It would be wonderful if the political formations were to decide through a consensus on a person who enjoys cross-party support on a Speaker-designate and get that person to chair the lok Sabha
I get the feeling that I am not the only person to be experiencing a sense of dismay watching the political debates on the news channels, now that the election campaign is in top gear. There is an element of predictable monotony about the responses.
One cannot realistically object to the political slug-festing; after all, that is the staple of the electoral process in a democratic state. But what is disconcerting about the whole process in the current election is the bile and the venom that is routinely exchanged. listening to the participants in the debates, most would wonder how these people managed to live in the same country at all! For the current lot of politicians, their opponents are the repository of everything that is not just venal, detestable and rotten, but anti-national as well. I tend to notice more similarities than differences.
It would be meaningless to dissect what is on offer; most discerning individuals who share my unfortunate cynicism of the political process in India realise that it is not ideologically-driven and that politicians can never be taken at their word. The question that one would wish to put to them is somewhat different.
Every political formation has repeatedly lamented over the non-functioning of Parliament. More days were lost because of repeated adjournments in this Parliament than any previous one. That, everyone would agree, is the major impediment to any meaningful service to the people who voted these representatives in the first place.
Would it be too much to ask all the major political parties to put their heads together and work out a solution to this major impediment to democracyIJ I have not heard any of the major anchors host a programme on this most vexing issue. Neither have I read in any of the major newspapers. And, surely, without amelioration of this major problem we cannot expect any meaningful improvement from the status quo.
The main reason for this very sorry state of affairs is the absolute inability of the presiding officers to exercise optimal control over the proceedings. This has happened in Parliament after Parliament in recent years. And my contention is that unless we can bring about a change here, I fear we are headed for the repeat performance of the sorry state we have witnessed over the last five years — perhaps even more.
It would be apposite to dwell on why is it that the presiding officers, in particular the Speaker of the lok Sabha, has not been able to exercise the control needed for smooth functioning of the lower House. The answer is simple: The office of the Speaker does not enjoy the confidence of the House the way it should. And in the case of the Speaker, I would suggest that a mere majority of members voting for him/her is simply not enough. He/she has to have the total confidence of the house — if not in form of a consensus then at least two third majority. This is essential to ensure that the rulings appear to be totally above board and impartial. I would plead that this matter be given urgent attention. And this is an issue which can be easily rectified provided the political players demonstrate that they truly are committed to the smooth functioning of the house which they all claim they do.
We have the example of a Speaker’s office that is functioning excellently in Parliament that has been the prime inspiration for ours — the House of Westminster in the United Kingdom. While the context is somewhat different — Britain does not have as many political parties represented in the House — we still would do well to learn a few lessons from them in this regard.
There is a convention, not a constitutional mandate, which the Speakers would alternate from each of the two major parties and this is adhered to religiously. Time and again ruling parties with huge majorities have consented to elect Speakers from the Opposition. During my time in the UK, a House with a huge Conservative majority elected Ms Betty Boothroyd as its Speaker although she was from the labour Party.
At least in the UK, there is another convention. The Speaker’s post is generally allocated to very senior politicians who are able to command cross-party respect and who have no ambitions in active politics. In the last 100 years I am not aware of any Speaker who has after relinquishing the post ever vied for a ministerial position let alone a prime ministerial one.
The conventions in practice, as the constitutional expert Norman St John Stevas points out, are to ensure smooth parliamentary functioning — which makes sense when we examine another convention. The Speaker forgoes voting privileges except when there is a tie; and then the Speaker is supposed to cast his vote with the Government irrespective of the shade of that particular Government to ensure that the Government doesn’t fall.
When we begin to look at the Speakers, the earlier ones were a model of propriety and rectitude — men of integrity and sense of purpose whose commitment to upholding the dignity of the House was total. GV Mavalankar, the first Speaker has acquired a hallowed place. He even took on the President of the Constituent Assembly once when he felt that the House was being seen as subservient to the Constituent Assembly. His early successors followed in his footsteps and post retirement took on only constitutional positions like the Governor. In 1967, Neelam Sanjiva Reddy set another very healthy precedent. After being elected Speaker he resigned from the active membership of the Congress in deference to the demand for impartiality.
It was after Reddy resigned in 1969 to contest the presidential poll that the Speakership was passed on to Gurdial Singh Dhillon, a light-weight and obscure politician with no credentials of note. Post-presidential poll he had sided with Indira Gandhi when the Congress split — and that was his reward! And he debased it further when Gandhi in 1975, summoned him and asked him to relinquish the speakership and accept a junior Cabinet post, which he did.
It would be wonderful if the political formations were to decide through a consensus on a person who enjoys cross-party support as a Speaker-designate and get that person to occupy the high office.