The new ‘normal’ of political splits and shifts

Source: The post is based on an article “The new ‘normal’ of political splits and shifts” published in the “The Hindu” on 12^th July 2022.

Syllabus: GS 2 Parliament and State Legislatures—Structure, Functioning, Conduct of Business, Powers & Privileges and Issues Arising out of these.

Relevance: Anti-Defection Law in India

News: Recently, the States of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh have seen splits in the ruling party. Subsequently, there has been realignment of legislators which inaugurated new governments.

Trends of splits and switches in India

Splits and switches are commonplace in legislatures across the globe. India has also witnessed at least three distinct waves. These were:

(1) In the latter half of the 1960s, there were a number of free movement of legislators across political parties which led to quick turnover of governments in India.

(2) In late 1980s, the anti-defection law was enacted to end the menace and regulate the behaviour of legislators. The law discouraged individual movement and incentivised a collective movement of legislators (mass defection). This happened because the law legitimized the defection of a specific number of legislators.

(3) Since 2014, there have been a number of splits and switches aimed to establish the governments. For example, such happenings were seen in Arunachal Pradesh (2016), Bihar (2017), Karnataka (2019), Madhya Pradesh (2020), and Maharashtra (2022).

What are the problematic aspects with the third phase of the splits and switches in India?

There is no respect for the basic rules of the game.  The dominant parties are promoting splits and shifts.

The dominant parties have weaponized the anti-defection law and institutions. For example, these are used to intervene in the internal working of the opposition parties, etc.

Furthermore, legislators are also switching their support even if it does not lead to the making or maintenance of governments.

What are the associated issues?

It could have repercussions in terms of government formation, maintenance, and termination. Therefore, it is immoral and damages the foundations of representative democracy in India.

First, switchers violate the trust of those who voted in their favour on certain grounds.

Second, if it is assumed that voters vote for parties and not candidates, then it makes it difficult for voters to hold party governments accountable for their actions during elections.

Why do legislators split from and switch parties without fearing the negative connotations?

First of all, the notion of political parties is not static, it has changed with time and transformed. For example, Parties constantly adapt new modes to sustain and find success for themselves.

Today’s parties are not classical mass parties, which rise from societal movements and are internally democratic and share a common goal encompassing different dimensions of societal life.

Today’s parties are centralised vote-getting machines which primarily work to ensure the return of political leaders to office. They are working without internal democracy. There is lack of link with the society and mass organization. It is the central leadership that counts and matters. All party activities begin and end with elections.

In this model, the traditional campaign modes have been replaced by new forms of communication and campaign methods. For example, paid professionals are hired to frame strategies, run campaigns and distribute tickets. Therefore, traditional voter bases like labour etc. don’t form the backbone of parties and linkage between parties and the grassroots.

The voters see elected representatives or parties from the perspective of a supplier of goods and services. Therefore, the elected representatives are expected to be in government or at least close to the government. Therefore, the MLAs/MPs switch parties, and defections are not punished by voters.