Tags:
Journalism of Courage
There can be no argument for extending special facilities to former Lok Sabha speakers
A democracy must maintain the supremacy of institutions over the individuals who run them. Representatives of the people must know how to let go,and when. Thus,a member of Parliament does not preserve the power of her office when she retires or loses an electoral contest. Power stays with the chair,and is vested in the new occupant. Given Indias penchant for the VIP culture,however,privileges,once given,tend to linger,often in perpetuity. The proposal being reportedly mulled in the ministry of parliamentary affairs that former Lok Sabha speakers be given facilities similar to those extended to former presidents,vice-presidents and prime ministers is evidence of the same syndrome.
The government has in principle accepted former Lok Sabha speaker P.A. Sangmas suggestion in this regard. The argument being made that the speaker is the only constitutional authority not entitled to special perquisites on retirement is entirely unpersuasive,given that the list of the privileged and entitled needs to be pared down,not extended.
Behind Indias increasing top-heaviness of privilege lies a statist mindset that screams murder every time a VIP is frisked at an airport abroad,or that adds to the list of those to be exempted from routine security checks. The US president didnt enjoy any retirement benefit till 1958,and even now his travel for pleasure is not compensated. The fewer the number of citizens with special entitlements,the better.
