Introduction

India is a Sovereign Secular Socialist Democratic Republic. One of the most intrinsic features of our representative democracy is holding of periodic elections to elect members for different levels of governance. The elections are to be free and fair. Along the years there has been increase in the involvement of voters in politics.

In India, there have been many threats and strains to the institutions of democracy. The groups in opposition strive for power and the ruling party to retain their power without any principle or ideology. Political defections are integral part of all parliamentary democracies. But they have been opportunistic, unprincipled in our Indian politics and are seen as a major threat.

Political defections have existed since a long time and are very common in Indian politics as well as other democracies. Politicians are always seen shifting their loyalties in pursuit of power which has become a part of the political system. Defections will continue in all parliamentary democracies. The defection in Goa after the last state elections is a recent example.

There are varying views on impact and effect of defections on Indian politics. Most of the early scholars had declared it to be an end of democratic development in India. Later many others gave another view that this phenomenon is becoming a new normal in politics which breaks the barriers which normally divide politicians. They ascertain that as defection is not the only evil in the politics. There have to be efforts from the voter’s side in eradicating the factors which lead to defection and also focus should be moved on to other factors which weaken the political system.

Definition

There are different terms used for this phenomenon which is popularly known as ‘politics of defection’.

Some of the terms used are: floor crossing in England, carpet crossing in Nigeria, politics of instability, etc. In reality these terms do not have the same meaning. But were still used loosely according to Subhash Kashyap. Neither there is consensus about the term to be used nor about the exact definition for this phenomenon.

According to a study by the Ministry of Home Affairs, “defection” means the “transfer of allegiance by a legislator from one party to another political party or (an) identifiable political group.” In the wake of a large number of defections in 1967 that severely affected the Congress Party, the Fourth Lok Sabha (House of the People) appointed a Committee on Defections under the chairmanship of then Home Minister Y. B. Chavan, that defined defection in the following terms: An elected member of a legislature who had been allotted a reserved symbol of any political party shall be deemed to have defected if, after being elected as a member of either House of Parliament or of a Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State or a Union Territory he voluntarily renounces allegiance to or association with such political party, provided his action is not in consequence of a decision of the said political party. (Kamath, 1985)

The dictionary meaning of “Defection” is: “falling away from allegiance to leader. Party.

Religion or duty; desertion; apostacy. Thus, when a member of a political party ceases to owe allegiance to his political party or deserts his political party, he “defects” from his party. So, a defector, broadly speaking, is a political apostate.” (Visweswaraiah, 1997, 53)

All forms of defection are not wrong. In rare cases, they are based on ideological principles or conscience. But, most of the times members defect due to lure of office or as they seek opportunities which has to considered as an offense. Unprincipled defections have an ill effect on the working of democracy.

Background of Defections in Indian Politics

Stage Indian political system saw increased defections after the elections of 1967 which is perceived as a very serious issue in our representative democracy. Though defections were not new to Indian politics, there was increased extent of defection from March 1967 to March 1970. The 1967 election saw proliferation of political parties and made it evident that there was no proper ideological path that most of the parties adhered to. There was no political discipline and organisation in the numerous existing parties. Its easy for the members of these parties without any ideological principle to defect.

Till 1967 Congress had been a dominant party so there was not nee for it to get more legislators in order to achieve stability. The weakness of congress after this led to its own members changing loyalties.

The fourth general election of resulted in the breakdown of virtual monopoly of a single party. Congress couldn’t form government in 7 out of 8 states where it didn’t form a majority. Though no other party had taken the place of congress this was still the evidence of its declining strength. Coalitions started being formed by opposition parties in order to run the government. After the elections, the Congress party formed the cabinet in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh, but they collapsed due to insurgency in the Congress and the opposition parties formed a coalition government. There was formation of a non-Congress mixed government in 9 of our 17 states. But these did not last long and soon collapsed and the President’s government was introduced in those states.

In Haryana Congress won 48 out of 81 seats and Bhagwat Dayal Sharma formed his cabinet.

The protesting Congress members left the Congress party and formed the New Haryana Dal. The Congress party formed the United Front government with Naveen Haryana Dalby relacing the Chief Minister. Most of the members of Naveen Haryana Dal were given a place in the cabinet. That legislature did not last long. During the 8 months of the legislative session, 31 members of Congress defected. One member of the council changed the party five times. The multiple times defections by MLA Gaya Lal as he switched parties three times in fifteen days popularised the epithet of Aya Ram Gaya Ram.’

Similar situations were seen in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, Bihar too.

Most of the times defections occur due to differences in political ideology. But from the result of 1967 one notes that 46% of the Left defectors really did not defect from the Leftthey merely moved from one Left party to another. And 35% of the Left defectors who did vote for the same party in state assembly elections as in the Lok Sabha merely voted for another Left party at the state level. (Eldersveld, 1970, 1019)

The continuous shift in party allegiance by legislators at massive scale had led to fall of about 32 governments during 1967 to 1971. These legislators changed affiliations for gaining ministerial office or for other benefits. During this period the non-congress parties despite of their ideological differences came together to share power by forming coalition governments.

Defections of pre 1967 weren’t of much significance. Congress was normally on gaining side before 1967 due to defection of legislators. But defections started becoming two ways after the fourth general elections to the point that congress losses were way more than others.

The number of so-called independents who did not have any independent principles offered their votes for highest gains.

The defections in 1967 had drawn attention from nationwide voters. Efforts were made since then to find a solution of the evil of defection such as the code of conduct by all party committee in 1969. But due to lack of seriousness, they didn’t get enough success. The 33rd constitutional Amendment bill of 1973 and the 48th constitutional Amendment bill of 1978 are such majors which give provisions against the threat of defections. There were several proposals for banning defections.

Defections had become very common in the Indian politics and raised to massive scale during the term of Mrs Gandhi. An anti-defection bill was introduced in 1973 by her government and another in 1978 by the Janata Party. But these never become success due to several oppositions as well as welcoming of defectors by the governing parties. Even Y. B. Chavan who was member of the Committee himself defected.

Anti-defection Law

One of the most effective majors to curb defection was introduction of 52nd constitutional amendment which became the anti-defection law on March 1, 1985 by Rajiv Gandhis’ government. It provides for disqualification of any elected member of the Parliament or a State legislature if he relinquishes membership in his party or votes or abstains from voting contrary to the party directive, provided that such act is not condoned by the party within 15 days. It also covers independent members if they change their status. The speakers in different legislatures are empowered to decide on issues relating to the disqualification of their members. (Kamath, 1985, 1052)

This was chiefly done in order to avoid political defections. This would have in turn made politics stable which would result in strengthening of democracy. This schedule was inserted also in order to inculcate sense of responsibility and loyalty of the Members of Parliament towards their parties as well as the voters. Its aim was to promote morality among politicians. The voters feel betrayed of the faith with which they elected the representative of a particular party. This is a cause for the fall of representative democracy.

(Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 was introduced to reduce the number of cabinet positions in any government and make defections less attractive.

This law though a novel major has its flaws. The law considers one- third of members leaving as a split and two thirds of members leaving a party to join another a merger. The impact on government and governance due to such percentage changing allegiance is way greater. By looking at the current rate of defections that have taken place it is evident that the law has failed badly.

Political defection, however, should not be seen only through the percentage of membership that crosses the floor, but also in terms of the impact of such actions on the government itself.

Independents play a very important role in the State assemblies. With no ideological path or restrain they keep shifting from one party to another and cause formation or fall of governments.

Causes of Defection in India

There are various factors that lead to defection in India. Success of opposition cause defection. After 1967 elections defectors from Haryana formed the government under Rao Birendra Singh. In Punjab, Akali Dal and Jan Sangh formed a government together under Sardar Gurnam Singh.

Defections are caused by unstable state government. In case of no clear majority formed by one party there is no chance of a stable government. After the elections the parties choose to lure legislators from other parties or independents. There were even cases of defectors from a party forming their own government when there is either ideological conflict or in case the government is weak. In the 1967 general election, no party had a clear majority, and either the Congress party or the opposition parties of the various MLAs could combine to form a government.

Legislators are lured into the party to secure majority. Candidates are bought with money and promises. The legislators join the party in power as they desire better ministerial posts. The party leaders have personal ambitions to have clear majority. After his appointment as prime minister in September 2003, Mulayam Singh had expanded his cabinet to 98 ministers. It symbolises the ambition of a leader.

Another reason is legislators switch party as it lacks influence at the centre. In the 1967 general election, neither Parliament nor the opposition had a very influential leader. Charan Singh was Dal-Badlu. He allied himself with the Congress and sometimes with other parties.

Another reason is public neutrality against desertion. One of the main causes of desertion is the indifference of society to desertion. The people sympathized with the separatists and forced them to win the elections. For example, Charan Singh’s Bharatiya Kranti Dal (BCD) party in Uttar Pradesh achieved great success in the 1969 by-elections. Similarly, in Bihar, major defectors were successful in by-elections. As a result, the leaders of every party are of the opinion that defection is not wrong in the eyes of the people.

When the members of different original parties are working together the government is deemed to be unstable as the members differ a lot in their ideas. The opposition parties formed joint government after 1967 election but they kept on differing while implementing programmes. It was not possible for them to work together and the government disintegrated. There might be conflict of ideas of the members from different parties. But in present day scenario ministers rarely have strict ideological limitations and they prefer moving parties for opportunities. But there is also insecurity within the ruling party that these new members might defect again if they find benefits from other party during the future elections.

There are other factors such as erosion of federalism which cause defection at the state level. According to our constitution India is a federal nation where the centre and the states (though limited) have a certain level of autonomy. But it is evident that the party at the centre influences in politics at the state level. The party ruling the country gains prominence at local level too. The real power lies at Delhi. According to Peter D’Souza ‘two national party competitive system has replaced the ‘two local party competitive system.

First Past the post (FPTP) system rewards candidates who have secures a minority of registered votes with election. Perhaps, at the level of assembly, the FPTP electoral system needs to be replaced by a proportional representation (PR) system. (deSouza, 2022)

Concessions are made to the special interests in order to manage constituencies. The MLA’s build up vote bank by favouring a particular group. The MLAs with the power they hold get re-elected irrespective of the party they belong to.

The institutions which were formed to keep a check on the political evils have failed which leads to aid defections and decline of democracy.

Goa

The political setup in Goa has seen repetitive occurrence of this phenomenon of defection. Peter deSouza studied the period from 1989 to 1999 where he sees increased cases of defection. The most repetitive aspect of this period was the act of defection when MLAs left one party and joined another without resigning and facing the electorate. Regardless of the constraints of 52nd amendment, members, after elections, saw politics only in terms of their personal short-term interests and, therefore, un-constrained by party ideology changed sides quiet often establishing firmly the politics of pragmatism. (deSouza, 1999 , 2436)

The frequent change of parties and loyalties by politicians has even worsened over the years. In the 2022 election, twenty seven of the forty MPs were representing parties other than the ones they contested for in 2017. Some have also alleged the ruling party to have threatened and harassed the opposition candidates.

Over the past five years, 15 MPs, two from the Maharashtravadi Gomantaka Party (MGP) and three independents elected in 2017, have switched sides. Four defectors from the Bharatiya Janata Party defected to other parties, and another four defectors from other parties are either running as independents or are on the list of other parties seeking to merge them into the Nationalist Congress Party.

Congress, in alliance with the Goa Forward Party, wanted to shed the label of a defectororiented party and had vowed not to take back any defectors forcing 40 alliance candidates to publicly swear not to take sides after the election. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) ran a similar campaign.

In 2017 election congress was the largest single party with 17 seats out of the 40 seats of the Goa assembly. But the BJP, which won 13 seats, managed to form a government with the help of the Goa Forward Party, the MGP and the Independents who made a U-turn despite extensive campaigning against the BJP and agreed to support the party on the condition that Manohar Parrikar, then Union Defense Minister, return to Goa as Chief Minister.

Later, the Congress was hit by defections as 10 of its MLAs had switched to the BJP in 2019 causing the party to be whittled down to just two MLAs ahead of the 2022 election. Apostasy was a recurring theme after the 2022 election as well.

Defection has become so common in Goa that even the voters are not surprised as they observe this large-scale defection. The state election saw defection by members who swore that they would remain loyal to their old Party. These members of Congress have time and again criticized BJP and now they are a part of the same party. The government in power did manage to get 2/3rd of the elected congress members to defect as per the 91rst amendment of 2003.

But it’s not always that people vote for the party. Many times, it’s the candidate they vote for. If you see the example within Goa, people vote due to personal benefits they get from certain politicians.

There are various reasons why voters choose to vote for the same candidate disregarding the party they belong to. One of the reasons could be lack of other candidates who are strong enough. Many of the voters do not really care about the background or ideological view point of the candidates. They prefer voting for a candidate who is capable and would get their work done even though they are corrupt or lack conscience. Similarly, voters overlook defection as they want to get benefits for themselves. There is only a small fraction of voters who prefer honest candidates without thinking of their personal gains. It’s as if all 40 MLAs are independently elected from their respective constituencies. (Rajdeep Sardessai)

This time in Goa state election had first time MLAs from congress which proves that people also vote due to the influence of a party. Defecting from this party is then a betrayal towards the voters as they vote due to party ideology or election manifesto.

But in the state election people chose to vote for congress and the same members defected which is a hit to the faith of voters in the party ideology.

Voters are also inclined towards voting for the Party in power at National level. The inclusion of these members from congress was also deemed unnecessary on the part of BJP. According to Peter Ronald D’Souza defections though considered to be an anomaly is the new normal in the Goan politics.

Solutions And Analysis

Paras Diwan gives a view that it is difficult for democracy to work successfully if there are more than 2/3 parties. This is one of the weaknesses of democracy. In other countries like US and UK democracy as successful due to a limit on the number of effective parties to two. But as India until there are large number of parties it would be difficult to prevent defection.

There are many suggestions that came along time to curb defections. Political parties were suggested to have candidates high in morality and integrity. The size of council of minister to be reduced. Keeping the defectors from being appointed as PM or CM. There were even suggestions such as not letting the defectors to continue being a part of the assemblies, considering defections to be penal offence while some are against it.

The suggestion that the parties should adhere to strict code of conduct by not letting defectors into their party will never be successful as it is seen that these defectors are welcomed into the parties by political leaders (even unnecessarily).

The anti-defection law should totally ban defections. If at all there are any ideological or moral reasons for defections the legislator could join another party and give up on his office and then win by standing for elections again.

Instead of directing focus on defection as the sole factor that proves to be a setback for democracy people should widen their perspective. There are other concerns rigging, booth capturing, political corruption, use of money to buy votes are at worst stage.

There are other steps necessary to make anti-defection measure a success. One is to minimize the role of money in elections. The elections have become increasingly costly, more so for the candidates of smaller parties. Many defectors in the past have acted in order to make provision for fighting the next elections. Hence, the federal financing of elections should be considered as a general remedy. There is also a need to re-evaluate certain parliamentary practices in the changed circumstances. It might be worthwhile to limit the need for voting according to the party’s dictates on crucial issues such as no-confidence motions, the budget, the election of speaker, etc. This will also entail that the opposition not insist on the resignation of a government every time it is defeated on a technical point over a noncrucial issue. (Kamath, 1985)

Peter D’Souza has given some suggestions in order to refine our democracy. They are as follows: replacing the two national party competitive system with two local party competitive system, flooding the High court with PILs, shifting from FPTP to PR assembly elections, introducing ‘MLA Report Card’, increasing RTIs reports in order to expose ministers.

Amit Kumar Ghosh states that it is not possible to make out the difference between defections that are for political gains and the ones due to ideological reasons. Defections for noble cause are justifiable and could even be considered as a moral protest.

Some even have the view that change in allegiance or ideology is personal freedom of the candidates. But this freedom cannot be permitted as it betrays faith of large number of voters. Most of the times the motivation behind defection is not due to change in ideology or views but a greed for power. Defections are almost never due to genuineness of a candidate to do any good for the people or serious ideological or moral conflicts within the party. Sometimes the legislators hide the actual personal ambitions behind the curtain of self-righteousness and fight for democracy.

Some multiple times defectors also consider defection to be “homecoming” as in returning to their original party. Frequent change in Party weakens the government and also is a failure of democracy.

Conclusion

Looking at the current scale of defections it is evident that the anti-defection law has failed. some of the limitations of the law are stated earlier. Another limitation is that though there are measures against the defectors, there is no measure against the parties which encourage the defectors. A strong party discipline is needed to prevent this. Scholars Pradeep Chhibber, Francesca Refsum Jensenius and Pavithra Suryanarayan in their important paper, Party Organisation and Party Proliferation in India, argues that parties with stronger organisational discipline where they are clearly established and transparent rules of political mobility, decision making, election ticket distribution, witnesses lesser instances of political defection. (Ghosh, 2021) Organised stronger parties would make members want to adhere to their loyalties. On contrary unorganised parties are weak which create insecurity among the members and they are more likely to defect. Party discipline and organisation thus has to be followed strictly.

There is no use of efforts in introduction of laws only. Rather than only depending on legislative measures voters must themselves play their role. Voters often vote as they rely on the promises by a representative of benefits such as job opportunities. It’s also seen than the money these ministers spend on winning the elections is extorted back from the public itself through unethical corrupt means. Thereby, it becomes very much a responsibility of the us voters to let go of our personal interests and fight this unethical defection.

Defection does surely impede the development in a democracy. But, solely focusing on introducing measures against this sole phenomenon would not give required results for the growth of the country. The factors that lead to defection have to be eliminated for the same as they are far more on parasitic scale than the discussed phenomenon. Only then we can get some long-lasting positive outcomes.

.    .    .

References:

• Anti-defection Law and its Effect on Politics. Journals Of India. (2022, June 29). Retrieved 2022, from https://journalsofindia.com
• The Anti-defection Law. PRS. (n.d.). Retrieved January 1, 2023, from https://prsindia.org/files/parliament/discussion_papers
• Barthwal, C. P. (2012). Coalition Governments in India. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 73(1), 9–20. Retrieved December 17, 2022, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41856556.
• Defections, Rising Nativism...: What’s on People’s minds as Goa Goes to Polls. (2022, February 13). Hindustan Times. Retrieved January 1, 2023, from https://www.hindustantimes.com.
• deSouza, P. R. (2022, October 16). Politics in Goa: Where Do We Go from here? OHeraldo. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from https://www.heraldgoa.in.
• deSouza, P. R. (2022, October 2). Constituency Capture. OHeraldo. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from www.heraldgoa.in.
• deSouza, P. R. (2022, September 24). Democracy as Popular Control. OHeraldo. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from heraldgoa.in.
• deSouza, P. R. (1999). Pragmatic Politics in Goa, 1987-99. Economic and Political Weekly,
• 34(34/35), 2434–2439. Retrieved December 23, 2022, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4408338.
• deSouza, P. R. (2022, October 9). Defections as the New Normal of Politics in Goa.
• OHeraldo. Retrieved December 17, 2022, from https://www.heraldgoa.in/Edit/UPFRONT/Defections-as-the-new-normal-of-politics-inGoa/194928 deSouza, P. R. (2022, September 20). Devan maka sanglam … Digambar. OHeraldo. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from https://www.heraldgoa.in.
• Diwan, P. (1979). Aya Ram Gaya Ram: the Politics of Defection. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 21(3), 291–312.
• Eldersveld, S. J. (1970). The 1967 Indian Election: Patterns of Party Regularity and Defection. Asian Survey, 10(11), 1015–1030. Retrieved December 17, 2022, from https://doi.org.
• Ghosh, A. K. (2021, January 13). India: Understanding the Structural Drivers for Political Defections. ORF. Retrieved January 1, 2023, from https://www.orfonline.org
• Gupta, S. (n.d.). Anti-defection Law. Legal Service India. Retrieved 2022, from https://www.legalserviceindia.com
• Kamath, P. M. (1985). Politics of Defection in India in the 1980s. Asian Survey, 25(10), 1039–1054. Retrieved December 17, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.2307/2644180.
• Kashyap, S. C. (1970). The Politics of Defection: The Changing Contours of the Political Power Structure in State Politics in India. Asian Survey, 10(3), 195–208. Retrieved December 17, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.2307/2642574.
• Kashyap, S. C. (1974). The Politics of Power: Defections and State Politics in India. (S.
• Kashyap, Ed.). National Publishing House.
• Mittal, J. K. (1991). Parliamentary Dissent, Defection and Democracy. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 33(3), vii-ix. Retrieved December 17, 2022, from http://www.jstor.org.
• Politics of defection in India. Legal Law. (2022). Retrieved 2022, from https://www.lawtool.net
• Sharma, D. (n.d.). The politics of defection. Legal Service India. Retrieved January 1, 2023, from legalserviceindia.com
• Visweswaraiah, S. S. (1997). Deplorable Defections: in Search of a Panacea. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 39(1), 47–66. Retrieved December 17, 2022, from http://www.jstor.org