Speaking for democracy

In Goa, Speaker Pratapsingh Rane left nothing to chance on Monday. After disqualifying three floor-crossers from voting in the confidence motion of the Digambar Kamat government, he cast his own supporting aye in a voice vote. In the process, the office of the speaker has once again been called into question. Legalities will be debated, but the final consequence of Monday8217;s proceedings in the Goa assembly is that political confrontation 8212; and thereby, uncertainty 8212; will continue to prevail for some time longer. Goa 8212; along with Jharkhand and till very recently UP 8212; is particularly prone to hectic floor-hopping. Our legislatures have sought to bring stability and rectitude via stringent anti-defection laws. But, as Goa shows, these laws are ultimately operationalised by the speaker. Hence, the utility of such legislative initiatives finally rests with the discretion of individual office-holders.

The decision on whether a legislator merits disqualification rests with the speaker alone. While this decision can be contested in court, till a verdict is obtained, the speaker8217;s writ holds. And as the list of decisions on defectors in the UP assembly, especially under the speakership of Kesri Nath Tripathi, indicates, by the time court verdicts are obtained, the salience of the speaker8217;s decision is often past. In addition, speakers cast their votes on the rarest of occasions. According to the Lok Sabha speaker8217;s website, 8220;Though himself a member of the House, the speaker does not vote in the House except on those rare occasions when there is a tie at the end of a decision.8221;

Is there then a case for some of the speaker8217;s discretionary powers to be reallocated, for instance, giving the authority to decide on splits to the Election Commission? It would be unfortunate if enough murky decisions compelled the legislative class to assign this power to an entity outside the House. The lengthening 8212; and still ineffective 8212; list of legislation on defections shows the limits of enforcing morality by law. Our legislatures must surely see the wisdom of morality by convention. They should begin with the speaker, who is seen to represent the House in its entirety.