Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The decision by the Union Cabinet to introduce changes in the Anti-Defection Act should be welcomed. A crucial provision of the Act8212; by which if one-third members of any party decides to break away, the group is recognised formally as a 8216;8216;split8217;8217; in the party and becomes a legitimate entity without loss of seats in the legislature8212;will now be deleted. Any member who chooses to defy the party whip or leave the party will now lose his seat and have to seek a fresh mandate. Defections have long been the plague of the Indian party system, in spite of the Anti-Defection Act which was introduced by Rajiv Gandhi in 1985 and which has since been flagrantly misused. The Anti-Defection Act disallowed individual defections, or 8216;8216;retail8217;8217; defections, but allowed 8216;8216;wholesale8217;8217; defection, that is, the one-third principle became the formal 8216;8216;split8217;8217;.
In democracy, the principle of defection exists to protect the freedom of the individual party member. The 8220;conscientious objector8221;, or those with ideological differences with party leaders, have the right to seek parties better suited to their convictions. Indeed, it could be argued, that banning defections altogether as the cabinet has now decided to do is a highly authoritarian act. It could seriously hamper inner party democracy and can be regarded as an overdose of legalism. After all, in a situation where the Speakers themselves often play a highly partisan and discriminatory role, where high commands are often totally unaccountable over when and why they deploy the whip, and where there is often victimisation of members for not toeing the official line, the stern abolition of defection could become a draconian measure which curbs the individual freedom of the party member.
