POLITICAL DIARY 

New Delhi, 20 June 2009

Independent Speaker

PARTIES, PLEASE OBLIGE

By Poonam I Kaushish

Some things never really change. Especially when it comes to our netagan and Parliament. Always dogged by controversies. The latest is an innocuous remark:  Lok Sabha Speakers should resign from their parties in order to remain neutral. Clearly, setting the cat amongst the pigeons!

Trust, former Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, known for speaking his mind out, to start a debate afresh. Said he recently, “Parties should desist from using Constitutional posts, such as Speakership, as gifts or charity to oblige Party workers as it detracts from the position of the Speaker.” Adding cryptically, "It is better if a person occupying the Speaker’s post resigns from his or her Party to avoid conflict of interest.” Leading to political tongues wagging.

Was he referring to his successor Meira Kumar’s elevation as India’s first woman Speaker, barely a few days after being inducted as Union Cabinet Minister? Was it simply because she was a woman and Dalit? What to speak of her ‘political’ statement backing the women’s reservation Bill piloted by the Congress amidst strong opposition by some regional parties. “That a woman has been elected Speaker is an indication that the women’s Bill should be passed in the 15^th Lok Sabha,” she had averred.

Not a few dismissed it as a case of sour grapes. Recall, Chatterjee was expelled from the CPM for his refusal to quit as Speaker over the Congress-CPM standoff on the nuclear deal. Steadfastly maintaining that as Speaker he had to remain neutral. No matter that Speaker Chatterjee continued renewing his Party membership and paying the levy of 5% of his monthly salary to the CPM for over four years!

Either which way, Chatterjee needs to be applauded for reiterating the importance of an independent and impartial Speaker and fueling afresh a Constitutional debate on the issue. Under the Westminster system of Parliamentary democracy in Britain, an MP resigns from the Party on his election as Speaker. What is more, the Speaker is re-elected unopposed to the House of Commons in subsequent elections. The principle applies to all parties.

Sadly, although the Lok Sabha rules of procedure were largely based on the Westminster model, the all-important issue of having an independent Speaker was overlooked. Worse, few follow the premise that a Speaker is expected to be above Party politics, not a plaything of the 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.”

Thus, most Speakers have been Party members, especially after laying down Office or prior to it. Barring, Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, who after assuming the office of Speaker formally resigned from his Party, all others remained active in politics. From the Lok Sabha’s second Speaker Ayyangar, who became Bihar Governor on expiry of his term as Speaker. Hukam Singh too followed suit.

Many like GS Dhillon and Manohar Joshi switched roles as Ministers to Speakers. Balram Jhakar never tried to conceal his political identity as a Congress leader and Rabi Ray lived up to the Janata Party’s expectations. What to speak of Congress’s Shivraj Patil, who after a full tenure as Speaker, lost the re-election, but overnight was nominated to the Rajya Sabha and anointed as the country’s Home Minister. Now, no longer are eyebrows raised!

Luckily, the tendency of Assembly Speakers in the States taking active part in power struggles and group politics has not yet spread to the Centre. However, over the past six decades, many unfortunate developments have taken place at the Centre and in the States deeply involving the Speakers in active politics. The anti-defection law has been increasingly abused by the political parties with the help of the Speaker to cobble up majorities and enable the Government of the day to continue or fall by the wayside. Jharkhand and Goa, two cases in point.

The Opposition too is not without blame. It has unfortunately not always acted in its best self-interest by denying, in effect, cooperation in prodding for the uncontested election of a Speaker. It has failed to appreciate that its need of an independent and impartial Speaker is much greater than that of the Government which, in any case, is able to take care of itself with its majority.

More. In a hung Parliament and coalition milieu, the role of the Speaker becomes even more crucial. His rulings and decisions can make or break the ruling party. Take the case of a split in a Party. It is the Speaker who decided whether it was a “split” or a case of defection. His ruling was binding. By this one act, he could “destroy” a Party and facilitate another’s rule. Remember, the famous split by Chandra Shekhar of the Janata Dal, 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 more than a year after the fall of the Government!

One sure way of achieving the impartiality and independence of the Speaker was to depoliticize his office, so that the Speaker could keep himself entirely aloof from Party politics. Another more important way was to provide for his uncontested return to the House. But Nehru failed to do the needful despite the clear lead given initially by Vithalbhai Patel in the pre-Independence days and the healthy convention sought to be established by Mavalankar.

Vithalbhai, who succeeded Sir Frederick Whyte as India’s first Indian Speaker in 1925, disassociated himself from the Swarajist Party of which he was an active member prior to his election and kept himself aloof from party interests during his entire term of office. Also, in the election of 1926, he did not stand on the Congress ticket but contested as an independent and was returned unopposed!

Importantly, free India’s first Speaker, Mavalankar, tried hard to persuade Nehru to recognize the need to institutionalize the impartiality and independence of the Speaker by providing for the uncontested election of the Speaker. Sadly, however, the exercise proved to be in vain and things did not work out the way Mavalankar hoped.

Since then it has been a steady downhill. 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.

True, Speaker Meira Kumar has made plain her intent of playing ‘neutral’. Towards that end, her hands would be strengthened if top Party leaders agree to place the Speaker above electoral politics and thereby enable him/her to function impartially and independently. Conventions designed to achieve this end exist. Our netagan have been aware of them all along. Regrettably, however, they have merely paid lip service to healthy Parliamentary traditions.

In sum, political India needs to ponder on Chatterjee’s suggestions. Given that the impartiality of the Lok Sabha Speaker is even more important as he has more absolute powers than his opposite number in the House of Commons. Hence the need to depoliticise the Speaker’s office by common consent and enable him to rise above political temptation and maintain his independence.

As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gets down to bringing about change in governance, he must recognize the key role of the Speaker and enable him to serve India’s parliamentary democracy impartially like a true servant with total loyalty and devotion. He needs to remember and adopt the traditional British maxim: “Once Speaker always Speaker”---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)