Speaking freely

There is a temptation to dismiss the clouds of controversy swirling around the speaker8217;s chair as dust kicked up by politics-as-usual. This would be a grievous error. The office of speaker is one of the few political institutions that have been strengthened, rather than weakened, by the rough-and-tumble of legislative politics. Initially, the speaker was seen by the parliamentary opposition as following the government8217;s instructions; the very first motion of no-confidence in a Lok Sabha speaker was submitted barely two years into the first Lok Sabha. Over time, however, as the power of the majority party has fractured, the position has gained in power, independence and stature. Since Balram Jakhar8217;s tenure 1984-89, the occupants of the speaker8217;s chair have been very careful about ensuring both the appearance and actuality of independence and of insulation from mundane political pressures. This extended even to moments of crisis, when cabinets were toppling: some of the most enduring memories of the dramatic 1999 vote of no-confidence against the Vajpayee government, which failed by one vote, are of the strict neutrality that was evident in G.M.C. Balayogi8217;s various rulings.

This painstakingly crafted consensus is still tenuous, and it would be very unfortunate if the Left8217;s decision to declare that the speaker is subject to their party whip were to undermine it. The Left8217;s claimed distaste for the trappings of bourgeois democracy apart, it has largely shown itself to be the group most respectful of parliamentary procedure and the institutions of civilised debate. This reputation, as well, is under threat. In addition, to force their most distinguished parliamentarian to choose between the institution which he has served faithfully and the party to which he has pledged allegiance is an act of great and cynical unkindness. Somnath Chatterjee must be dismayed at the prospect: now that that all-important Stalinist phrase, the internal discipline of the Party, has been invoked, he must either betray his party or his principles. These are not the acts of a mature political grouping.

Chatterjee has not been a perfect speaker; the respect commanded on all sides of the House by his long career as a legislator apart, he is not the best manager of people that the chair has seen in recent times. However, that he has been non-partisan is not doubted by anyone. His tenure as speaker and his record as an ordinary member of the House deserve a better end than one that weakens the structure of Parliament.