news details |
|
|
| Democracy at a Critical Crossroads | | No-Confidence Motion Against the Lok Sabha Speaker: | | Lalit Gargg
The move to bring a no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is a deeply disturbing development for Indian democracy. Democracy is not merely a system of governance; it is a living tradition rooted in continuous dialogue, respect for dissent, and institutional trust. In a vast and diverse country like India, Parliament represents the highest democratic forum—where not only laws are framed, but the conscience of the nation finds expression. When preparations are made to move a no-confidence motion against a constitutional authority such as the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the issue transcends individual personalities or political parties and raises serious questions about the health of the entire democratic framework.
The opposition’s allegation that it is being denied adequate opportunity to speak in the House—particularly the claim that the Leader of the Opposition is repeatedly prevented from expressing his views—has led to questions being raised about the Speaker’s neutrality. This concern becomes even more serious because the office of the Speaker has traditionally been regarded as a symbol of balance between the ruling party and the opposition. The Speaker’s role is not confined to presiding over proceedings; it carries the constitutional responsibility of upholding the dignity of the House, protecting democratic decorum, and ensuring equal opportunity for all sides.
When a substantial section of the opposition begins to feel that the Speaker’s conduct is partisan or that its voice is being systematically suppressed, the issue ceases to be one of political disagreement and instead reflects a deeper institutional mistrust. The fact that more than one hundred Members of Parliament have signed in support of a no-confidence motion indicates that this is not a momentary outburst but the outcome of prolonged dissatisfaction, unresolved grievances, and a widening communication gap. While it is also true that such a motion is unlikely to succeed numerically, democracy often assigns great significance to symbolic actions, as they convey powerful moral and political messages.
At the same time, the opposition’s statement that it has kept the option of reconciliation open—and its efforts to engage in dialogue through meetings between senior leaders and the Speaker—suggest that the door to resolution has not yet been fully closed. This situation compels us to reflect on a troubling question: why has Parliament, the nation’s supreme deliberative body, increasingly become a site of disruption, sloganeering, and stalemate rather than meaningful dialogue? Is this merely the result of mutual distrust between the government and the opposition, or does it point to a deeper erosion of parliamentary traditions?
In recent years, it has repeatedly been observed that instead of serious debate on important legislation and issues of national importance, parliamentary proceedings are frequently disrupted. This not only hampers legislative functioning but also sends a disheartening message to citizens—that their elected representatives are failing to discharge their responsibilities with seriousness and maturity. The greatest strength of democracy lies in its ability to accommodate dissent. The role of the opposition is not limited to protest; it also involves holding the government accountable and presenting alternative perspectives. For this, freedom of speech within the House, the right to question, and respect for criticism are indispensable.
If the opposition feels that these democratic pathways are being narrowed, its frustration often spills over into protests and disruptions, ultimately damaging the dignity of Parliament itself. On the other hand, repeated obstruction of parliamentary proceedings by the opposition is equally problematic, as it paralyses governance and sidelines public concerns. Caught between these two extremes of mistrust and aggression, the true purpose of democracy risks being lost.
In the world’s largest democracy, if Parliament consistently makes headlines for disruptions, suspensions, and deadlock, it inevitably affects India’s democratic image at the global level as well. When confrontation and mistrust overshadow discussions on development, policy, and public welfare, it bodes ill for the future. Democratic strength does not stem from a powerful government alone; it also requires a strong opposition and impartial institutions. From a position such as that of the Lok Sabha Speaker, society expects not only strict adherence to rules but also the ability to act as a bridge of trust. Likewise, the opposition must ensure that its protest remains constructive rather than degenerating into obstruction.
There is an urgent need today to restore Parliament as a forum for dialogue, where even sharp disagreements are expressed within the bounds of decorum, and where both the government and the opposition reaffirm their commitment to democratic values. If no-confidence motions are being used as warning signals, they should also serve as opportunities for collective introspection. The central question is not who is right or wrong, but how democratic institutions can be made healthier, more credible, and more effective. Citizens elect their representatives not to indulge in slogans or stall proceedings, but to engage in serious deliberation on the nation’s future. When Parliament fails to meet this expectation, the very foundation of democracy begins to weaken.
It is also a matter of record that, as Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Om Birla’s conduct of parliamentary proceedings has generally been viewed as disciplined, efficient, and rule-bound. During his tenure, efforts to ensure time-bound functioning of the House, prioritisation of legislative business, and inclusion of diverse political parties have been evident. On several occasions, he has attempted to maintain balance between the ruling side and the opposition, while emphasising adherence to parliamentary traditions and procedures. His image has largely been that of a speaker who employs patience, prudence, and practical wisdom to ensure the smooth functioning of the House. In light of his commitment to democratic institutions, respect for parliamentary norms, and openness to dialogue, the move to bring a no-confidence motion against a speaker of his standing appears tragic and deeply unsettling. This episode points less to an individual failure and more to a broader atmosphere in which mistrust has grown so deep that the bridges of dialogue and confidence are steadily eroding.
Ultimately, this is a moment to rise above accusations and counter-accusations and embrace responsibility. The ruling party must recognise that a strong opposition is not a weakness of democracy but one of its greatest strengths. The opposition must accept that dissent carries its own discipline and creative responsibility. And holders of constitutional offices must remember that neutrality is demonstrated not only through procedural correctness but also through conduct, perception, and equal opportunity. If we fail to preserve Parliament as a platform for dialogue, it will not merely signify the failure of a session or a government, but a collective failure to uphold democratic values. This is the moment for every citizen, every representative, and every institution to engage in introspection—so that the path ahead leads not toward destruction through division, but toward dialogue, trust, and democratic maturity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
