BY any standard, the vote in Britain’s House of Commons on Aug 29 was a historic one. Its effects will be felt, and its significance better appreciated, with the passage of time.
By a narrow majority of 285 votes to 272, the house rejected the government’s motion on military intervention in Syria though it was hedged with qualifications.
The motion called for a “strong humanitarian response” from the international community that “may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons”.
It also said that a UN “process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action,” and further, the secretary-general “should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the observer team’s initial mission”.
Besides, “before any direct British involvement in such action, a further vote of the House of Commons will take place”. The house remained sceptical, despite all these reservations.
The vote is in the great tradition of British parliamentary practice in which members of the ruling party revolt against the government of the day. The most famous incident was on May 8, 1940 during the Second World War when prime minister Neville Chamberlain had to resign.
The government had a majority of 81; but over 30 Conservatives voted with the Labour and Liberal oppositions and a further 60 abstained. Leopold Amery, a close colleague of Chamberlain, quoted Oliver Cromwell’s words to the Long Parliament: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”
Lloyd George, a former Liberal Prime Minister during the First World War, seized on Chamberlain’s call for sacrifice to wound him. “I say solemnly that the prime minister should give an example of sacrifice, because there is nothing which can contribute more to victory in this war than that he should sacrifice the seals of office.” When he sat down the prime minister’s fate was sealed.
Anthony Eden’s bid to capture the Suez Canal in 1956, in complicity with Israel, eventually forced him out of office as prime minister well after the ceasefire. The fiasco convinced Tory grandees as well as the backbenchers that his shelf life had expired.
In 1990 Margaret Thatcher resigned though she beat the challenge to the party leadership easily because as many as 60 MPs refused to vote for her. She had been weakened by deputy prime minister Sir Geoffrey Howe’s brilliant resignation speech in the House a few weeks earlier. The party was convinced that, what with her stand on the poll tax, she would lead them to disaster in the next elections. She had to go.
However, this was preceded by a series of rebuffs in 1988. On Jan 12, the government’s majority of 101 was cut to 47 when several Tories voted against the freeze on child benefits and many more abstained. Three nights later, Tory MPs defied a three-line whip to vote against a private member’s bill on protection of information and the government’s majority fell to 37.
About 19 of them voted in favour of the bill, about 50 more abstained in deliberate defiance of the whip. Some former ministers were among the rebels. On April 18, the government narrowly escaped a humiliating defeat when its majority slumped to 25 on the final reading of the poll tax bill.
Now for the lessons, since South Asia has adopted the parliamentary model. To begin with, such revolts are unthinkable, at least in India. Since the MP gets his party’s ticket for the elections from the party boss, he lacks the very capacity to revolt even if he wished to do so. It would mean political suicide.
In the UK, political parties are organised constituency-wise and it is the constituency association which awards the party ticket after interviews and an internal poll.
On Eden’s resignation from the House of Commons, more than 250 candidates applied. All were rejected. A candidate was selected from a new shortlist — without any reference to the leaders in London. In India, as elsewhere in the developing world, a democratic constitution is worked by undemocratic parties, who are governed by party bosses.
The British parliament was recalled especially for the debate on Syria as it is for any urgent legislation. No democracy outside South Asia empowers its government to make laws by promulgating ordinances; a Raj relic which our leaders merrily adopted.
In the realm of foreign affairs the after-effects of the seismic vote will be felt for long. In March 1955 in the last week of his premiership, Churchill confided to an old friend and confidante, Violet Bonham Carter, “we must never get out of step with the Americans – never” (italics in the original). That doctrine, and the “special relationship” it fostered, is now all but dead.
The ripples are felt even in France, now hailed as America’s “oldest ally”. In 2003, France’s opposition to the attack on Iraq made many Americans shun French fries. But, as the BBC reported from Paris, opinion on a war with Syria is sharply divided — as indeed is public opinion in the US itself. All dissenters are encouraged by the British vote.
Its effect on the future of the British government remains to be seen. Prime Minister David Cameron, though bloodied, was unbowed: “I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons. But I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons.”
As he recognised, the vote simply reflected public opinion. President Barack Obama’s options promise no political gains for him.
The writer is an author and a lawyer.
No comments:
Post a Comment