Consensus after contest

The motive of the traditional contest between different parties to put their man in the Speaker's chair has been a combination of prestige a...

int(1)

The motive of the traditional contest between different parties to put their man in the Speaker’s chair has been a combination of prestige and pragmatism by political parties determined to see their own man in this crucial job. Yet a healthy trend has, over the years, emerged in the office of the Speaker, strengthened by Purno A. Sangma. This is that no matter what party and political affiliation a Speaker may bring to his chair, from the moment of sitting in it he becomes a non-partisan arbiter of proceedings in the Lok Sabha. Indeed, Sangma would have been a happy choice for the Speaker’s job precisely because of his impeccable track record of propriety in this respect as well as for his valuable experience in steering a House that was only marginally less divided than the present one. As it turns out, this was not to be, but the victors of the scrap over the Speaker’s post would be well advised to respect his example.

The temptation not to do so will be strong. It is easy to see what a political coup thewinning over of the TDP has been for the BJP, and it is hardly a surprise that the Speaker’s job became a pawn in this game. It may now seem natural for the party and its allies to milk this advantage by leveraging their control of the Speaker’s chair. They should desist. Winning over a long-hesitating Chandrababu Naidu is undoubtedly cause for celebration for the BJP, but it also means that the new government gets off on the wrong foot with the main opposition — to say nothing of a United Front smarting from the departure of its convenor — which was hitherto in a relatively obliging mood. The omens already look none too good. Sharad Pawar, Congress leader in the Lok Sabha, set the tone by sardonically saying that this was a good beginning in government by consensus. Certainly what has happened does not help the cause of the constructive politics that everyone is hoping for after a series of indecisive election results. And this conflict can only become sharper if the BJP should insist on calling GantiMohana Chandra Balayogi a Speaker elected by consensus and demand the Deputy Speaker’s job for the BJP’s own candidate. The BJP’s strategic victory in getting Naidu and others into the fold may give more stability to the government but it requires greater alertness on the part of Balayogi who will inevitably be viewed with suspicion by the Congress and the United Front. He is as yet an unknown quantity, but the best thing that he can do is to take note of his own autonomy from his party promoters from the minute he is elected. His security of tenure is bestowed on him by the Constitution. He is not only obliged to act with independence, he is also as free as he chooses to be. The importance of the Speaker in this Lok Sabha of wafer-thin majorities and inevitable efforts by the BJP to add to its numbers and the stability of its government is hard to exaggerate. It is absolutely crucial that the Speaker is not seen to become a party to these games in the manner that the UP Assembly Speaker has so unedifyinglydone, and to enforce the rules of the game with visible impartiality.