THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN Caucus has long been known for its strict discipline. Republicans decide in their private meetings what positions to take, what tactics to use, and stick to them. Any dissent is hashed out behind closed doors.

This is at odds with good government. The reason we have legislative bodies is so the people’s representatives can bring their viewpoints to an open debate, where the best ideas should prevail. When the only debate that matters takes place in private, and then not even among all the members, our system of government is undermined.

Which brings us to the treatment of Reps. Nikki Haley and Nathan Ballentine.

Ms. Haley, you might recall, had charged that Speaker Bobby Harrell was plotting to stop her from becoming chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee, as punishment for her campaign to force more recorded votes in the House.

But she withdrew from the race at the last minute and so informed Mr. Harrell, who reappointed her to the panel. It was only after she made the motion that resulted in Rep. Bill Sandifer being elected chairman that Mr. Harrell’s chief of staff handed her a letter reassigning her to the Education Committee, which we consider every bit as important as the labor panel, but which most legislators do not.

Simultaneously, Mr. Ballentine, who had publicized his friend’s cause on his blog, was moved from the spot he held last year on the Education Committee to the Medical, Military and Municipal Affairs Committee, unquestionably the least-influential panel in the House.

Mr. Harrell says he was merely diffusing a tense situation on the labor panel; presumably, he would have removed Mr. Sandifer had Ms. Haley been elected. He says Mr. Ballentine did not ask to remain on the Education Committee, even as a second or third choice.

Were the circumstances different, were such demotions commonplace or were Ms. Haley and Mr. Ballentine just two among many legislators demoted, we wouldn’t be concerned. But they aren’t and weren’t; the demotions came on the heels of a plan (shelved, at least for now) to let the speaker appoint committee chairmen — a plan that was sold as a way for the speaker and his leadership team to prevent bills they didn’t like from making it out of committee. That is, to stifle debate.

The cumulative effect of all this is that even if Mr. Harrell had entirely pure motives, a very clear message was received by every member of the House: Don’t rock the boat. Don’t cross the speaker. Do as you’re told.

Mr. Harrell has said that other lawmakers were angry at Ms. Haley and Mr. Ballentine because they were campaigning for more recorded votes in a holier-than-thou way, strongly suggesting that everybody else was corrupt. We can see how lawmakers would see it that way, although what looked like arrogance might just as well have been political naivete.

But it’s not the job of the speaker to deliver punishment — or what he must know will be widely interpreted as such. Other legislators are quite capable of making colleagues pay for such behavior, since a legislator cannot accomplish anything without the support of her colleagues.

The speaker is perfectly within his rights to assign anyone to any committee he wants; he is within his rights to change those assignments. But there’s a world of difference between having a right and doing what is right. He failed on the second point.

Opinions
The State Newspaper
December 16, 2008