Whipping up unity

The disqualification of 13 breakaway BSP members of the Uttar Pradesh assembly by the Supreme Court has predictably increased scrutiny of the stability of Mulayam Singh Yadav8217;s government. Ever since anti-defection provisions were added to the Constitution in the eighties and defection was made unacceptable under any circumstances by an amendment four years ago, great confusion has attached to the manner in which the law could be implemented. The court verdict in this case, for instance, leaves the status of 24 other breakaway MLAs still uncertain. The court is after all ruling on the basis of legislations passed by Parliament in a professed move to clean up legislative functioning. Parliament will therefore have to apply itself to plug the gaps caused by ambiguity. While doing so, however, legislators should take stock, with the benefit of experience, of the idea of defection itself.

Anti-defection provisions in effect give primacy to a party whip on any vote in the legislature. The stated purpose of these provisions is to prevent horsetrading and guard political stability 8212; and predictably charges of cash-for-votes like the JMM case and outright defection like the current UP case come during votes of confidence. But whips operate for any vote in the House. There are three unexpected consequences of this. One, by being denied a vote of conscience, legislators are freed from taking responsibility for their voting record. They also are denied the right to grow as individual members. Consider the United States, where the rhetoric of presidential hopefuls like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is being tested against their voting record in the Senate 8212; her vote for the Iraq war on troop withdrawal demands and his votes for Republican initiatives on his plea to expand the middle ground. Two, it absolves opposition MPs of the consequences of their vote. In Britain, for instance, conservatives were especially compelled to defend their ideological position and back Tony Blair8217;s vote for the Iraq war when it became clear that his Labour backbenchers were determined to object.

And three, as far as political stability goes, the anti-defection provisions have given undue leverage to smaller political formations and independents. Jharkhand is the most vivid example here. Making legislators individually responsible for their voting record could energise Parliament and state assemblies.