No. 175 Vol. XXXIII Not To Be Published Before 26 August
2014
Political Diary
No Leader Of
Opposition
GOVT BITEN MORE
THAN IT CAN CHEW?
By Poonam I Kaushish
Has the nascent Modi Sarkar
bitten of more than it can chew? Perhaps, unwittingly so, when the Government
landed itself in a soup with the Supreme Court, over the delay in appointment
of the Lokpal. When asked for an
explanation, the Government stated it was due to the absence of a Leader of
Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha, mandatory in the selection of head of
statutory bodies. Raising a moot point:
Has the Government spread itself thin on ego?
Asserted Chief Justice RM Lodha, “Now we are confronted with
a situation where there is no LOP. How does the Government propose to have
effective consultations with a “voice” distinct from those in power when it
comes to appointment of an anti-corruption ombudsman?”
Adding, “Parliament never visualised such a situation, the
Leader of Opposition is very important and necessary for the purposes of
working of the Constitution…The composition of the decision-making process and
for effective consideration in the appointment of the Chief Vigilance
Commission, Lokpal, National Human Rights Commission and the Central
Information Commission etc.
Worse, the Court made plain it might be left with no option
but to intervene, thereby indirectly questioning the Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra
Mahajan’s decision to avoid naming an LOP in the Lok Sabha. It is another
matter that this issue has further raised temperatures ahead of another likely
confrontation next week over petitions challenging the National Judicial
Appointments Bill passed by Parliament recently and the question of judicial
freedom.
The new legislation, underpinned by the Executive's push to
gain greater influence over the judiciary, seeks to set up a National Judicial
Appointments Commission which will take over the judges’ selection and
appointment process, till date the sole prerogative of the judiciary since
1993. Ironically, the LoP needs to be consulted on NJAC membership as well.
According to Parliamentary rules dating to the 1950s also
known as the first Speaker ‘Mavlankar rules’, a Party needs to have a minimum
of at least 10 per cent of Lok Sabha seats for its leader to claim the status
of the Leader of Opposition. Though, the Congress has the largest contingent 44
MPs among Opposition Parties, it falls short of the required 55 in the
543-member House. Resulting in no LoP.
Predictably a war of words has broken out between arch
rivals Congress and BJP. The Grand Dame feels vindicated by the Supreme Court
observation and cites the Salary and Allowances of the Leader of Opposition under
Parliament Act, 1977 to reiterate it claim that the single largest party should
be given the LoP post as no other rules could override a statute.
Counters the Saffron Sangh, “It’s a case of the pot calling
the kettle black, there is no precedence. Has the Congress forgotten that
during its Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi's
tenure there was no Leader of Opposition?
Adding for good measure, seven times, there has not been a
LoP, this is the eighth time that such a thing has happened. Recall, a similar situation
arose in the 7th and 8th Lok Sabhas', from August 1979 to December 1989, 10
years when the House was devoid of a LoP.
Undeniably, the word democracy entails divergence of
opinions, give-and-take between its proponents and detractors to function
smoothly. Opposition is an essential part of democratic governance. For any
Government to rule successfully it needs to consult the Opposition and build a
consensus. What is expected from an Opposition is effective criticism.
By extension, it is also necessary to have a Leader of the Opposition
as he is the collective voice of dissent. His duty is the major check on
corruption and defective administration. It is his right to be heard by which
individual injustices could be prevented.
Indeed the LoP job is one of responsibility. He, among other
things, watches for encroachments on the rights of minorities, demands debates
when the Government is trying to slide away without Parliamentary criticism. He
must be in his place even more constantly than the Prime Minister and familiar
with tricks of skilled Parliamentarian.
Importantly, the LoP real role lies in his being a sounding
board for the Prime Minister in matters relating to Parliamentary business. The
Prime Minister meets the convenience of the Leader of Opposition and vice versa. Enjoying the rank of Cabinet
Minister with attending perks and salaries he is given an office in Parliament
House and accorded protocol precedence aka
“Prime Minister-in-waiting”.
It is excellent training for future occupants of the
Treasury Bench and essential for the effective operation of democratic
Government. In performing his duties and obligations, the Leader of the
Opposition has to take into account not only what he is today but what he hopes
to be tomorrow.
Especially against the backdrop of our first-past-the-post
democratic credentials wherein the Party with the highest number of MPs forms
the Government notwithstanding that it got only 30 to 45 per cent of the votes
polled. In fact, the combined Opposition votes’ percentage is higher.
The time has come for our democracy to follow in Britain’s
footsteps given that we follow its Westminster Parliamentary system whereby the
Leader of the Party with the highest number of MPs’ after the ruling Party is
recognized as the LoP. This should be the norm in India too. The rules should be
changed to make it democratic.
In sum, if there is a will there is a way. The Government
should forsake its ego, repair its fault lines and find a way out. It needs to
recognize that as it goes about its business it should be prepared for
criticism not by secret police and concentration camps but by rational
argument.
The process of Parliamentary Government would break down if
there was absence of mutual forbearance. Moreover, Parliamentary democracy would
suffer and many key appointments could be pushed through in an authoritarian
manner by a Government backed by an absolute majority.
In the words of renowned British Prime Minister Harold
Macmillan: “There is, I suppose, no position more difficult and in some ways
more unrewarding than that of a Leader of an Opposition. Equally, he has a very
special responsibility to Parliament and to the nation.
At moments of danger, moments specialty of foreign danger,
and particularly also in matters affecting the security and safety of the
realms. While he remains a critic he must in a sense be, a partner and even a.
buttress of the Government to which he is opposed. This dual responsibility he
must discharge with fidelity”. Madam Speaker, please heed. ----- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
New Delhi
23 August 2014
|