POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 19 July 2008

Of The House, For The House

DEPOLITICISE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER

By Poonam I Kaushish

It’s the season of parades galore and prize catches. The political arena resembles a Spanish bull-ring. Playing the Matador to the hilt, each party is busy hunting for “saleable and bankable” netas who could kill and set their vote tillers ringing. If it entails stealing or poaching a rival’s leader doesn’t matter. Each doing his best to outdo the others. Principles, ideology and policies be damned!

Tragically, in this game of numbers, thanks to the Left Parties withdrawing support to the Congress-led UPA government over the Indo-US nuclear deal, the Speaker’s office became the first casualty. With all parties indulging in a tug-of war over whether Somnath Chatterjee should continue as Speaker or resign.

It all started with the CPM handing over to the President Pratibha Patil a list of its Lok Sabha MPs, including Somnath Chatterjee, who had withdrawn support to the UPA Government. The Speaker objected by asserting that the Lok Sabha’s Speaker’s office was a high Constitutional post and was above politics. When the CPM persisted that he resign, Somnathda, as he is affectionately called, reportedly said that he could not be expected to vote along with the BJP against the Government. And in the event of a tie he would cast his vote for the UPA.

An infuriated BJP questioned the Speaker’s impartiality in light of his alleged ‘reluctance’. Besides, the Party President Rajnath Singh taunted him by asserting that the Speaker had no objection when the BJP had supported his election as Speaker. Adding that the Speaker’s stand was debatable under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule as he had not given up his membership of the CPM before his election as Speaker. Plainly, he continued to be a member of his Party and bound by its whip.

In stepped the Congress to bat for Somnath Chatterjee. Warning that the attempts to politicize the office of the Speaker would set a “dangerous precedent,” it told the CPM to let Somnathda take his own decisions. The issue is not whether the Speaker resigns or remains. What is more important is that this farcical drama has struck at the very roots of Parliamentary democracy, its authority and prestige.

Arguably, one is justified in asking why this hullabaloo over the Speaker. The answer is simple. In an evenly divided Lok Sabha and coalition milieu, the role of the Speaker becomes even more crucial. His rulings and decisions can make or break the ruling Party. His casting vote can swing the balance either way.

Or take the case of a split in a Party. It is the Speaker who decides whether it is a “split” or a case of defection. His ruling is binding. By this one act he can “destroy” a Party and facilitate another’s rule. Remember, the famous split by Chandra Shekhar, which led to the fall of the V.P. Singh Government. The Speaker’s decision on V.P. Singh’s plea that the split was illegal came after more than a year. After the fall of the govt.!

As things stand today one thing is clear: The time has come to depoliticize the office of the Speaker and not merely speak about it. The need of an independent and impartial Speaker is much greater today in an era of coalition politics. Unfortunately few today are conscious of the key role of the Speaker in our parliamentary democracy without whom, according to Erskine May, “the House has no constitutional existence”.

The first Prime Minister Nehru understood fully the importance of the office of the Speaker and repeatedly laid emphasis on its prestige and authority. Said he in 1958: “The Speaker represents the House. He represents the dignity of the House, the freedom and liberty. Therefore, it is right that his should be an honoured position and should be occupied always by men of outstanding ability and impartiality.”

Importantly, free India’s first Speaker, G.V. Mavalankar, tried hard to persuade Nehru to recognize the need to institutionalize the impartiality and independence of the Speaker by providing for his uncontested return --- but in vain. In 1951, the Conference of Presiding Officers, under Mavalankar’s leadership expressed the view that the Speaker should dissociate himself from party politics and, towards this end, “a convention should be established that the seat from which the Speaker stands for re-election should not be contested”.

But this suggestion went unheeded and Mavalankar was forced to contest on the Congress ticket. A great Speaker, Mavalankar did not give up. Two years later, in 1953, the Conference adopted a resolution reaffirming its 1951 stand and pressed the Government to make a beginning. Mavalankar then took up the matter with Nehru, who decided to take it to the Congress Working Committee.

The Committee considered the issue and sent a communication to Mavalankar, which was disclosed by him at the next Conference of the Presiding Officers in 1954. The communication stated: “The CWC accept the desirability that the Speaker’s seat should not be contested but they will require concurrence of other political parties which they felt was not possible to obtain. All conventions grow bit by bit… we have laid the first brick very firmly and we have now to strive further”.

Things have not worked out the way Mavalankar hoped---and Nehru promised. The Speaker, after all, is human and it has not always been possible (or practicable) for him to resist political temptation in the absence of a definite convention assuring his continuance in office through uncontested Parliamentary election.

Sadly, few follow the premise that a Speaker is expected to be above party politics, not a plaything of the ruling party. If we truly follow the Westminster model, the Speaker should resign from his Party. But as one former Lok Sabha Speaker told me: “We are elected on Party tickets with party funds. How can we claim independence? Moreover, even if we resign on becoming the Speaker, we would still have to go back to the same Party for sponsorship for the next election.”

Impartiality of the Presiding Officer of the Lok Sabha is even more important as the Speaker in India has been given more absolute powers than his opposite number in the House of Commons. Among other things, this empowers him to give required protection to the minority in the best national interest. Hence the need to depoliticise the Speaker’s office by common consent and enable him to rise above political temptation and maintain his independence.

Much must be done if the Lok Sabha is to regain its lost vigour and vitality – and respect. One thing that the country’s top leaders could do straightaway is to agree to place the Speaker above electoral politics and thereby enable him to function impartially and independently. Conventions designed to achieve this end exist. Our top leaders have been aware of them all along. Regrettably, however, they have merely paid lip service to healthy parliamentary traditions.

All need to remember Mavalankar’s words: “The Speaker has to abstain from active participation in all controversial politics. The essence of the matter is that the Speaker has to place himself in the position of a judge. He has not to become a partisan so as to avoid unconscious bias for or against a particular view and thus inspire confidence in all sections of the House about his integrity and impartiality.”

In sum, if we mean what we say and say what we mean about our parliamentary democracy, we must take note that the Speaker is of the House, by the House and for the House. He is a servant of the people and should be enabled to serve democracy like a true servant with total loyalty --- and devotion. We need to adopt the traditional British maxim: “one a Speaker, always a Speaker.” ----- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)