07-18-2008, 01:11 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Clinging to office </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Somnath should have resigned
Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has not exactly covered himself with glory by cussedly refusing to do the morally right thing. Few apart from those who stand to gain politically from his continuance in office would justify his decision to stay put despite the CPI(M) withdrawing its support to the UPA Government.<b> Since he has been elected to the Lok Sabha on the CPI(M)'s ticket, and has on several occasions flaunted his Marxist credentials, he should have stepped down from the Speaker's post by now.</b> While it is true that the presiding officer of the Lok Sabha ceases to represent any political party once he or she is elected to the post of Speaker, in Mr Chatterjee's case this tradition applies with a rider attached to it. He became Speaker by virtue of the Left extending its support to the UPA Government; had the Left not been a member of the extended UPA family, he would have continued to sit on Opposition benches. Now that the Left has walked out of the arrangement, that too on an ideological issue, it is morally incumbent upon him to give up his office, along with the perquisites and privileges that come with it. Second, the CPI(M) has made it abundantly clear that it would like him to relinquish office and vote against the Government on July 22. By choosing to ignore his party's desire, he has placed a big question mark on his professed political commitment all these decades. Third, by refusing to toe the party line, he has demonstrated a certain political bias that cannot but cast aspersion on his ability to discharge his duties in a fair manner during the trust vote proceedings, especially the debate that will precede actual voting.<b> This perception is strengthened by his utterances to the effect that he cannot vote along with the BJP against the Congress-led Government. If as Speaker he is indeed above partisan politics, as he so loftily claims to be, he should not have betrayed his biases in so pronounced a manner. The 'untouchability' he now practices is a far cry from his collaboration with the BJP in the past</b>. Mr Chatterjee has perhaps forgotten, but others have not, how he and his colleagues walked out of Parliament along with the BJP's MPs to protest against the cover-up of the Bofors scam in 1989 after hurling invectives at the Congress Government of the day, which was headed by Rajiv Gandhi.
Mr Chatterjee has a distinguished record as a parliamentarian and has not hesitated to rip into Governments in the past, fulfilling his duty as a member of the Opposition. What we are witnessing now is the abnegation of that record. If there is discomfort -- some would suggest embarrassment -- within the Left over the brazen manner in which he is clinging on to his office, there is justifiable consternation and concern in the rest of the Opposition.<b> For him this may be the end of the road and he would rather retire as Speaker of the Lok Sabha than resign to uphold the dignity of his office and the prestige of his party</b>. But for others who look forward to a future in parliamentary politics, his action has set a precedent that is both undesirable and unhealthy for parliamentary democracy. <b>Most important, by electing amorality over the morally obvious, he has sought to diminish the prestige of the office he holds</b>. He is welcome to his bluster, but he would do well to take note of the fact that his action has not won him any admirers
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Somnath should have resigned
Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has not exactly covered himself with glory by cussedly refusing to do the morally right thing. Few apart from those who stand to gain politically from his continuance in office would justify his decision to stay put despite the CPI(M) withdrawing its support to the UPA Government.<b> Since he has been elected to the Lok Sabha on the CPI(M)'s ticket, and has on several occasions flaunted his Marxist credentials, he should have stepped down from the Speaker's post by now.</b> While it is true that the presiding officer of the Lok Sabha ceases to represent any political party once he or she is elected to the post of Speaker, in Mr Chatterjee's case this tradition applies with a rider attached to it. He became Speaker by virtue of the Left extending its support to the UPA Government; had the Left not been a member of the extended UPA family, he would have continued to sit on Opposition benches. Now that the Left has walked out of the arrangement, that too on an ideological issue, it is morally incumbent upon him to give up his office, along with the perquisites and privileges that come with it. Second, the CPI(M) has made it abundantly clear that it would like him to relinquish office and vote against the Government on July 22. By choosing to ignore his party's desire, he has placed a big question mark on his professed political commitment all these decades. Third, by refusing to toe the party line, he has demonstrated a certain political bias that cannot but cast aspersion on his ability to discharge his duties in a fair manner during the trust vote proceedings, especially the debate that will precede actual voting.<b> This perception is strengthened by his utterances to the effect that he cannot vote along with the BJP against the Congress-led Government. If as Speaker he is indeed above partisan politics, as he so loftily claims to be, he should not have betrayed his biases in so pronounced a manner. The 'untouchability' he now practices is a far cry from his collaboration with the BJP in the past</b>. Mr Chatterjee has perhaps forgotten, but others have not, how he and his colleagues walked out of Parliament along with the BJP's MPs to protest against the cover-up of the Bofors scam in 1989 after hurling invectives at the Congress Government of the day, which was headed by Rajiv Gandhi.
Mr Chatterjee has a distinguished record as a parliamentarian and has not hesitated to rip into Governments in the past, fulfilling his duty as a member of the Opposition. What we are witnessing now is the abnegation of that record. If there is discomfort -- some would suggest embarrassment -- within the Left over the brazen manner in which he is clinging on to his office, there is justifiable consternation and concern in the rest of the Opposition.<b> For him this may be the end of the road and he would rather retire as Speaker of the Lok Sabha than resign to uphold the dignity of his office and the prestige of his party</b>. But for others who look forward to a future in parliamentary politics, his action has set a precedent that is both undesirable and unhealthy for parliamentary democracy. <b>Most important, by electing amorality over the morally obvious, he has sought to diminish the prestige of the office he holds</b>. He is welcome to his bluster, but he would do well to take note of the fact that his action has not won him any admirers
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->