The chair, the person

The CPM does not perhaps realise the unseemliness the party has imposed on the office of the Lok Sabha Speaker. From the moment the party and its Left allies took a decision to withdraw support to the Congress-led UPA government and actively demand that the government seek a vote of confidence, Somnath’s Chatterjee’s continuance as Speaker was put in doubt. The credibility of the rumours about pressure exerted on him to resign was established a few days ago by a clarification put out by the Lok Sabha secretariat. The statement said the obvious, that the Speaker of the Lower House of Parliament does not serve the partisan interests of any party. It was an indication of Chatterjee’s reluctance to demit office before the prime minister moves a vote of confidence next week. The statement also pleaded that the Speaker’s office not be drawn into controversy. But it already has been, and if Chatterjee does quit, this is an academic point of debate that will outlast the special session of Parliament.

In a Westminster system like ours, the Speaker plays a crucial role in the conduct of proceedings in Parliament. Besides conducting proceedings, s/he is an arbiter on rules of procedure and, given the scope for discretion, is expected to do this in a non-partisan manner. Therefore in many countries conventions have developed to ensure the neutrality of this office; for instance, in Britain political parties avoid putting up a candidate against someone who has just finished a term as Speaker. The point being that the incumbent’s actions should not in any way be influenced by anxiety over future political prospects. This is why there is such bewilderment over the CPM’s decision to include his name amongst the MPs withdrawing support to the UPA government and to proceed to insist that this be taken as reason for him to step down as Speaker. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha is not a functionary of the ruling government; his power does not draw in any way from the executive branch; and he is not answerable to the executive. Is the CPM implying that Chatterjee’s conduct in the past four years was in any part determined by his party’s support to the UPA?

However, it is not the logical inconsistencies that matter as much as a general anxiety over the way the office functions in many states. In the Indian system the Speaker draws great power from discretion to decide on cases of defection. The Lok Sabha has been controversy-free on this count, but not the states. Anything that politicises the office will only make things worse.