Diminishment of hallowed Constitutional posts is an old story. From Presidents, Governors, Election Commissioners, to even supposedly apolitical governmental institutions, the taints of partisanship have persisted since Independence. No political party, national or regional, can claim to be above board on accusations of bias or misuse of these Constitutional appointments. The more autocratic the dispensation, the more compromised or ‘caged’ have been the so-called independent institutions.
But perhaps none has been in the news more prominently in recent times than the post of ‘Speaker’ of the House, in the State Assemblies or even in the Lok Sabha. Again, incontrovertible accusations of brazen partiality can be heaped on the conduct of various ‘Speakers’ hailing from different ideological/ party affiliations. Three evolutionary factors have contributed to the sensitivity of the post.
Firstly, it is a position that has assumed increasing significance as the acceptable culture and perennial threat of making and breaking governments via ‘horse-trading’ has become regrettably normal. Secondly, the advent of coalition governments adds to the situational vulnerability that makes the role of the Speaker crucial to
stabilize/destabilize the government of the day. Thirdly, we live in a ‘manufactured information age’ where created narratives matter, so clippings (with or without context) of ‘forwards’ on social media platforms play a huge role in defining the dominant narrative in the public ~ here, as the arbiter of the noisy house (even adjudicator of personal conduct), the Speaker can create situations, perceptions, suffocations, or leniencies, to stitch particular narratives.
The late President Pranab Mukherjee, who was a veteran of many parliamentary battles and intrigues captured the ideal of a Speaker when he said, “The Speaker’s role is not just about running the House; it’s about being a bridge between the government and the opposition and ensuring that the democratic process is upheld.” Sadly, the expectation of an honest broker between the government and the opposition, or one who puts conscientious impartiality over his/her sense of partisanship, is far from valid. While Indian democracy and the resultant politics are based on the British Westminster-style parliamentary system, there is one glaring difference between the two.
In the British system, the Speaker becomes naturally non-partisan as he/she resigns from party membership on being elected. This leaves the ideal of nonpartisanship on the personal conscience and morality of the individual in order to rise beyond partisanship. The British House of Commons Information Office notes, “The Speaker must be above party-political controversy and must be seen to be completely impartial in all public matters. All sides in the House rely on the Speaker’s disinterest and understand that he or she must stand aside from controversy. Accordingly, on election the Speaker resigns from his or her political party”.
It is further instructive on the social part of the expectation, “Assuming the office of Speaker will, to a great extent, mean shedding old loyalties and friendships within the House. The Speaker must keep apart from old party colleagues or any one group or interest and does not, for instance, frequent the Commons dining rooms or bars.” It would be simply unimaginable in the Indian context, to come remotely close to the same. Importantly, this advisory is not just for the politicians to abide by but is frenetically pursued by the media whenever it senses partiality by the Speaker. The current speaker is Sir Lindsay Hoyle, who was earlier a Labour MP, but was chosen in 2019 in a House dominated by Conservative MPs.
All his actions, words and even social interactions are under the media’s microscope to pick any tilt towards his former party, and many times he is called out to explain his conduct (and even apologise). Certainly not so in India. With the cameras capturing actions and words of the Speaker, to even suggest voluntary non-partisanship is to put oneself up for ridicule. There have been honourable exceptions who have uplifted the majesty of the chair and added immeasurably to the strengthening of democratic roots in India. N Sanjiva Reddy voluntarily resigned from party membership in 1967 to set an example and precedent of non-partisanship. He was to quit active politics after his tenure and only came back years later acceding to Jaiprakash Narain’s call for ‘Total Revolution’. He again became the ‘Speaker’ and was then unanimously elected President.
Years later, a man of immense honour, dignity and sense of constitutional propriety was to rise above petty partisanship and was made to pay a personal price. Somnath Chatterjee was an immensely popular, successful (10 times Lok Sabha member) and proud constitutionalist who spoke his mind fearlessly. Unfortunately this personality trait made it difficult for dogmatic ideologues of his partisan persuasion to accept his putting constitutional morality over partisan considerations.
As Speaker of the Lok Sabha, he had refused his party diktat to vote along with the party on a non-confidence motion, but he had refused owing to issues of integrity and bipartisan necessities that in his noble mind befitted a Speaker. Even though he too had his share of controversies, everyone across the aisle recognised him to be scrupulously honest. The likes of him, who put principle over party, are very rare, if not completely absent. Chatterjee knew the price that he would have to pay to do the ‘abnormal’, but he heeded to his conscience.
Unlike these days, when certain individuals make unusual decisions that are invariably a prelude to jumping ships, Chatterjee never joined any other political party. Given his actions, he could have struck a deal either with his party or the other side, but he would have struggled to make peace with his decision had he done so. In his mind, he had joined the Communist party and he died a Communist, even though his party had expelled him. Perhaps it is the personal price that a true constitutionalist has to pay to uphold the lofty values of democracy that compels many to act in a clearly partisan, beholden and ignoble way, as is the wont and perhaps the essential qualification these days.
(The writer is Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), and former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)