When wads of money float around like confetti in Parliament it is time to take stock. Are our MPs simply ill mannered, or are they actually vulgar?

The way our parliamentarians behave one wonders if they were brought up in their childhood, or just pulled up at short notice. As the debate around the recent confidence motion again demonstrated, it is easier to line up nursery kids after the bell than minding MPs in the House. Some psychoanalysts believe that overreaction is a trait children exhibit because their socialisation is not quite complete. But this cannot explain the behaviour of our politicians for some of them are older than the hills. When children conduct themselves badly we say they are ill mannered because they are still not grown up. But when grown-up MPs behave badly then can we call them vulgar? Surely they know the rules by now, yet they openly flout them.

But how representative is this opinion? And can it readily explain the geriatric self-indulgence we routinely see in Parliament? Vulgarity denotes disapproval, but the truth is that MPs are expected to be vulgar by their electorates. Our parliamentarians haven't a notion of what is supposed to be in public interest, and, sadly, neither do the bulk of their supporters. In our underdeveloped democracy voters see their MP or MLA as a patron and not as a public servant. He is, therefore, expected to break the law if it is to their advantage. What good is a patron if he is squeamish in this regard? Their clients know this logic all too well and expect to be satisfied out of turn or else they direct their affections to another patron. Breaking rules thus becomes a way of life and anybody who walks the line in Parliament has to be a political ninny.

The same MP who can single-handedly bring down the House behaves differently elsewhere. He grew up first as an obedient grandson, graduated to son status and eventually became a revered elder. When he was young he dared not raise his voice against the old man, and now that he is old himself nobody in his family dare raise their voice against him. With some luck, such people are probably clan and kin leaders too in their own little neck of the woods. This shores up their overall patron status. The world of the "public" does not enter this familial space at all. The fact that public implies universal rules are as foreign and unreal to them as being legally blonde.

When this person morphs into a parliamentarian, with a little help from his clients at home, he packs in his disdain for the public along with his many suitcases that will soon come in handy. In Delhi, he encounters other patrons like himself and, perhaps, for the first time, meets with resistance. Patrons compete against other patrons because they are all equals fighting for a larger share of the kill. But the rules that govern their combat are not "public" ones based on universal rights, but borrowed straight from the jungle where all Singhs want to be kings. As the intent is to frighten the opposition they indulge in excess: from raised voices, to hurling abuses, and, if time allows, some old-fashioned fisticuffs too.

Parliamentarians are not being ill mannered when they overreact and hyper-abuse because they do not know what is 'correct' behaviour when faced with opposition. At home all is well ordered according to age, sex and status, and ordinarily there is no need to be excessive. But should there be a transgression then the punishment is idiosyncratic and disproportionate to the "offending" act. It is this fear of unpredictable temper that keeps things in place in the family, kin, clan and village. As there is no respect for the individual at home, our MP just extends this attitude to the Parliament as well. This is why parliamentarians are conditioned to behave in excess when faced with opposition. But as they are fighting among equals here, there is blood, gore and cash all over the floor.

This might appear vulgar to those of us who are viewing the scene from outside. But for those in Parliament all this is par for the course. In truth, parliamentarians know of no other modality of interaction and they would be genuinely surprised if they were accused of behaving improperly, let alone for being vulgar.

Vulgarity is when people knowingly offend convention, rules or norms. But parliamentarians know of no other principle outside of patron-client relationships and they are, therefore, outside vulgarity. If parliamentarians were to be persuaded to change their ways and act as public citizens, they would be of little use as patrons. Their hitherto faithful rat pack would jump on to some other ship.

There is only one verdict left. No amount of admonition will make our MPs and MLAs change their ways and accept an Oh-My-God moment. As long as their voters expect them to act as patrons our elected representatives are obliged to mock universal laws. Is it not true that so far we have used elections primarily as a convenient way to democratically vote in our patrons? Our MPs and MLAs appear vulgar only when they fail to deliver to us, their clients. So before we call these politicians vulgar, have we done a reality check on ourselves?

The writer is professor of sociology, JNU.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Editorial/LEADER_ARTICLE_Why_They_Dont_Behave/
articleshow/3281264.cms

---