A travesty of ethics in Indian politics

Despite the theoretically and ridiculously stringent ‘Anti-Defection Law,’ there has been an unabated spree of floor crossings by the legislators in Telangana. This peculiar phenomenon of changing loyalties overnight, from ‘Opposition to Position,’ a routine affair of late, though unethical, forms part of shrewd politicking, according to analysts. Nonetheless, the entire dramatics is only ‘One of Degree not of Kind.’ Criticism by gainer or loser should be taken with a ‘pinch of salt.’

Legislators on defection say that they would like to work under the leadership of CM Revanth Reddy, similar to the statements made during the tenure of former CM K Chandrashekhar Rao, when TDP, Congress Legislators, and lone CPI member shifted loyalties. Everyone who changed party, then or now or maybe in future, confesses that the reasons for switching allegiances has been due to their fascination with Chief Minister, his welfare and development schemes, not to speak of their constituency development. The popular self-deprecating phrase, ‘Do as I say, not as I do’ is exactly apt in this characteristic ‘Telangana Defections Model’!

Except blame game, none of the ‘Tall Talking’ political leaders made any concerted attempt to put an end to this ‘Necessary Evil or Malice.’ Identifying similarities and dissimilarities amongst ‘politics, politicking, ethics, principles, acts, legality, and conventions’, in the context of defections, requires a clear understanding of each concept's nuances. It involves a detailed complex analysis of the whole gamut. For instance, political decisions must be evaluated in the context of ethical implications, legality, adherence to principles, and conformity to conventions, case by case.

If politics encompasses the broader scope, politicking implies manipulative or self-serving behaviour in the political arena. Ethics is broader but principles are specific fundamental beliefs that guide actions, but both deal with moral standards, and guide behavior. Acts are specific legislative decisions, while legality refers to the broader concept of adherence to the law, but both relate to the law and governance. Conventions, most important of all the above, are the ‘Established Customs or Practices,’ often informal and based on tradition or general agreement. In democracy, discipline with combination of all the above is indispensable.

The genesis of large-scale defections leading to anti-defection law, at a later stage, had its own inevitability. In the 1967 elections, the Congress lost in eight states, resulting in formation of coalition governments, provoking defections. 32 state governments collapsed between 1967 and 1971 due to defections, 1,969 in state legislatures and 142 in Parliament. As many as 212 defectors were rewarded with ministerial berths! In tune with the public opinion, the ‘Anti-Defection Law’ through the 52nd Amendment, as Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, was passed in 1985 during the Rajiv Gandhi regime. Later, the 91st Amendment in 2003 made some changes. The law, however, has been circumvented effortlessly.

For instance, in the event of ‘Two Thirds Members of Legislature’ elected on the symbol of one party decide to form a separate group and approach the Speaker or Chairman, as the case may be, to recognise them for merger with another party, there is no alternative except to accede to their request. Which means, instead of individual sporadic defections, parties, ruling ones especially, are deliberately encouraging calculated, and well-planned mass defections by way of shrewd politicking.

In the British Parliament, the House of Commons, the mother of parliamentary democracies, whoever crosses the floor after getting elected from one party is called as disloyal person. Though infrequent, defections do take place there occasionally. Members of the House of Commons, British Members of European Parliament, and Members of the British Devolved Assemblies, sometimes cross the floor and abandon previous party membership. For instance, in 1931, Prime Minister James Ramsay MacDonald representing Labor Party defected, following differences with his party leadership over the then prevailing national economic crisis. But, neither he nor three of his cabinet colleagues, who left party along with him, did resign to the membership of House of Commons. There was no necessity also. Elections were also not held. Nevertheless, principles guided defections there.

There are judgments on disqualification of legislative members and the Tenth Schedule by the Supreme Court from time to time. The Court commented whether the right to freedom of speech and expression is curtailed by the Tenth Schedule, whether the provisions do not subvert the democratic rights of elected members in Parliament and State Legislatures. On several other issues, the court observed that once a member is expelled, he or she is treated as an ‘Unattached’ member in the house, but continues to be a member of the old party as per the Tenth Schedule. However, on joining new party after being expelled, he or she amounts to have voluntarily given up membership of old party.

The Anti-Defection Law provides stability to the government by preventing frequent unethical shifts of party allegiance, ensures that candidates elected with one party support and on the basis of party manifestoes remain loyal to its policies. It also promotes party discipline. The other way to look at is, by preventing parliamentarians from changing parties, it reduces the accountability of the government to the Parliament, Legislatures, and the People. It interferes with the member’s freedom of speech and expression by curbing dissent against his party policies.

In the report ‘Ethics in Governance’ of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), it is observed that “Defection has long been a malaise of Indian political life. It represents manipulation of the political system for furthering private interests, and has been a potent source of political corruption.” The report further observed that “there is no doubt that permitting defection in any form or context is a travesty of ethics in politics.”

The decision on disqualification is vested in the Speaker who is invariably a member or nominee of the ruling party and as a ‘YES PERSON’ he or she favours it. Hence, the suggestion is that the deciding authority should be an autonomous body like Election Commission. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution recommended that “the power to decide on questions of disqualification on ground of defection should vest in the Election Commission instead of in the Chairman or Speaker.” The Election Commission and Ethics in Governance report in slight modification recommended that the issue of disqualification on grounds of defection should be decided by the President or the Governor on the advice of the Election Commission, instead of relying on the biased objectivity of the decision from the Speaker.

The fundamental object of anti-defection law is to put an end to the malady of ‘Unprincipled’ defections, but, at the same time, providing scope for realignment of forces by way of merger and split of political parties on ideological tie-ups may be acceptable on case by case and in the interest of state. It is not correct to brand all defections on the same footing. Though interpretations vary on the anti-defection law, one thing certain is that there is a conspicuous absence of ‘Well-Established Conventions’ required in a parliamentary democracy and more so in India. That way, all political parties failed in establishing conventions.

Meanwhile, there is an apprehension in political circles that NDA has discreet plans to orchestrate defections, (BRS to BJP, and Congress to TDP) taking shelter under anti-defection law of ‘Two Thirds Members clause’ to form separate groups for merger, and reach the ‘Magic Figure’ to form the AP-type TDP-BJP alliance government in Telangana. Can it be construed that showering praises by Bandi Sanjay on Harish Rao as a subtle hint at merger of BRS with BJP? When KCR and Revanth Reddy advantageously experimented this, why not NDA leaders?

Albert Einstein rightly said that, “It is better to believe than to disbelieve; in doing you bring everything to the realm of possibility.” It means ‘Belief is Opportunity’ and ‘Disbelief limits Opportunities’!

(Writer is a Senior Independent Journalist and Analyst).