Politics in a dopamine government appears like a multi-screen film, with several stories running in parallel. But sometimes, amid these screens, a question arises—by what authority do those in power begin grading other elected representatives? In a democracy, the people elect their representatives. Those representatives then form the government, with the prime minister (PM) leading it. But does the prime minister also become the examiner of those very representatives whose mandate comes from the same citizen source as the PM’s own? 

Members of Parliament (MPs) have varying abilities. Some understand legislative subjects better. Some carry the voice of their constituency to Parliament more effectively. Some are active in committee work, some in public debate. Some constantly ask questions, while others contribute more to lawmaking. Some MPs may also fail to perform their expected role.

Democracy does not treat representatives as equal because they are equally talented, but because the political rights of the people stand behind them. Democratic equality does not mean equality of talent. Rather, it means equal dignity of representation. This is decisive in understanding the relationship between the PM and MPs. PM is the head of the executive. MPs are members of the legislature. PM runs the government. Parliament questions the government. The government implements laws, and Parliament makes laws. The executive has administrative power. The legislature has the responsibility of overseeing that power and giving it legitimacy. Their roles are different. Both draw their democratic legitimacy from the people. Therefore, the PM’s constitutional role does not make the PM the final evaluator of the elected Members of Parliament.

Executive power ultimately comes from the same democratic system within which Parliament, the Constitution and the voters exist. The executive should not forget the source of its power. The government is not above Parliament. It is accountable to Parliament. This is the basic grammar of parliamentary democracy.

But a new political tendency of our times appears to be trying to change this grammar. The mandate received after an election is sometimes read as personal authority over the entire political field. When the electoral mandate is read not merely as the right to run the government but as a right of moral and political superiority over the entire political field, democracy begins to ‘depart’ from its original balance. 

This is not the sudden end of democracy. Parliament is made blunt. MPs are divided into categories such as ‘average’, ‘below average’ and ‘extraordinary’. Some people inside the government are presented as the desh banaune toli (nation-building team). Attempts are made to keep the opposition constantly entangled in political noise. Pressure can be put on institutions without directly touching the Constitution. Neglect of law and procedure can increase. Capriciousness can be called good governance. Politics may constantly need new spectacles to divert attention from real issues. In such a situation, institutions remain, but their mutual balance begins to weaken. From here, ‘grading politics’ is born.

If the PM regards MPs as first-rate, average or inferior, the question is not whether his assessment is right or wrong. The question is: Who makes him the assessor? In a democracy, MPs should be evaluated. But its most natural forum is the citizens. Following the first six months of the PM’s term, Parliament should naturally evaluate the government’s work. Ordinary citizens can ask: What has the government done? Which promises have been fulfilled? What have been the results of which decisions?

In the same way, voters can question their elected representative: How often did you participate in Parliament? What was your role on which bill? How was your attendance on the parliamentary committees? Which problems of the people of your constituency did you take to the national discourse? How many questions did you ask the government? The media can examine these questions. Civil society can analyse the work of MPs. Parliament can keep a public record of its members’ activities. During elections, voters can decide based on that entire record. This is democratic accountability.

By contrast, if the PM himself starts ‘grading’ MPs, the direction of accountability gets reversed. The one who should be asked questions starts evaluating those who ask them; the one who should be answerable to Parliament starts judging Parliament’s quality. This is a subtle change in the democratic relationship. MPs are not employees of the PM. They are elected representatives of the people. Therefore, their relationship with the prime minister is not that of subordinate and superior but one of cooperation, oversight and disagreement within democratic institutions.

The PM can disagree with an MP, have serious objections to an MP’s performance, or even publicly criticise an MP. This is natural in political debate, for Parliament is where the diverse voices of society collide, debate and make laws. Therefore, not every voice in Parliament needs to have the same influence. But every elected voice has an equally important constitutional place.

Democracy always manages a tension between efficiency and representation. The executive wants efficiency—decisions should be quick, orders clear, work should move forward. The legislature brings diversity, asking “who will this decision affect, who has been left out, whose voice has not been heard?” The executive may sometimes find parliament slow. Parliament may sometimes find the executive impatient. But the beauty of democracy lies precisely in this disagreement.

Not everything slow is inefficient and not everything fast is democratic. Parliament’s job is not only to speed up the government. It must also scrutinise the direction the government is taking. Opposition MPs were doing this work. MPs of the Rastriya Swantantra Party have also gradually begun to increase oversight and vigilance of the government. Power should remain surrounded by questions because, without them, complacency grows. And when complacency turns into arrogance, power begins to mistake its own voice for the voice of the people. This is an institutional warning for any prime minister. 

The true test of democracy is whether even a powerful premier accepts the dignity of those institutions that can question them. There should be debate on the capability of MPs. But that debate should be public, evidence-based and transparent. The final right to call any MP first-rate or inferior cannot rest with any single political office. Because MPs are representatives of the people. The PM is also a representative of the people; only his role is different. Therefore, the people do the grading, not the PM.