Such images could once have been a cause of embarrassment for politicians. As Trinamool MPs in Delhi prepared to switch sides, he was seen completely comfortable with senior BJP leaders. No attempt was made to maintain confidentiality. Rebel Shiv Sena MLAs in Maharashtra were seen traveling in chartered planes, staying in luxurious hotels and discussing their political future under heavy security cover. He did not look like a public representative who was struggling with some conflict of conscience. Instead, they looked more like executives discussing a corporate matter! The surprising thing here is not the defection. Because Indian politics has been witnessing defection for decades. More importantly, now there doesn’t seem to be any concern for the general perception. No explanation is given as to why there was a sudden change in ideology. No attempt is made to convince the voters that there is any important purpose behind doing so. The message was clear: Politics is a transaction and everyone knows the terms of the deal. Now even access to state resources appears to be part of the deal. As one Shiv Sena MP said: What else would I do if I wanted development funds for projects in my constituency? Defection is no longer seen as a betrayal of the electoral mandate. It has become normalized and accepted as a means of trying to gain power. Were there no defections during Congress rule? Yes, it happened. Defection is as old as Indian democracy. Opposition governments have been dismissed in the past too, with MLAs switching sides to gain office, settle factional disputes or align themselves with the dominant party of the time. Political opportunism continued to flourish. But the question is whether the character of defection has changed now. Defection in the Congress era was a symptom of a dominant party system. Whereas today it has become a strategy to create and maintain a dominant party system. This distinction is important, as it helps us understand one of the biggest changes in contemporary Indian politics. Over the past decade, the BJP has emerged as one of the most effective electoral machines seen in independent India. Its organizational strength, financial resources, communication system and leadership structure are unprecedented. Its electoral success should be acknowledged. But it has also given birth to a new political thinking. Winning elections is no longer just a means of wielding power. The aim has become to expand the area. From this perspective, defection has no longer become an exception, it has become a takeover. Just look at the pattern. The Congress government in Madhya Pradesh fell after the departure of Jyotiraditya Scindia and his supporters. Maharashtra first saw a split in the Shiv Sena and then a split in the NCP. BJP has expanded its presence in the Northeast by taking along leaders and MLAs of rival parties. The aim of all this is to structurally weaken the rival parties and steadily increase the political reach of the ruling party. The BJP, which once prided itself on the ideological commitment and loyalty of its cadre, is now largely inducting leaders from the opposing camps. The BJP of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee era wanted to expand primarily through alliances, social equations and voter outreach. Vajpayee understood that political expansion happens through consent and persuasion. But it is not so today. The anti-defection law is also being continuously ignored. A little-known political party in Bengal – the Nationalist Citizenship Party of India – was used to facilitate defection while avoiding the ambit of the law. Cases involving party divisions and ineligibility remain pending in the court for months and sometimes years. By the time the decision comes, the governments have completed their tenure and the ministers have enjoyed the benefits of the post. Parties evolve. Alliances change. Leaders can also change their views. But if defection becomes a means of gaining power then it is a threat to democracy. Voters do not choose just one candidate. They also choose a party, election symbol, program and political viewpoint. It is unethical to change their mandate through political manipulation after the elections. (These are the author’s own views)
Source link
Rajdeep Sardesai’s Column: Now our leaders are not afraid of ‘what will people say’?
