PARLIAMENTARY EXPRESSIONS AND PRACTICES
PARLIAMENTARY EXPRESSIONS AND PRACTICES In the third of a three-part series, this article looks at the origins and history of some of the parliamentary expressions and practices used in many Parliaments and Legislatures in the Commonwealth and beyond.
PART THREE
Ravindra Garimella is a
Consultant at the Lok Sabha Secretariat, Parliament of India. He has been a regular contributor to The Parliamentarian and writes the Third Reading reports on behalf of the Parliament of India for the Journal.
‘Filibustering’1 Another parliamentary expression used in the legislative context is ‘Filibustering’. What does ‘Filibustering’ mean in the parliamentary/legislative context? The 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 unauthorised 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’: ie 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 decisionmaking body. 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 eighteenth century, the term was re-borrowed into English from its French form ‘flibustier’, a form that was used until the midnineteenth century. The modern form ‘filibuster’ was borrowed in the early 1850s from the 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 nineteenth century, the term ‘filibustering’ became common in American English in the sense of ‘obstructing progress in a Legislative Assembly’. Examples of ‘Filibustering’ in the US Congress The ‘filibuster’ is a powerful legislative device in the United
340 | The Parliamentarian | 2020: Issue Four | 100 years of publishing 1920-2020
States Senate. It is not part of the US Constitution, becoming theoretically possible with a change of Senate rules only in 1806, and wasn’t used until 1837. It was strengthened in 1975 and in recent decades has 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 (closure) have failed. Defenders of the tool call the ‘filibuster’ – ‘The soul of the Senate’. US 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 the
“‘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’: ie stopped from making progress within the time allowed.”
