Images that stick

Some people have suggested that MPs who have defected come from constituencies redrawn by the delimitation process. But a quick check reveals that the delimitation process has not resulted in the loss of their Lok Sabha constituencies. Even if delimitation did result in the loss of their former constituency, there is still no logic as to why they need to defect.

Arguably, if their credibility in the party was high, such MPs could seek a ticket from another neighbouring constituency within the same party. In several cases of defection, there seems to have been some other simmering discontent. In the end, it was not just following money blindly: the members who defected appear to have made a conscious, well-thought-through choice, taking into account all factors that could hurt or benefit their political futures.

A number of other reasons have clearly been part of the decision-making on the trust vote. Some members have said that they decided to defect on “principle”. Some political parties such as the Samajwadi Party have said that they decided to support the government in the national interest. In an atmosphere where there is much mistrust about MPs and parties among the middle class, it might be hard for many to believe that there are still a number of people in politics who adhere to certain principles. The events of the last two weeks only reinforce these negative perceptions. It is imperative for all those MPs — and we believe that there are a significant number of them — who have stuck with their principles and their parties to take all necessary measures to restore credibility to the political class.  This may require conscious steps such as excluding candidates with criminal records while giving election tickets, requiring party members to conform to a code of ethics, and so on. 

The number of newspaper and TV stories that have focused on money changing hands — that MPs are bought and sold — and the allegations by some political leaders themselves also add to the widely held public perception that MPs are corrupt. Whether there was an attempt to influence the MPs or whether the actions in Parliament were an elaborate strategy to blame opponents is still not resolved. In either case, the whole episode does not bring credit to our parliamentarians. That said, the overwhelming majority of members voted along party lines. So, to the extent that money did play a role in influencing the trust vote, a relatively small number of MPs were involved. 

There is something to be said about the effectiveness of the anti-defection law.  For all the ordinary legislation that the government passes on a day-to-day basis, the anti-defection law seems to work very effectively. All MPs obey their party whips. But the purpose of the anti-defection law is to check the bigger menace of “horse-trading” of MPs in case of a trust vote or a no-confidence vote. In such cases, it appears that MPs do not care about the fact that they may lose their seat in Parliament. 

There is another aspect of the anti-defection law which needs re-examining in the era of coalition politics. When there are small parties, and an entire such party changes its allegiance, then the anti-defection law stands as a mute witness. While there are some who argue that the anti-defection law is fundamentally unconstitutional, others argue for the need to tighten the law to make it relevant in an age of coalition politics. 

Ultimately, it is a confluence of interests, some noble and some not so noble, that has enabled the government to win the trust vote. One hopes that the episode of the display of cash on the floor of Parliament, and all the other lessons we have learned in the trust vote process, will lead to some steps being taken to fix our electoral system that is in need of dire repair. 

The writer is Director, PRS Legislative Research, New Delhi express@expressindia.com