Warning against prolonged parliamentary deadlock harming legislative productivity and public trust

The repeated adjournments of Parliament signal a deeper crisis: the erosion of legislative productivity and public trust in democratic institutions. While the opposition has raised important issues, its strategy of constant disruption prevents any business from being conducted. The government, too, has shown inflexibility in granting opposition time for discussion under rules that allow a vote. This zero-sum approach leaves the Parliament paralyzed. The consequence is that urgent legislation—such as the bill to combat cybercrime and the amendment to the maternity benefit law—remains pending. Moreover, the delay in passing the annual financial Bill means that government spending for the year could face uncertainty. Ordinary citizens who expect Parliament to pass laws that improve their lives are left disappointed when the legislature fails to function. The public sees a spectacle of shouting and walkouts rather than reasoned debate. To restore credibility, both sides need to adopt a code of conduct that prioritizes the nation's business. The Speaker's appeal is welcome, but it should be backed by a concrete mechanism to prevent future breakdowns. For instance, the rules committee could propose a time-bound procedure for discussing pressing issues without disrupting the entire schedule. If the deadlock continues, the government may resort to introducing ordinances, which bypass parliamentary scrutiny. That would weaken democracy further. The opposition should ask itself whether its tactics are effective: does disrupting the house force the government to listen, or does it simply hand the government an excuse to rule by decree? The ultimate losers are the people who voted for a functional democracy.