The >decision to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament in India is always met by a public furore and adverse reactions in the media. The recent recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee on Salaries and Allowances led by Bharatiya Janata Party MP Yogi Adityanath to double the salaries of MPs has also raised eyebrows and drawn criticism from various corners. Yes, there are worries about the unreasonably high salary hike proposed by the committee, but more than that, it is the decision-making process that has added to the criticism — the salary of the MPs is proposed to be increased by those who would be its beneficiaries. This, when it is done as per laid-down norms and a worked-out criteria for all other professions committed to public service: teachers, government officials, diplomats, judges and even for the highest offices of the President and the Vice-President.
Lack of a fixed criteria
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The issues related to salaries and perks for MPs is decided by a Joint Parliamentary Committee consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament. Any decision to raise the salary or perks of MPs is passed as an amendment Bill as per the recommendations of this parliamentary panel. Such amendment proposals are usually approved, without any delay, by an all-party consensus.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
In terms of how salaries are determined, Singapore provides a good case: salaries of lawmakers are decided by the Public Service Division located in the Prime Minister’s Office; the salaries are determined by a benchmark which is pegged to 60 per cent of the median income of the top 1,000 Singapore citizen earners. Adhering to this formula, salaries of the MPs are pegged at 17.5 per cent of the above-mentioned benchmark. Many other countries follow this practice. In both France and Japan, salaries of parliamentarians are decided in relation to the salaries of the highest-paid bureaucrats. Even in the U.S. Congress, salaries of senators are usually revised on an annual basis as part of an automatic adjustment process which reflects increase in living cost.
Thus it is imperative that in the larger interests of India’s democratic polity, it may be useful to create a mechanism of determining salaries, perks and allowances addressing the two concerns of legitimacy and accountability. This would foster higher levels of trust in our political institutions such as parties, which have over the years witnessed dwindling levels of trust. The result of a survey conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) indicates that the level of trust in political parties has declined from 43 per cent to 37 per cent during the last one decade.
Interestingly, the Prime Minister had remarked a few months ago that lawmakers should not decide their own salaries; rather it should be linked to the salaries of some important offices in the country like the President or the Vice-President. It seems to be a good proposal worth considering and implementing.
Sanjay Kumar is a Professor and currently the Director of CSDS; Souradeep Banerjee is a researcher with Lokniti, a research programme of CSDS. Views expressed are personal.