101 Archives - Ravindra Garimella

Essentials of Good Writing

Communication, expressing one’s views either by way of spoken words or by writing has always been of critical importance as that is the very medium of giving a vent to or sharing one’s thoughts and ideas to society at large. In this cyber age fortunately we have very convenient and accessible mediums , right in our palms and at our finger tips!.Hence more opportunities to express oneself , and how does one do that? , mostly through posts on social media and this requires writing albeit in its different manifestations which is typing on smart phones/ ipads / tablets/ laptops and such other devices. As it is so convenient more and more people are expressing their views and for that of course writing , in whatever form , is required. With so many people putting across their views what stands out is effective articulation and hence the relevance of essentials of good writing.

This is precisely is the objective of this post of mine on the blog.

At the threshold I express my gratitude and dedicate this writeup to Goplan M’am , my English teacher while I was in class 8 in my school. Goplan M’am instilled in me the basics of grammatical usage and expression, the importance of consulting Dictionary, structuring of sentences , in nutshell essentials of good writing. This stood me in good stead in years to follow and still do.

In this writeup of mine my focus is on core aspects of good writing. Good writing like good speaking is an evolutionary aspect which refines with time. It is on the evolutionary attribute of writing I would like to lay emphasis upon. It primarily comes from basic principles of good writing which we have been taught to us in school days. So its basically a “ Back to School” approach.Its not in vain that we were taught the usage of ,active – passive voice; direct – indirect speech; punctuation; usage of articles and vowels; comprehension passages, precis writing etc. This stays in our subconcious . Speaking for myself I always fall back upon and draw from my inner resoures of what I learnt in school , which has always helped me.

I felt that this kind of intro was required. One of the essentials of good writing is that should present an easy read. This is what I have endeavoured in this article.

Attributes of Good Writing

“ The more you read the better you write”

Believe me this maxim always works. I would also hasten to add that reading need not necessarily be confined to conventional way of reading, reading in whatever form helps.Reading disciplines our mind, keeps us focussed and is an ever learning experience to come across new words and expressions.This in turn subconsciously hones our writing skills.

Simple expression

One of the essentials of good writing is lucid expression.Lucid expression in other words means clarity.So one of our first principles should be ‘ use of simple sentences’. Compound sentences need be used only as a last resort and as far as possible use of complex sentences have to be avoided.

Official writing

Official writings have many formats, it could be report writing; office notings; drafting executive orders; official communications and emails ; reference papers; concept papers in some fields even drafting of speeches etc. Whatever maybe the mode of official writing , it needs to be structured , lucid , analytical thereby effectively serving the purpose for which the official communication has been initiated. Here too the basic attributes of good writing are applicable. Here the key word is focus.For ensuring focus the threshold parameters are:

Clarity
Plain simple language for expression
Focus on matter being attempted for less ambiguities and quick disposal
A crisp , concise conclusion.

Now I would dwell upon general parameters vis a vis Good Writing.

All we need to do

Regular reading ( read whatever you like)
Back to school approach.
Honing up our comprehension solving and precis writing skills
Factoring within us Dictionary consulting habit ( it now very easy to look up on net) never losing sight of correct usage of grammar.
As the famous quotation goes ,’ Fools rush where angels fear to tread’.

Not to rush at writing anything ( For necessary impact I would here prefer to address readers directly)

First, read carefully and in peaceful frame of mind all relevant material on which a note, brief, communication or report has to be prepared.
Sideline what you think is important .
Make short notes on such points which you think is important.

Mark my words by now you would have achieved a proper frame of mind and a comfort zone. Now you are actually ready to draft what has been assigned to you or you wish to work upon .

Plain Writing

I also find it pertinent to draw attention to some standard norms of plain writing as currently in vogue.

Paul Conway in his book Syntactic Ambiguity has dwelt at length on the importance of ‘ Plain Drafting’. According to Paul Conway “ the call for plain language dates back to Chaucer’s Dream.

It would be of interest to note the following extracts from the book titled Legislative Drafting-Shaping the Law for the new millennium ( by the Indian Law Institute -revised and updated by Shri T. K. Viswanathan , former Secretary General , Lok Sabha ). “ Dissatisfaction with the language of law led to the English Parliament thrice to change the language of law by legislation. The first attempt was made by Statute of Pleading in 1362.It decried the use of French. It required the language of the courts to be English ( but documents to be recorded in Latin) …The second attempt was a Statute prompted by Cromwell’s Parliament “ for turning the Books of Law…into English. It was principally aimed at court proceedings but it included requirement that’ statutes ..shall be in the English tongue’..The third attempt to change the language of law to English was by means of legislation passed in 1731 requiring that all court proceedings and statutes ‘ shall be in the English tongue and language only and not in Latin or French and ( court proceedings shall be written in such a common and legible hand and character , as the Acts of Parliament are usually engrossed in….’”( Chapter VIII -Plain Language Drafting , page 125).

Simple Writing

It would also be of interest to note rules of simple writing as enunciated by L.M.L.Turnbill,QC. Turnbill outlines Rules of Simple Writing. According to him it consists in adopting the following measures:

Using shorter , better constructed sentences
Avoiding jargon and unfamiliar words.
Using shorter words.
Avoiding double and triple negatives.
Using the positive rather than the negative.
Using the active voice instead of the passive voice
Keeping related words as close together as possible , for example , not separating subject from verb, or auxiliary verb from main verb.
Using parallel structures to express similar ideas in a similar form for example , not mixing ‘if’ and ‘unless’ clauses.

Summation

At the end of the day , writing is a labour of love. It has always been so with me. Writing is pleasure always ,view it that way!

Filibustering

The parliamentary expression used in legislating context is Filibustering is interesting both in its historical context as well in its application in countries where it is in practice. What does Filibustering mean in parliamentary/legislative context?

Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines Filibuster as “prolonged speaking or other action which obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures”. In its historical context the term has been defined as “a person engaging in unauthorized warfare against a foreign state”.

Filibustering is to deliberately waste time during a debate by making overlong speeches or raising unnecessary procedural points. In this way a Bill or a motion may be ‘talked out’: stopped from making progress within the time allowed.
A filibuster is a parliamentary procedure where debate over a proposed piece of legislation is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on the proposal. It is sometimes referred to as “talking out a bill” or “talking a bill to death” and characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body.

It would be quite interesting to dwell upon genesis of Filibustering.

Ancient Rome

One of the first known practitioners of the filibuster was the Roman senator Cato the Younger. In debates over legislation he especially opposed, Cato would often obstruct the measure by speaking continuously until nightfall. As the Roman Senate had a rule requiring all business to conclude by dusk, Cato’s purposefully long-winded speeches were an effective device to forestall a vote.

Cato attempted to use the filibuster at least twice to frustrate the political objectives of Julius Caesar.

Etymology

The term “filibuster” ultimately derives from the Dutch vrijbuiter (“freebooter”, a pillaging and plundering adventurer). The Oxford English Dictionary finds its only known use in early modern English in a 1587 book describing “flibutors” who robbed supply convoys. In the late 18th century, the term was re-borrowed into English from its French form flibustier, a form that was used until the mid-19th century.

The modern form “filibuster” was borrowed in the early 1850s fromthe Spanish form filibustero, and was applied to private military adventurers like William Walker who were then attacking and pillaging Spanish colonies in Central America.

Eventually, over the course of the mid to late 19^thcentury, the term “filibustering” became common in American English in the sense of “obstructing progress in a legislative assembly”.

Filibustering in Senate of US Congress

To begin with regarding filibustering in Senate of US Congress I have culled out information available from sources to the best of my ability, with main endeavour to give an insight to operation of filibustering.

Senate

The filibuster is a powerful legislative device in the United States Senate. It is not part of the US Constitution, becoming theoretically possible with a change of Senate rules only in 1806, and was never being used until 1837. It was strengthened in 1975 and in the past decade had come to mean that most major legislation (apart from budgets) requires a 60% vote to, bring a bill or nomination to the floor for a vote. In recent years, the majority had preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve cloture have failed. Defenders call the filibuster “The Soul of the Senate”.

Senate rules permit a senator or senators to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn” (usually 60 out of 100 senators) bring debate to a close by invoking cloture (US term for closure: Concise Oxford Dictionary) under Senate Rule XXII.

The removal or substantial limitation of the filibuster is called the constitutional option by proponents, and the nuclear option by opponents. Under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with two- thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to break the filibuster. Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time.

On November 21, 2013, the Democratic controlled Senate voted 52 to 48 to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of all executive and judicial nominees, excluding Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required. A 3/5 supermajority is still required to end filibusters on legislation. On April 6, 2017, the Republican controlled Senate voted 52 to 48 to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of Supreme Court nominees.

House of Representatives

In the United States House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limiting the duration of debate was created. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed eliminated it in 1890. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House had acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes.

State Legislatures

In only 13 State Legislatures in United States have a filibusters namely Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Vermont.

While talking out a measure is the most common form of filibuster in the Senate there are nevertheless though means of delaying and killing legislation. As the Senate routinely conducts business by unanimous consent, one member can create at least some delay by objecting to the request. In some cases, such as considering a bill or resolution on the day it is introduced or brought from the House, the delay can be as long as a day. However, because this is a legislative day, not a calendar day, the majority can mitigate it by briefly adjourning.

In many cases, an objection to a request for unanimous consent will compel a vote. While forcing a single vote may not be an effective delaying tool, the cumulative effect of several votes, which take at least 15 minutes apiece, can be substantial. In addition to objecting to routine requests, senators can force votes through motions to adjourn and through quorum calls. Quorum calls are meant to establish the presence or absence of a constitutional quorum, but senators routinely use them to waste time while waiting for the next speaker to come to the floor or for leaders to negotiate off the floor. In those cases, a senator asks for unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. If another senator objects, the clerk must continue to call the roll of senators, just as they would with a vote. If a call shows no quorum, the minority can force another vote by moving to request or compel the attendance of absent senators. Finally, senators can force votes by moving to adjourn, or by raising specious points of order and appealing the ruling of the chair.

The most effective methods of delay are those that force the majority to invoke cloture multiple times on the same measure. The most common example is to filibuster the motion to proceed to a bill, then filibuster the bill itself. This forces the majority to go through the entire cloture process twice in a row. If, as is common, the majority seeks to pass a substitute amendment to the bill, a further cloture procedure is needed for the amendment.

The Senate is particularly vulnerable to serial cloture votes when it and the House have passed different versions of the same bill and want to go to conference (i.e., appoint a special committee of both chambers to merge the bills). Normally, the majority asks for unanimous consent to:

Insist on its amendment(s), or disagree with the House’s amendments
Request, or agree to, a conference
Authorize the presiding officer to appoint members of the special committee

If the minority objects, those motions are debatable (and therefore subject to a filibuster) and divisible (meaning the minority can force them to be debated, and filibustered, separately). Additionally, after the first two motions pass, but before the third

does, senators can offer an unlimited number of motions to give the special committee members non-binding instructions, which are themselves debatable, amendable, and divisible. As a result, a determined minority can cause a great deal of delay before a conference.

Filibustering in Parliament of United Kingdom

In the Parliament of the United Kingdom, a bill defeated by a filibustering manoeuvre may be said to have been “talked out”. The procedures of the House of Commons require that members cover only points germane to the topic under consideration or the debate underway whilst speaking. A few of instances of filibustering manoeuvres in the House of Commons and House of Lords are enumerated below:-

In 1874, Joseph Gillis Biggar started making long speeches in the House of Commons to delay the passage of Irish coercion acts. Charles Stewart Parnell, a young Irish nationalist Member of Parliament (MP), who in 1880 became leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, joined him in this tactic to obstruct the business of the House and force the Liberals and Conservatives to negotiate with him and his party. The tactic was enormously successful, and Parnell and his MPs succeeded, for a time, in forcing Parliament to take the Irish Question of return to self-government seriously.
In 1983, Labour MP John Golding talked for over 11 hours during an all-night sitting at the committee stage of the British Telecommunications Bill. However, as this was at a standing committee and not in the Commons chamber, he was also able to take breaks to eat.

On July 3, 1998, Labour MP Michael Foster’s Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill was blocked in parliament by opposition filibustering.

In January 2000, filibustering directed by Conservative MPs to oppose the Disqualifications Bill led to cancellation of the day’s parliamentary business on Prime Minister Tony Blair’s 1000th day in office. However, since this business included Prime Minister’s Questions, William Hague, Conservative leader at that time, was deprived of the opportunity of a high- profile confrontation with the Prime Minister.
On Friday 20 April, 2007, a Private Member’s Bill aimed at exempting Members of Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act was ‘talked out’ by a collection of MPs, led by Liberal Democrats Simon Hughes and Norman Baker who debated for 5 hours, therefore running out of time for the parliamentary day and ‘sending the bill to the bottom of the stack’. However, since there were no other Private Members’ Bills to debate, it was resurrected the following Monday.

In January 2011, Labour peers, including most notably John Prescott, were attempting to delay the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010 until after 16 February, the deadline given by the Electoral Commission to allow the referendum on the Alternative Vote to take place on 5 May. On the eighth day of debate, staff in the House of Lords set up camp beds and refreshments to allow peers to rest, for the first time in eight years.
In January 2012, Conservative and Scottish National Party MPs used filibustering to successfully block the Daylight Savings Bill 2010-12, a Private Member’s Bill that would put the UK on Central European Time. The filibustering included an attempt by Jacob Rees-Mogg to amend the bill to give the county of Somerset its own time zone, 15 minutes behind London.
In November, 2014, Conservative MPs Philip Davies and Christopher Chope successfully filibustered a Private Member’s Bill that would prohibit retaliatory evictions. Davie’s speech was curtailed by Deputy Speaker Dawn Primarolo for disregarding her authority, after she ordered Davies to wrap up his then hour-long speech. A closure motion moved by the government, which was agreed to 60-0, failed due to being inquorate. (of an assembly not having a quorum – of British origin, Concise, Oxford Dictionary)
In October 2016 Conservative Minister Sam Gyimah filibustered a bill sponsored by John Nicolson of the Scottish National Party that would pardon historic convictions of homosexuality (which is no longer an offence), replacing an existing law that requires each pardon to be applied for separately.

The 21st century record for filibustering was set on December 2, 2005 by Andrew Dismore, Labour MP for Hendon. Dismore spoke for three hours and 17 minutes to block a Conservative Private Member’s Bill, the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill, which he claimed amounted to “vigilante law”.

Interestingly though both houses of the Australian parliament have strictly enforced rules on how long members may speak, so filibusters are generally not possible. In local unitary authorities of England a motion may be carried into closure by filibustering. This results in any additional motions receiving less time for debate by Councillors instead forcing a vote by the Council under closure rules.

In Parliaments of France, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Italy, Hong Kong, South Korea, Senate of Philippines, Southern Rhodesia, to name a few there are instances of filibustering.

Parliament of India

In the Parliament of India, filibustering in its intrinsic form does not as such exist.

[ This is an extract from my forthcoming book titled ‘ The Parliament of India- Diverse Dimensions’ from the article from one of its Chapter “ Parliamentary Practices and Expressions” , This article is also be carried as a three part series in The Parliamentarian ,CPA , London.]