Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Disruptions to debate in India's national parliament by members have generated concern among critics, who have associated disruptions with a larger narrative of the decline of India's political institutions. The violation of debate through disruption is perceived by parliament as a threat to its prestige, legitimacy, and therefore its institutional reproduction. This article discusses institutional responses, which have, however, avoided formally disciplining members and have instead followed a more accommodative, informal approach to managing disruptions. It employs a framework which posits debate as a parliamentary ritual imbued with symbolic significance for both participants (including MPs) and audiences (including citizens, voters, media) and argues that disruption can be viewed as a crucial aspect of the performance of deliberation and representation in parliamentary debates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carole Spary (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: