India has had several crusaders like Anna Hazare who have revolted against the system in the past and led mass movements. Has such a moment arrived again since Indian politics is seeing a large number of individuals who defect from their own party, some even causing massive outrage?
It is said that one of the oldest defections from a political party in India was Jinnah’s resignation and his later confrontation with the Congress that resulted in the partition of an entire country. Another high-profile political dissident in Indian political history, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was also a twice elected president of the Indian National Congress but had to go due to differences. One of the major game changers in Indian political history, Morarji Desai also defected that led to a split in Congress. Known popularly as JP, Jayaprakash Narayan started off as a freedom fighter and joined the Indian National Congress, but was responsible to not only change the face of politics but also the fortunes of the Congress party.
Defection must be seen in the context of the relationship between elected representatives and their constituents. Political theorists always debate whether representatives are best seen as trustees or delegates. The trusteeship model sees representatives as free to engage in political actions with adequate leeway on behalf of their constituents, provided that they shall be held accountable, even after elections. In the delegate model, representatives are elected to try and execute a mandate given to them by their constituents. They are not free to engage in whatever political actions they see fit, but must advocate and attempt to secure their constituents’ wishes.
The Anti-Defection Law was passed in 1985 through the 52nd Amendment to the Constitution, which added the Tenth Schedule to the Indian Constitution. The main intent of the law was to combat “the evil of political defections”. There are several issues in relation to the working of this law which need to be discussed. A member of a political party is said to have defected, if he voluntarily gives up the membership of his political party, or votes or does not vote in the legislature, contrary to the directions of his political party or if an independent candidate joins a political party after the election or if a nominated member joins a party six months after he becomes a member of the legislature. The escape route provided must be debated, where disqualification does not apply, when one political party merges with another, or when members of the old political party become members of the new political party albeit collectively, thus effectively jettisoning the party ideals on which one goes to the people. Though one may argue that defection provides stability to the government by preventing shifts of party allegiance, does it not reduce the accountability of the government to the Parliament and the People?
Ethics and morality in life must be seen to be practiced and practiced to be seen. ‘You did’, so ‘I did’ will leave everyone bruised. The last mile, the gullible people will lose faith in systems of governance and the people who govern. It is time the day-light poaching is made criminal and the ones who allow to be poached or rather are keen to be poached are banned for life. There are people who are maimed for paltry sums like Rs 50 or spend an entire life in the dungeon as under trials for petty reasons and here we are. Get elected, jump the ship, hold to ransom, make a neat kill, shed crocodile tears, mouth valiantly how the nation’s interest is being upheld and become noble. Anti-defection law is being used, misused and abused with contempt. Is it time to relook at the law?
Be it the government formation in Goa, or Manipur, what we saw were defections galore. Arunachal Pradesh too saw rampant defections where governments changed colour every few months. It is amazing that an elected government here lost mandate when 43/60 of its MLAs defected wholesale and merged with the People’s Party of Arunachal (PPA), just two months after it had regained power. The recent spectacle of MLA’s herded to hotels in Delhi and Mumbai, ostensibly to prevent their defection to the ruling party or the other way around, does not auger well for Democracy of any Nation.
Defection can lead a member to be expelled by the Speaker and becomes ‘unattached’ in the house but continues to be a member of the old party. If he joins a new party after being expelled, he is said to have voluntarily given up membership of his old party. This is a provision that is exploited by various parties. Should we also not like to see pre-poll electoral fronts as political parties under anti-defection law? At least the vote cast by a defector to topple a government should be treated as invalid. Restrictions like prohibition on joining another party or holding offices in the government must be imposed on expelled members. In fact the Tenth Schedule must provide for a life-ban of a potential defector, switching sides, as a sufficient deterrent.
Does the law, while deterring defections, also lead to suppression of healthy intra-party debate and dissent since people may argue that it actually ensures that candidates elected with party support and manifestoes remain loyal to the party policies and promotes party discipline? Does it then restrict representatives from voicing the concerns of their voters in opposition to the official party position? Should the decision on defections be most of the times judged by the Speaker, who is usually a member of the ruling party or coalition, or should it be decided by an external neutral body such as the Election Commission? All very important questions for which we as a polity, must seek decent answers.
Political parties in India, lack intra-party democracy. The selection of candidates for elections remains a highly centralised process for a large majority of the national parties. Even the executive committees are all products of insufficient and non-existent, procedures in most cases. As a result, one way out of the defection debate is by awarding citizens a right to recall representatives where defection is the ground for triggering recall. But then, does this move not threaten the political stability and social utility of political parties, as a constitution bench of the Supreme Court argued in Kihoto Hollohan case? Whatever is the argument, it is time defection is outlawed.