Tolerance is one of the traits of parliamentary democracy but often what one witnesses is total disrespect for dissenting views. Arguments are sought to be countered not by logic but by lung power. Humor, grace and respect for parliamentary traditions and etiquette are fast disappearing. The reason in not far to seek, the proceedings, by and large, are too mundane to sustain interest, reflecting the general decline in the standards of debates and other aspects of parliamentary func-tioning. Orderly and meaningful discussions based on a close study of the subjects concerned have largely yielded place to inane perorations.

Decibel wars have replaced stimulating and, sometimes entertaining, exchanges. The disturbances have become increasingly frequent, reducing the time available for discussing serious issues, including budgetary matters and important Bills. The incessant bid to score political points by various parties, not excluding the ruling party; have led to a criminal waste of time-and the tax-payers money. Can members of Parliament and others connected with parliamentary affairs absolve themselves of responsibility for the decline?

While members may come from varying backgrounds, nothing prevents them from studying and adhering to parliamentary procedures and widening their knowledge so that they can raise various issues effectively in the House. Unfortunately, one of the main causes of waste of time and disruption is ignorance of the rules of procedure or a deliberate bid to overlook them. This was brought into focus by the Lok Sabha Speaker, Mr. Shivraj Patil, during the monsoon session when he had to remind members repeatedly that the business of the House could not be conducted smoothly if they did not follow the procedures.

There is no doubt that the leaders of various parties and groups can play an important role in ensuring effective use of the time available. They could, for instance, prevent members from flouting rules, deliberately or otherwise, obstructing the proceedings. Even more important, they could restrain members who violate the norms of parliamentary behavior and precipitate unseemly scenes, especially those involving the dignity of the presiding officer and the House as a whole. They could also prevent disruption of proceedings by members, especially new entrants, who insist that they be allowed to raise a particular issue immediately, irrespective of whether they have given proper notice or it falls in the category of matters of urgent public importance.

Trivial issues and matters of a purely local nature are frequently raised. Sometimes, members of the same party seek to raise the same issue during Zero Hour, each of them trying to drown the others voice. Many members are doing nothing but sheer waste of time. There is no doubt that the ruling party can and has to play a vital role in ensuring smooth conduct of business in Parliament. While the proceedings are bound to reflect political rivalries, the government can avoid unnecessary controversies by paying due attention to the feelings of the opposition parties on various issues, especially the emotive ones. A Government cannot, of course, be expected to concede all demands of the opposition or be pushed into adopting a position advocated by them. But on major issues of national importance, should take the opposition into confidence.