The institution of Speaker is a very important part of parliamentary democracy. In parliamentary democracies, led by the British, the institution remains one of the most important, if not always powerful. While the Speaker does not speak, he allows others to speak, particularly elected members of parliament or assemblies, and is a guide for other elected organisations of democratic origin. The provocation for this article is a recent event that did not get the attention it deserved - the election of the Speaker of Telangana's new legislative assembly elected last month. Before I come to the Telangana event, let me dwell a little more on the origins of the institution.
The Speaker is essentially a British institution established to maintain order and discipline in the House of Commons, particularly in a diverse and often opposite legislative atmosphere. The Speaker of the House of Commons, as the elected parliament is called, is nominated for election by the ruling party and elected. The Opposition can propose its candidate, but ultimately the majority prevails and the Speaker takes office. Since the British do not have a written Constitution, they live on conventions, and conventions can often be more powerful than the law. Once elected, the Speaker resigns from his political party in order to remain neutral. This is essential because he has to give both sides a fair chance to speak and express their views. By allowing members to express their views, the Speaker is ensuring that those who elected the member are heard. The citizens speak through their representatives and the Speaker gives a fair and adequate opportunity to all, irrespective of their party affiliations.
The more important feature of the British Speaker is that once he is elected, he can hold office at his own pleasure. Which means he remains in office for the life of the House and even beyond. If he wants to stay Speaker in the next house, he is elected unopposed in his parliamentary constituency.
This is to assure objectivity and a non-partisan spirit. The essence is to make citizens speak through their members, and it is the Speaker that enables this important aspect of parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracies all over, which took the British example, adopted and enshrined it in their Constitutions or parliamentary practices. The Indian Constitution, which came into being in 1950, adopted the British model and enshrined it in its fundamental principles. What happened since is very important for India.
Indians should be very proud of the first two decades of independence in terms of parliamentary practices. The first two Speakers, GV Mavalankar and Ananthasayanam Iyengar, followed the Constitution and the British practice of non-party neutrality. Afterwards, except Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, Speakers remained members of the party that elected them. The British practice of re-electing them also collapsed as most Speakers eyed other opportunities of becoming ministers or governors. The Speaker does not have executive power; he has the respect and regard that an impartial parliamentary institution should have. Indians should regret what happened to this revered institution in the last 30 years. The last 15 days of December 2023 sum up the decline of one of the most important parliamentary institutions, which became highly partisan, prevented the opposition from having its say, and even suspended 14 members. Dissent and disagreement are the main pillars of democracy and in parliament the Speaker, as the custodian of these values, is expected to live up to them.
Now comes the Telangana event. Immediately after the elections, the new Assembly was constituted and the election of the Speaker was scheduled. For some reason, the position of Speaker in Telangana and the former Andhra Pradesh did not have the aura of an important institution. Most Speakers, it is believed, lost their subsequent elections. Which means the position was not considered one of political importance, let alone a respected moderator of opposite views. A few days ago, a new Speaker was elected. The interesting thing is that the opposition parties did not propose any candidate and supported the unanimous election of the candidate proposed by the ruling party. Arguably, this might the first time this happened, but it has very important lessons for the Opposition. In recent times, the Speakers, as a rule, behaved as members of the ruling party and were partisan.
The Opposition's move to not propose its candidate can be seen in two ways. Critics will say that having been in the minority, they had no choice but to accept defeat. But, as a pointer for future, this has a virtue which all elected institutions should adopt. The Opposition can tell the unanimously elected Speaker that they contributed to his election and so he should be more neutral and give everyone an opportunity to participate in debates, and express the views of the people. For the Opposition, it's an opportunity not given to them by the ruling party but has emerged either by accident or oversight.
We are going to have parliamentary elections in April. I wish, whatever or whoever is in the opposition, they should avail this opportunity and even provocatively nudge the Speaker to be fair and just. If this happens, India can reverse the current drift and restore the dignity of the institution both within the country and elsewhere.
(Dr Sudarsanam Padam is a political scientist, who taught at the Administrative Staff College of India at Hyderabad.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.