The Partisan burden of legislative umpires
When Prime Minister Narendra Modi called India the Mother of Democracy, he wasn’t kidding. The Brits got their Parliament only in 1707. Ancient India was far ahead; the Harappan civilisation had a democratic system 4,500 years ago. The Vedic period, too—Sabha and Samiti. But when Modi promised to rule by consensus, he could have been kidding. With two big allies as shadows, Modi owns Parliament, which is also the fiefdom of the Speaker and RS Chairman.
The self-destructive Opposition has colluded to impeach Jagdeep Dhankhar as Rajya Sabha Chairman: a first in Indian parliamentary history. The Opposition also knows the no-confidence motion will fail, since the NDA enjoys a majority in the Rajya Sabha, with the support of six nominated MPs. If by a miracle, it goes to the Lok Sabha for the nod, its survival chance is that of a chicken in a tandoor. However, the Opposition worthies are simply making a point: ‘Dhankhar is a partisan agent of the government’.
The post of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is very powerful, technically even more than that of the elected head, who is accountable to the legislature. So is the Rajya Sabha Chairman’s. Together they are judge, jury and executioner of the Opposition’s parliamentary performance. Most global democracies keep the Speaker’s position sequestered from the needs of the governing party; some fail. In these very same democracies, parties vie to get their Speaker elected to enable motions to pass and break deadlocks. In some countries, by law the Speaker must tear up his party membership card to preserve the impartial role of his office.
In India, there is no such law or convention, or respect for convention. The government chose seven-time MP Bhartruhari Mahtab over eight-term member K Suresh as the pro-tem Lok Sabha Speaker; by convention, the senior most MP gets the job. In 2019, with 300-plus MPs behind it, the BJP sarkar didn’t even appoint a Deputy Speaker; the Speaker decides the date to elect his deputy, which his calendar simply missed.
Historically, under both Congress and BJP rule, the legislatory umpire’s job has gone to the faithful and believers. In 1992, when the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule was challenged before the Supreme Court, the dissenting judgment by Justice JS Verma argued that since it was the ruling party’s majority that decided the Speaker’s tenure, the choice of the Speaker as “the sole arbiter in the matter violates an essential attribute of the basic feature” of the Constitution.
Under past Congress dispensations, most Speakers and Deputy Speakers were partymen. So are those in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. During the NDA’s first term, the Speaker refused to list the no-confidence motion against the government. In the last Parliament, when the government wanted to pass bills without debate, Om Birla threw out kilos of Opposition MPs; Dhankhar and Birla together have expelled a record 143 Opposition MPS who protested in Parliament. Birla is often accused of switching off mics when Opposition luminaries are speaking.
Ancient Indian democracies did not have adjudicators. They ruled through consensus. The legislatures of democracies and quasi-democracies like Greece and Rome didn’t have Speakers either. Instead they had orators like Demosthenes and Cicero, men of vast intellect who swayed the masses with their eloquence. Perhaps what this tempestuous age of vitriol, revenge, grovelling and manipulation needs is partisan orators, not partisan referees. The day has arrived when institutions have to be protected from themselves, both partisan and bipartisan.