When recently, Speaker Dr Pramod Sawant said that the image of the elected representatives in the State is collapsing due to the failure of the bureaucracy to resolve the civic issues of the people, he was possibly very right. We long ago reached the stage where the common man expects the Member of the Legislative Assembly, the ubiquitous MLA, to be available to address even the slightest of grievances, and the failure of the politician to meet the need is often unacceptable to the constituents. As Sawant said, and this is a verbatim quote, “It is a misunderstanding of people that elected representatives to the Assembly are to carry out their works, the actual role of the legislator is to enact legislations in the interest of the people. This is the wider role of the MLA.”
This misunderstanding needs to be corrected, especially if the MLA is to be allowed to devote his time to the most important task that he has been elected to undertake – legislate or frame laws. Right now, much of an MLA’s time is lost in handling various problems, often personal problems, of individual constituents. The role of a MLA is to plan new laws, discuss the proposed legislation in the House, and support or oppose the proposed Bill. It is also an MLA’s duty to voice the concerns of the constituents that he/she represents in the Assembly. While this is done, a lot of time is spent on undertaking works in the constituency that would be better left to the local bodies or the executive.
But that’s not the only task of the MLA, as the role also includes fiscal responsibility as it is the legislature that has to approve the Budget presented by the government, and it the duty of the MLA to ensure that the funds are appropriately allocated under all heads. Another of the responsibilities of the MLA is to ensure that the executive branch, loosely called the bureaucracy, functions responsibly. So if, as pointed out by the Speaker, there has been a failure of the bureaucracy in resolving civic issues, then it is incumbent upon the legislature, and its members, to identify the reasons for the failure and set the executive on the right course.
But, does the fault of the ‘collapse of image of the legislator’ lie only with the people and the bureaucracy?
It would be interesting to undertake a study how many of the MLAs seeking re-election in the elections held in February last year, went to the people presenting them with a report of their track record in the Assembly? Almost every MLA hoping to return for another term in the Assembly knocked on his or her constituents’ doors and handed over a brochure detailing the achievements outside the Assembly, rather than within the Assembly. The brochures, many of them on glossy paper and in colour, enumerated the roads hot-mixed in the constituency, the drains built, the water supply and electricity connections released, and plans and promises for more such works to be undertaken in the constituency, if elected.
When an MLA tracks his achievements by the works done outside the Assembly, which are purely restricted to the constituency, and makes promises of undertaking more such tasks for his constituents on re-election, can the bureaucracy alone be held responsible? This will naturally lead the people to think that they have indeed ‘elected the legislators to carry out their works’.
It is commendable that the Speaker is concerned about this. Perhaps it is necessary that MLAs and aspiring politicians be also given inputs as to what is expected from them, while the failure in the bureaucracy is righted and it is made to play the role it is meant to.
