{"id":3534,"date":"2026-08-11T22:11:39","date_gmt":"2026-08-11T16:41:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/notes\/changing-socio-economic-profile-of-legislators\/"},"modified":"2026-08-11T23:01:55","modified_gmt":"2026-08-11T17:31:55","slug":"changing-socio-economic-profile-of-legislators","status":"publish","type":"psir_note","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/notes\/changing-socio-economic-profile-of-legislators\/","title":{"rendered":"Changing socio-economic profile of Legislators"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
PSIR Notes<\/a>\u203a<\/span>I-B Indian Government and Politics<\/a>\u203a<\/span>Changing socio-economic profile of Legislators<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
Paper I \u00b7 Indian Government and Politics<\/div>\n

Changing socio-economic profile of Legislators<\/h1>\n
Syllabus \u00b7 Paper I-B \u00b7 10<\/b> \u2014 Party System : National and regional political parties, ideological and social bases of parties; Patterns of coalition politics; Pressure groups, trends in electoral behaviour; changing socio-economic profile of Legislators<\/span>.<\/div>\n<\/header>\n
\n
<\/p>\n

Socio-Economic Profile of Legislators<\/h3>\n

Shankar<\/span> and Valerian Rodrigues<\/span> classify the profile of MPs into three phases.<\/p>\n

Three phases of the Indian legislator.<\/span> Phase I \u00b7 till 1967<\/span> (Brahmin and upper-caste dominance; lawyers the largest profession, agriculturists second; many foreign-educated; women and minorities under-represented) \u2192 Phase II \u00b7 1967\u201389<\/span> (Intermediate castes rise; Green Revolution strengthens rural elites; agriculturists dominant; politics a full-time profession; women 8\u201310% \u2014 Yadav\u2019s \u201cfirst democratic upsurge\u201d) \u2192 Phase III \u00b7 from 1989<\/span> (Plebeianisation; OBCs and Dalit parties expand; criminalisation and money power rise; women and minorities still under-represented \u2014 the \u201csecond democratic upsurge\u201d).<\/p>\n

Criminalisation & the 18th Lok Sabha<\/h3>\n

Criminalisation<\/span> is a major concern. In the 17th Lok Sabha, 233 MPs had criminal cases and 159 faced serious charges. In the 18th Lok Sabha, 251 MPs (around 46%) have criminal cases and 170 (around 31%) face serious charges \u2014 including rape, murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping and crimes against women. Milan Vaishnav<\/span>, in When Crime Pays<\/em>, argues voters may elect criminal politicians because they are seen as problem-solvers for caste, community or local networks. The Supreme Court<\/span> calls criminalisation a bitter truth and a termite to democracy.<\/p>\n

Profile of the 18th Lok Sabha<\/span><\/p>\n

Education<\/span> \u2014 all elected MPs literate; 78% at least undergraduate; 5% hold doctorates. Profession<\/span> \u2014 mostly social workers or agriculturists; 7% lawyers, 4% medical practitioners. Economic standing<\/span> \u2014 93% have family assets above Rs 1 crore; average assets around Rs 46.34 crore; Chandra Sekhar Pemmasani declared the highest. Women<\/span> \u2014 74 women MPs, around 14%, slightly below the 78 in 2019; India remains behind South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.<\/p>\n

Representation concerns<\/span> \u2014 upper castes remain over-represented; OBC representation has increased but is uneven; Muslims remain under-represented (Sachar Committee concerns); women are seriously under-represented; poorer groups, sub-quota OBCs and minorities face barriers; and money, dynasty and criminality shape entry.<\/p>\n

Opposition, Decline & Changing Profile<\/h3>\n

The Opposition<\/h4>\n

Central to responsible government \u2014 it scrutinises policy, questions ministers, offers alternatives, voices minorities, mobilises debate and prevents concentration of power. Instruments:<\/span> Question Hour, debates, adjournment and privilege motions, no-confidence, committee scrutiny, amendments, public mobilisation (e.g. the GST\/GSTN debate, Land Acquisition Bill 2015, CAA, Triple Talaq). Neera Chandhoke<\/span> wants coherent alternatives; Gautam Bhatia<\/span> links it with public-interest scrutiny; Faizan Mustafa<\/span> and M.P. Singh<\/span> note fragmentation weakens it; Bhargava<\/span> and Mehta<\/span> regret the loss of ideological depth.<\/p>\n

Decline of Parliament \u2014 the Shankar & Rodrigues arc<\/h4>\n

Three phases \u2014 effectiveness to “federation of anarchy”.<\/span> Phase 1 \u2014 to 1960s: Congress dominance, deliberative culture, ~120 sitting days\/yr (1952\u201372)<\/span> \u2192 Phase 2 \u2014 1970s+: Disillusionment, Emergency, regional & social movements \u2192 Phase 3 \u2014 1990s+: Coalitions, disruptions, criminalisation, 17th LS ~58 days\/yr<\/span>. Budget Session 2023:<\/em> Lok Sabha functioned for 33%<\/span> and Rajya Sabha for 24%<\/span> of scheduled time; only 16%<\/span> of Bills in the 17th Lok Sabha went to committees.<\/p>\n

\n

Parliament as a “federation of anarchy”.<\/p>\n

Hamid Ansari<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

World Bank<\/span> parameters for assessing legislatures: financial accountability, compliance, efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, sustainability.<\/p>\n

Decline thesis<\/span><\/p>\n