The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Parliament on television

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Dec 23, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Parliament on television

By G. Ananthakrishnan

Fully televised proceedings hold great promise of giving basic issues that are normally ignored by the entertainment-driven media the importance they really deserve.

WITH THE launch of live telecast of parliamentary proceedings on Doordarshan satellite channels, India has entered a distinguished league of nations that share a commitment to create informed democracies.

In many countries, the decision to televise legislatures came at the end of long and often difficult debates. It took Westminster nearly seven decades to allow live televised coverage of Britain's Parliament after the British Broadcasting Corporation unsuccessfully proposed radio broadcasts of the proceedings in the 1920s; the idea was opposed again at the height of the Second World War on the ground that legislative business was too technical for the common man to comprehend; radio coverage of Parliament finally began in Britain in 1978, while television had to wait even longer.

BBC Parliament today provides nearly 40 hours of live coverage a week of the House of Commons and an equal amount in recorded form on dedicated satellite, cable and digital terrestrial channels, as part of its remit to inform.

Parliamentary television coverage is available to citizens in about 60 countries, reflecting the recognition of the citizen's right to be informed about law-making and the role played by elected representatives. Countries such as Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Samoa have, over the years, made it a statutory obligation for the national broadcaster to carry daily or weekly reports of parliamentary proceedings.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) in consultation with member-countries issued recommendations for an informed democracy; the need for Parliaments to facilitate extensive and live coverage of the proceedings without citing resource constraints and opening the activities of their committees to the public are among the key suggestions made in that report. Many of the arguments made elsewhere against televising legislatures may yet be advanced in this country as some members try to exploit the presence of live cameras pointed towards the well of the House. Before it came to be accepted, full television coverage in the West met with opposition from those who claimed that it would disrupt the decorum and lower the dignity of Assemblies. That it has come to stay in the face of such resistance is proof of its larger social contribution in informing the citizen and raising the bar for the legislator.

Grandstanding and an eagerness to stretch speaking opportunities accompanied the entry of television into legislative bodies in the developed world, but that has not resulted in its removal. On the contrary, the audience has become truly global with the availability of streaming Parliament video on websites some of which are run by the Assemblies themselves.

The early experience in some countries that allowed live coverage of the national legislature is interesting. The Congressional Record in the United States reported that in the first 45 days of introduction of the new system in the Senate in 1986, there was a 250 per cent increase in the number of members utilising a provision that allows them to make a special order speech for up to 60 minutes at the end of legislative business for the day, compared to the two previous Congresses.

The time taken by individual speakers was reduced, but the number of speakers and the total time availed rose steadily. Another study found that a provision to make a one-minute speech on an issue of the day also drew more participants than the pre-television era; members saw in it the opportunity to make the headlines in the evening news bulletins.

After the entry of television in the U.S. Senate, Senator Robert Byrd who served as the Minority and Majority leader in the relevant period noted that the cameras had brought about improvement in the debates from a substantive standpoint.

Fully televised proceedings, therefore, hold great promise of giving basic issues that are normally ignored by the entertainment-driven media the importance they really deserve. Unedited parliamentary television has earned a serious following for C-Span, the cable industry initiative that brings coverage to over 75 million U.S. homes; viewers call in to participate in discussions based on the proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The availability of live telecasts would make it possible for people everywhere, more so the constituents in rural India, to follow the working of Parliament.

Doordarshan has the benefit of codes of practice being available from many countries on live parliamentary telecasts. Guidelines on camera usage and coverage of pandemonium are documented in considerable detail in the report of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; the report draws heavily on the views of the Select Committee on Televising the House of Commons.

Intrusive coverage of individual members in their non-speaking moments is prohibited and the Speaker's discretionary role well recognised. It can justifiably be said that the new channels will touch the lives of all Indians; they represent a defining moment in the evolution of the parliamentary traditions of their country.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

USE AND ABUSE OF THE INTERNET

FOR LIBERTY'S SAKE

Third front: a non-starter

Parliament on television

The latest act in the tragedy that is Zahira