite fair to help institution building and strengthening democracy.

Types

The nature of the parliamentary mandate has always been the subject of lively debate. Parliamentary mandate could be imperative or representational. The advocates of the imperative mandate (which was the rule in the socialist countries until late 1980s) have long argued that such mandates are more progressive and democratic, because they stem directly from the concept of popular sovereignty. The theory of popular sovereignty implies the existence of a democratic regime based on universal suffrage. The general characteristics of the imperative mandate are that the parliamentarians are required to report the electorate on their individual functions and the actions of the Assembly. In some cases the minimum actions required for a parliamentarian to discharge are laid down by law. The parliamentarians could be recalled by the electorate if they betray the voters’ trust or committed any unworthy act of their office. However, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the imperative mandate has been less common, though it still exists in some countries like Indonesia, Cuba, Fiji, Namibia and Seychelles.

In contrast, the representational mandate does not require the elected representatives to be bound by any undertaking given before the election or instructions received from voters during their mandate.

They enjoy absolute independence vis-a-vis their electorate. They are not even obliged either to support their party or any discussion taken by their group in parliament. During the last decade of the twentieth century, the free representational mandates have now been popular and rule of the day. Also the representational mandate could be assumed to be a corollary of the democratization process. The duration of the parliamentary mandate in almost all the lower Houses in four to five years (five years in Nepal and India). In some cases, they are even less than three years (Elsavador, Mexico, Tonga and even two years (U.S.A.) Members of the Upper Houses (Senate or Assembly) on the other hand are elected for a longer period of six years as in Nepal, Argentina and U.S.A, eight years in Brazil, nine years in France. Generally, there is the provision of one-third or two-thirds of removal every two or four years in the Upper House.

There seems a striking lack of uniformity regarding the point at which a parliamentary mandate begins. However, three distinct categories are discernible-when election results are declared (Nepal, Greece, Jordan, Trinidad and Tobago); when results are validated (Kazakhastan); and when swearing in ceremony takes place (U.K., U.S.A, Indonesia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Namibia, etc). In Nepal, elections results and validation are done on the same day. A similar lack of uniformity exists with regards to the end of mandate. In some countries the mandate ends on the last day of legal term of the legislature or on the date of House dissolution (Nepal, India, France, Greece, Indonesia, U.S.A.), somewhere it ends on the date of election (Denmark, Cyprus).

The mandate also ends with the death or resignation of the member. In case of Nepal, such mandate also ends if a member remains absent, without leave of the House for thirty consecutive days or does not posses the necessary qualification of membership or the party provides a notification that he has abandoned the party. In some cases parliamentarian’s mandate can be revoked at the instigation of the electorate or the party. A parliamentarian may also be deprived of his or her mandate by the House expulsion, and sometimes the member can also be imprisoned by the decision of the House if proved of the contempt of Parliament (Nepal).

Democratic values

By nature and qualifications we can assert that parliamentary mandates are very closely related to democratic values and cultures. Parliamentary mandate is the precondition for breeding up such democratic values and cultures by the legislators, whereas the practice of developing democratic values and cultures and practice them accordingly are the post-conditions for strengthening democratic polity. The democratic values and culture are qualification and aptitude for democratic exercise. Broadly, they indicate knowledge of country’s constitution, legal code, parliamentary regulations, proceedings, fundamental rights and duties, adherence to political principles and ethics.

Honesty, integrity and services are other elements of democratic values and cultures. Fair and unbiased criticisms may help government for not being despotic and going astray. Constructive criticism is a democratic culture that helps government to identify needs of the people and adopt suitable measures. Defaults in policy measures and loopholes in the implementation of the programmes could be remedied in time. Sound criticism always promotes party-spirit and supports democratic government whereas the biased criticism often begets enmity and revenge turning deaf ears to whatsoever healthy criticisms of the opposition parties on the part of the government and persistent criticisms or harassment on the part of the opposition are very undemocratic trends. The integration of all these qualities and qualifications from the democratic values and culture.

To conclude, the Parliamentarians are the main actors of Parliament. Parliament is lively with the parliamentarians and the latter stand by the parliamentary mandate-the sovereign rights of the people. Parliamentary mandate bears fruit only when the parliamentarians live up to desired level of democratic values and practices as mentioned briefly above. Without democratic values and practices, multi-party system could even be turned into tyrannical old order. Democratic polity which is ideal and tested experiment in other countries could be even a farce.

Then the sovereign people, would be highly disillusioned. Let us hope the situation may not recur in Nepal. Let wisdom prevail upon all-Parliamentarians and Sovereign people of the country to make our multi-party democracy a success.