Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Emergent Conference of Presiding Officers of Legislative Bodies on Sunday expressed concern at court orders which disturb the fragile balance of power between the legislature and judiciary. It also emphasised the shared goal of restoring trust and respect to the relationship between the two. Sadly, both the assertion that a transgression has occurred and the commitment to retrieving a lost harmony are lacking in persuasiveness, or a larger resonance. The reason is not difficult to identify. Sunday8217;s 8216;8216;unanimous8217;8217; resolution did not bear the signatures of the presiding officers of six NDA-ruled states. In the end, the boycott and the meeting reiterated the unhappy political polarisation the tumult in Jharkhand has left the polity with.
It is particularly distressing that a conference of presiding officers of legislative assemblies should underline the divide between political parties. Speakers are, by convention and by norm, supposed to act as impartial and neutral guardians of debate in our legislatures. In our system, they may not be required to formally cast off their allegiance to the political party to which they may belong. But once in the chair, the people nevertheless have a right to hold them to the highest standards of independence in their judgment, unconstrained and unbent by compulsions of partisan politics. It is true that presiding officers, particularly in state assemblies, have not always honoured this expectation and the speaker8217;s unedifying contribution to the mess in Goa is the most recent instance of this. But it is also true that the tawdry behaviour of some cannot be allowed to lower the bar for all who occupy the high office. Quite simply, it is improper that presiding officers should have allowed themselves to be arranged along political lines on the issues arising out of Jharkhand. The politics of boycott does not behove those whose high responsibility it is to nurture and protect debate.
