Conventions are what they are because they are not obligatory. Abiding by them requires voluntary acceptance of unwritten rules – such as a batsman walking even before the umpire raises the finger. Or, choosing or not choosing to Mankad a batsman who leaves the crease early. In today’s cricket, such ‘gentlemanliness’ is rare to see, but it is appreciated when exhibited. What they are not is transactional – ‘will follow if you comply with my demands’. When conventions are challenged, new ones are formed, as they do not need necessarily to be legislated.
It is a given that the NDA’s choice of candidate will be the Speaker of the 18th Lok Sabha. Conventionally, the Speaker has been elected unanimously, even though the provision exists for a contest. Unanimity requires the acceptance of the ruling party’s choice by the opposition basically as a mark of respect for the person who will then protect the interests of all. Such acceptance does not come on the basis of a ‘deal’ seeking payback in other ways. That implies the acceptance is not out of respect.
The NDA has chosen to repeat BJP MP Om Birla as the Speaker. The Opposition, on the other hand, has offered ‘conditional’ support if its candidate is made Deputy Speaker. If it is to be a ‘deal’, then the Treasury Benches are not obliged to abide by convention – they can achieve their goal through the test of numbers. Had the convention been followed, the opposition would have had the moral high ground and ‘expected’ reciprocal magnanimity at the time of the Deputy Speaker’s election. That is how parliamentary conventions work.
In the face of such politics, it is only natural that conventions will be set aside. If matters are not resolved, there will likely be a contest for the Speaker’s post. The opposition has fielded K Suresh as its candidate. The result is a given. However, this will also mean a contest for the Deputy Speaker’s post and, given the numbers, the opposition will lose again. So, how smart is such politics? All that the opposition will be left with is a grievance to be raised from time to time, while having surrendered political space.
How viable is this approach? Is it rooted in an egoistic unwillingness to accept the election mandate? No matter how unpleasant it may be for certain persons, Narendra Modi is the Prime Minister. Any claim to a superior understanding of conventions will not change this undeniable fact, nor provide moral superiority.
