OOP, what a controversy

If readers remember their high school civics textbooks, then they will immediately realise what drove our Constitution makers to insert the OOP clause. The three organs of government were defined as the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary — and all three are assigned distinct, and separate, roles. The legislative has to make laws and hold the executive accountable. The executive has to implement the laws. And, the judiciary has to deal with the law-breakers.

If an MLA or an MP holds an office of profit, he is combining in himself the functions of both the legislative and the executive, which goes against the spirit of our Constitution. Citizens have elected legislators, so that they can legislate (which also means that assembly and Parliament sessions must work) and not execute, for which the people have appointed bureaucrats.

If MLAs and MPs hold an OOP, then they’re also trying to carry out executive functions, whether or not they are being paid or whether or not they are being given official sanction. How can an MP be a good legislator if he also holds an executive position? How will he be able to independently scrutinise the executive? Logically, one can then argue that the secretary of a government department can also be a member of the legislative, perhaps of the Upper House.

If it is obviously wrong for a bureaucrat to be a legislator, then it is equally wrong for a legislator to carry out executive functions. This is why we have the office of profit rule, and that is why I believe that this list of offices of profit that are exempted should not be expanded in any forthcoming bill; rather, that there should have fewer such offices.

The writer is a manager in a private company