Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The office of the Speaker in the Lok Sabha is central to the functioning of Indian Parliament. Currently, the Speaker is elected by the members of the Lok Sabha from amongst themselves. While there’s an unwritten convention of consensus on the Speaker’s name, it’s not a rigid rule. The proposal of adopting a ‘Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker’ practice – granting lifelong eligibility to former Speakers to be re-elected – aims to impart objectivity and institutional memory to the office. However, such a move raises concerns about potential disruptions to the established norms of parliamentary democracy and the balance of power within the legislature.
Current Practice and Constitutional Provisions
Currently, Article 93 of the Constitution deals with the office of the Speaker. It states that the Lok Sabha shall choose a Speaker and Deputy Speaker from amongst its members. There is no constitutional bar on a former Speaker contesting and being re-elected. The convention of consensus building, though often breached in recent times, has historically guided the election of the Speaker. The Speaker’s role is to be impartial and maintain order in the House, and their decisions are subject to judicial review.
Arguments in Favour of ‘Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker’
- Impartiality and Institutional Memory: A former Speaker, having served in the role, is expected to possess a deeper understanding of parliamentary procedures and traditions, potentially leading to more impartial decisions. Their continued eligibility could encourage a more objective approach, free from partisan pressures.
- Experience and Expertise: Experienced Speakers can provide valuable guidance to newly elected members and contribute to the smooth functioning of the House.
- Strengthening the Institution: The policy could elevate the prestige of the office of the Speaker and reinforce its institutional authority.
Potential Implications for Parliamentary Business
- Disruption of Party Dynamics: Allowing former Speakers to re-contest could disrupt the existing party dynamics within the Lok Sabha. It might create a situation where a former Speaker, backed by a particular party, could wield significant influence, potentially undermining the authority of the ruling party.
- Reduced Accountability: A ‘life-long’ eligibility could reduce the accountability of the Speaker to the House. Knowing they can always re-contest, a Speaker might be less inclined to adhere to the conventions of impartiality.
- Political Maneuvering: The policy could incentivize political maneuvering and horse-trading to secure the support of former Speakers, potentially leading to instability.
- Conflict with Democratic Principles: The principle of equal opportunity for all members to contest and hold office could be compromised.
Comparative Analysis – Other Parliamentary Systems
Several parliamentary democracies, like the UK and Canada, do not have such a provision. The Speaker in these systems is generally chosen based on consensus and impartiality, but there is no guarantee of continued eligibility. The Indian system, while inspired by the Westminster model, has evolved its own unique characteristics. Introducing a ‘Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker’ policy would be a significant departure from established norms.
Recent Trends and Challenges
Recent years have witnessed increased polarization in Indian politics, leading to frequent disruptions in parliamentary proceedings. The role of the Speaker has come under scrutiny, with accusations of bias and partisan behavior. While the proposed policy aims to address these concerns, it’s crucial to consider whether it’s the most effective solution. Strengthening the internal mechanisms for ensuring impartiality and promoting consensus-building might be more viable alternatives.
Conclusion
The ‘Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker’ proposal, while intending to enhance objectivity, carries significant risks for the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India. While institutional memory and experience are valuable, the potential for disruption of party dynamics, reduced accountability, and political maneuvering outweigh the benefits. A more pragmatic approach would involve strengthening existing mechanisms for ensuring impartiality, promoting consensus-building, and upholding the democratic principles of equal opportunity and accountability within the Lok Sabha.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.