Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The whip should settle the issue. The CPM has issued a three-line whip to all its MPs in Lok Sabha, barring Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, to be present in the House on July 21-22 and vote against the government on the motion of confidence. In and of itself this is a welcome reversal of the Left8217;s aggressive suggestion that Chatterjee bear in mind his election to the Lok Sabha on a CPM ticket, thereby implying that he resign. As a political strategy, this was extremely petulant. But more importantly, the implications could have been disastrous for our parliamentary democracy. The speaker8217;s office is already under a cloud in many state assemblies, and the partisanship implied in the Left8217;s suggestion would have muddied proceedings in the Lok Sabha in almost irreversible ways. Now, in case of a tie, Chatterjee will be free 8212; as he arguably would have been without the whip 8212; to exercise his casting vote according to his conscience.
These columns have recognised in Chatterjee8217;s silence an individual act of assertion that would greatly strengthen his office. And when the bitterness and, possibly, unseemliness of the vote of confidence is past, political parties will see reason to assert a consensus on the importance of the post8217;s autonomy. The air is thick these days with allegations of horse-trading 8212; albeit unsubstantiated 8212; and demands unabashedly made by political leaders for their vote on July 22. Underlying the heightened speculation about each MP is the absence of fear of expulsion from the House. With elections just months away anyway, the anti-defection legislation, even with the excessively stringent amendments of 2003, holds little fear for many MPs. In the eventuality that an MP flouts his party whip, the speaker becomes instrumental in deciding upon the validity of his vote and his continuance as a member of the Lok Sabha. In state assemblies, speakers have famously bought time by not taking a decision.
