Dr S Saraswathi
The unopposed election of AIADMK member M Thambidurai as Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha is yet another snub to the Congress, which has been staking claim to the post of the Leader of Opposition (LoP) on grounds of being the largest Opposition party. Earlier, its hopes were dashed with the Supreme Court dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the status of LoP be granted to the Congress.
The apex court reasoned that it cannot decide on political issues brought as a PIL and had no jurisdiction to review a ruling given by Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan that the Congress doesn’t have the requisite numbers to make a claim.
Interestingly, the post of LoP is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. It was created by a ruling of the first Speaker GV Mavlankar, who set the essential rules for parliamentary proceedings. He stated that to hold the proceedings of the House, a minimum of 10% members of the total strength should be present and that should also be the strength of the main Opposition party to be recognized as principal Opposition party and its leader as LoP. The Congress with 44 members is the largest Opposition party, followed by AIADMK (37 members), but is 11 short of the minimum number required.
However, the Salaries and Allowances of the LoP fixed in 1997 and 2003 define the post as one given to the largest Opposition party in the two Houses. There is no mention about the minimum number of members required for recognition under the law. The claim of the Congress for the post of LoP has the support of this law.
The law also provides certain facilities for recognized groups and parties like secretarial office, telephone, etc. It has been the practice to give the LoP in the Lok Sabha the rank of a Cabinet Minister. Further, in the seating arrangement in the House, the LoP is given a seat in the front row, left to the Chair and next to the Deputy Speaker. The LoP is also given ceremonial honour and escorts the newly elected Speaker to take the chair.
The LoP serves on several important committees including selection panels for Central Vigilance Commissioner, CBI Director, members of the Lok Pal, chairman and members of the National Human Rights Commission. Ensuring the strength of the Opposition party and granting the status of LoP is the responsibility of the Speaker. Going by precedent, the Speaker had decided that the present 16th Lok Sabha would not have the post of the LoP. Since prevailing practice mentions only the party with minimum of 10% membership, the question of recognizing the convener of the pre-poll alliance UPA for the post was too ruled out. One need not be shocked at the Speaker’s decision. In the past, Parliament had worked many times without a LoP for many years at a stretch. The first recognized LoP in the Lok Sabha was Ram Subhag Singh in 1969 when the Congress split. He belonged to the group known as Congress (O) opposed to Indira Gandhi. The entire period of Jawaharlal Nehru went without any recognized LoP in either House. Again between 1980 and 1988, when the Congress was in power with large majority, Lok Sabha functioned without a LoP.
This background story makes it clear that the largest Opposition party can claim the post of LoP, but has no right over it in the absence of recognition by the Speaker. Conventions also support number requirement as Telugu Desam Party – the largest Opposition party in 1984 when the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi swept the polls – was denied the position and recognition. In many Commonwealth countries, the leader of the largest Opposition party in Parliament gets the LoP post, which has a unique significance as chief of the “Shadow Cabinet”. This has unfortunately not been developed in India.
Shadow Cabinet is an interesting feature of the British parliamentary system and has been adopted in many Commonwealth countries. It is composed of senior group of Opposition spokespeople who form an alternative Cabinet under the LoP. The members are normally chosen by the leader. The practice of electing Shadow Cabinet members is in vogue in the Australian Labour Party.
These members “shadow” or “mark” each individual member of the real Cabinet in power. It is the responsibility of the Shadow Cabinet to critically examine every policy and action of the Government and also offer alternatives. Its function is thus a kind of constructive criticism with readiness to provide feasible solutions where it finds Government policies defective and keep itself ready to assume office when opportunity arises.
For effective functioning, the LoP distributes portfolios among members of the Shadow Cabinet who will concentrate on and closely monitor concerned Cabinet Minister and be ready with programmes. In some countries, these members are also called “Shadow Ministers”.
In the UK and New Zealand, the term “spokesperson” is more common than Shadow Cabinet. In Canada, “Opposition critic” is the term. Whatever label is applied, they are all members of “His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”. In France, akin to Shadow Cabinet is the “Contre-Government (Counter-Government) nicknamed by the media as “Cabinet Fantome (meaning “ghost Cabinet”).
In some countries, Parliamentary fronts of groups of small parties are also formed. But, to claim the right to speak, parties require the prescribed number of their representatives in Parliament.
Technical groups, teams of experts, and boards of advisors are formed in some countries such as Ireland and Germany. These groups may increase the number of speakers in the House against the bigger parties. In India, there is no Shadow Cabinet at the Centre. But, the idea is not unknown. Some parties have tried to form such Cabinets in State Assemblies. The first experiment was made in Maharashtra in 2005 when the BJP and Shiv Sena joined to form a Shadow Cabinet to keep the ruling Congress in check. In 2013, BJP leader in the Delhi Assembly mooted the idea of appointing “Shadow Ministers” to keep track of AAP ministers. The idea appealed to the Congress opposition in Madhya Pradesh this year.
Indeed, the LoP or the Shadow Cabinet must be engaged in responsible and constructive political work. With Parliament increasingly becoming noisy and unruly, a genuine doubt arises over the role that any Opposition may display. The job of the LoP is certainly not to collect his flock, organize, and preside over physical demonstration of opposition in Parliament. Nor is it meant to spy upon those in power or to merely earn the privileges attached to it.
His/her job is as important as that of the Leader of the Government. It’s a positive role and not negative. A substantial change in the understanding of their role and responsibilities among a number of Parliamentarians is all the more required. Perhaps then the country would be spared of foul politics. INFA
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel