Threat of the whip

THE PROCEEDINGS of Parliament were stalled on the question of the Gujarat Government's decision allowing its employees to join the RSS. The Opposition insisted debate on a substantive motion under Rule 184 of the House whereas the Government was prepared for a Short Duration Discussion under Rule 193.

When the Speaker admits a Motion under Rule 184, the date of discussion is not fixed. Hence a 184 Motion is called a `No-Day- Yet-Named- Motion'. On the day fixed, the mover initiates the debate at the end of which the motion is put to vote to determine the decision of the House.

Rule 193 allows discussion of a `matter of urgent public importance'. But there is no formal motion, nor is there any voting. The Speaker may allot time not exceeding two hours for the discussion. So it is called `Short Duration Discussion'.

Apprising the House

The purpose of the 193 Rule discussion is to enable members in possession of some knowledge about the matter to apprise the House. The question is simply talked out.

In the question of Gujarat Government's order on RSS, the Union Government was not in favour of a debate under Rule 184, as it would lead to division and decision of the House. Obviously, the members belonging to the allied Parties in the NDA like TDP, Trinamul, Akali, DMK, MDMK, PMK would have found themselves in a piquant situation.

If they voted against the motion sponsored by the Opposition, it would be construed that they approved the activities of the RSS; if they supported the motion, it might weaken the alliance and eventually affect the stability of the government itself.

The stability of the government is ensured by the ability of the ruling coalition to maintain the majority in the House of the People. The doctrine of Collective Responsibility of the Cabinet to the House of Commons is considered to be the cornerstone of the parliamentary system in England.

During the 19th century, it was imperative that the moment a government lost a lobby division in the Commons in any matter, it should resign forthwith and order for dissolution of the House. It was held that `every vote is a vote of confidence.'

Then there was a change in the opinion of the constitutionalists that the Government should resign only in the event of defeat by a direct motion of no-confidence or in a matter of essential character.

Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, heading the first minority government in 1924, emphasised this point: ``It (the Labour government) will go out if the leaders of either party move a direct vote of no confidence and carry the vote. If the House on matters non-essential, matters of mere opinion, matters that do not strike at the root of the proposals we make and do not destroy fundamentally the general intentions of the government wish to vary our propositions, then a division on such amendments and questions will not be regarded as a vote of no-confidence.''

This differentiation between the debate on non-essential issue and that on a confidence motion held ground for a long time. A sea change came in the political structure after 1970. The Conservative Government of Edward Heath (1970-74) was harassed by the determined Labour Opposition and the dissident Conservative backbenchers.

Defeated

The Heath Ministry was defeated six times in whipped motions in the House. The Government had to accept the amendments moved by the Opposition which had to move a no-confidence motion for dismissal of the Ministry.

In the 1974 elections, the Labour Party managed to get 301 seats with only 37.1 per cent popular vote whereas the Conservative Party got only 297 seats with a higher tally of 37.9 per cent vote.

Harold Wilson formed the minority government with 34 seats short of the majority in the Commons. Every division in the House challenged the life of the ruling party. Harold Wilson expounded his approach. ``The Government intend to treat with suitable respect but not with exaggerated respect, the results of any snap vote or any snap division. In the case of a government defeat, the government will not be forced to go to the country except in a situation in which every Hon. Member of the House was voting knowing the full consequences of his vote.''

After 184 troubled days in office, Wilson opted for polls in October 1974. That did not solve his problem. The Labour Government returned to power with 319 Members against 277 Conservatives and 39 others in the Opposition.

Precarious majority

It meant that the Ministry had a paltry majority of three in the House. By the end of 1976, two Labour MPs left to form the Scottish Labour Party. The Labour Ministry had to manage the House with a precarious majority of one.

In 1976 the Wilson Government was defeated in the voting on Public Expenditure proposals. A few decades earlier, a Ministry would have been left with no option but bow out of office on such a defeat in a financial proposition. Harold Wilson successfully moved a confidence motion the next day and saved his position.

During the hectic period from 1974-79, the Government suffered 42 defeats. But the Wilson Ministry dared the Opposition to seek the decision of the House through no-confidence motion. The Opposition managed to unseat the Labour Government only through a no-confidence motion in 1979.

When the Mother Parliament itself has redefined the conditionalities, Indian Parliament should not hesitate to come out of the cumbersome dogma of `every vote a vote of confidence.' We should formulate that the collective responsibility of the Cabinet should be tested solely by a direct no-confidence motion.

Such a change in the procedures will facilitate the members to have more freedom to express their views and to vote candidly in the proceedings of the House. The rigidity of three-line- whips in all divisions has curtailed the debating character of the Parliament.

In the Sixties, senior members of the Congress Party were known to be critical of the official proposals on the floor of the House. There were occasions when the Congress members voted against an official motion without incurring the displeasure of the leader or the disqualification under any pretext.

The term `Parliament' itself is derived from `parle' meaning `speak' and `ment' referring to `mind'. In the early stages of the Parliamentary institution in England, the representatives of the people were afraid of speaking their mind openly as it would invite the ire of the king and his men.

Hence they met in secret session and the Speaker was the chosen representative to `speak' for them before the monarch about the feelings of the commoners.

The well-known treatise of Kaul and Shakdher on the Practice and Procedures of Parliament stresses this point: ``If the House clearly shows that it does not propose to support the Government - that is, if the Government has lost the confidence of the House - it must resign or have the House dissolved. However, resignation or dissolution would follow only where the defeat implies loss of confidence. What the Government will treat as a matter of substantial importance on which to resign or to dissolve the House is, primarily, a question for the government to decide. The Opposition can test the opinion of the House by demanding a vote on the motion of no-confidence.''

Clear procedure

The leaders of parties should focus on formulating a clear procedure that only through a vote on a no-confidence motion the Government should be made to resign.

As it is a period of coalition and minority governments, at the Centre and in the States, it is desirable to forestall the chances of dislodging the government in a snap vote or in a non- essential issue.

This will provide ample scope for free and purposeful debates and to record the views of the House on the whole and the members individually without causing, at every stage, the extreme consequence of toppling the government or dissolving the House prematurely. Otherwise Parliament will lose its status as a national debating forum.

ERA SEZHIYAN

(The author is a Senior Fellow of the Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi and a former MP)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : It is not a judicial job
Next     : Know your English