Fracas in recent Rajasthan politics has thrown up an important issue for our representational system which is of serious political consequence both immediate and long term. The question has been raised, to put it starkly, whether an MLA is not an individual entitled to full individual freedom of choosing which party to vote for within the legislative assembly. Indeed since it touches upon the question of individual freedom it automatically becomes a sensitive issue in a democratic polity like ours. It also provides an entirely new perspective on the problem of defection and the anti-defection law. The anti-defection act was intended to prevent the so called ‘
Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram’ politics of the day to provide some stability to our party system. Any attempt to undermine the act will likely have the potentiality for destabilising the said system which is already in a bad shape.
Political parties are voluntary organisations which provide vital life blood to large modern representative democracy. Without parties it is impossible to shape public opinion, hold meaningful elections, organise representation and form government in a modern democratic state. They constitute the largest political groupings within states with the intention of achieving ruling power for a certain period. As voluntary organisations they are constituted by willing individuals who decide to join the party on their own volition and to submit to party rules and discipline either for material (political or economic power) gains or for normative (ideological) satisfaction or for both in some degrees. They are party members.
The anti-defection act was intended to prevent the so called ‘Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram’ politics of the day to provide some stability to our party system.
Theorists of organisation (e.g., Amitai Etzioni), of groups (e.g., David Truman) or of political parties (e.g., Maurice Duverger) have all emphasised the importance of member compliance. A utilitarian organisation like a neighbourhood laundry or a corporate business will collapse if the employees are given freedom to act as they want. But being utilitarian organisations they can apply coercion like cut in pay or denial of promotion to maintain discipline in the workforce. If that does not work, the authorities can sack the rogue employee(s). The employee who considers her/himself a misfit in the organisation of course has the option to quit.
In a voluntary organisation there must be a continuous effort to keep the leadership and membership in a harmonious relation. The task is complicated for, as Truman says, in addition to internal issues, there could be ‘other groups’ that could be ‘major initiating influences’ on problems of compliance within a group. That is, there could be individual or factional rebellion within a voluntary group for internal discord or external encouragement, but such rebellious condition cannot continue for long. It has to be resolved either by change of leadership or splits and resignations.
To violate the rules and yet to remain within the party is nothing short of engaging in internal subversion which the party must eliminate.
When an individual joins a mass party s/he usually signs up an admission form giving the undertaking that s/he will abide by the rules of the party. If such rules become unpalatable anytime, the option for the member(s) is similarly either to split the party or quit it. To violate the rules and yet to remain within the party is nothing short of engaging in internal subversion which the party must eliminate. In a party-state system like Communist China (or the erstwhile Soviet Union) dissidence by party member is dealt with a heavy hand by sending such a member to concentration camp or so called re-education school or making such member disappear altogether. In an open liberal system the option for the party is limited: it can demote or suspend or expel such a member. More honourably, the member can exit the party on her/his own.
In a representative democracy like ours the party members who become elected members of the legislature have the responsibility of being guided by the party whip which is arrived at by party leadership through some accepted principle of decision making within the party. What would an MLA who has some fundamental differences with the party’s decision do? S/he may of course vote against the party within the legislature. But such behaviour may come under the anti-defection law which prescribes when a member can be labeled as a defector and hence has to pay the cost of defection. But since the act is there, there must also be ways of circumventing the act. I am not going into this legal tangle.
What would an MLA who has some fundamental differences with the party’s decision do? S/he may of course vote against the party within the legislature. But such behaviour may come under the anti-defection law which prescribes when a member can be labeled as a defector and hence has to pay the cost of defection.
Considered politically, the issue has certain dimensions. First of all, it is necessary to remember that an individual joins a party voluntarily, i.e., s/he voluntarily accepts the obligation to go by party rules and to be bound by party discipline. That is, the individual voluntarily decides to sacrifice part of her/his freedom for certain expected benefits like power, pelf or normative satisfaction. Therefore, for a party member, even if s/he is an elected representative in the legislature, to remain a member and at the same time claim individual freedom of action is untenable. The issue of individual freedom for a party MLA or MP should rest there in principle.
The best example of recognising this principle is the instance of Sister Nivedita after the death of Swami Vivekananda. After the Swami’s death, the Sister decided to pursue her social, cultural and educational work in ways which were not always compatible with the Ramakrishna Mission order. Therefore, having mutually agreed, she publicly announced her dissociation with the Mission to retain her freedom of action. This is the ethical, or possibly the only way to look at the problem of freedom in this context. No organisation — religious, economic or political or any other can act otherwise. Noted individuals, like Subhas Chandra Bose or Savarkar had left parties/organisations they loved (Indian National Congress and Hindu Mahasabha respectively) for similar reasons. So did Shyama Prasad Mukherjee.
Once a person wins an election with party identity s/he cannot have any moral or political claim to hold on to the elected post and at the same time denounce her/his party or resign from it. Any deviation from party line must accompany giving up the elected post as well as party membership.
When a party member contests an election, s/he presents her/himself as a party candidate to the electorate and uses party symbol, programme and funds. In India independent candidates fare poorly in elections which conclusively shows the value of party identity. Once a person wins an election with party identity s/he cannot have any moral or political claim to hold on to the elected post and at the same time denounce her/his party or resign from it. Any deviation from party line must accompany giving up the elected post as well as party membership. To do otherwise would mean betraying the party that helped her/him get elected, betraying the electorate of his constituency and betraying the voters who had voted for her/him.
The voters in our country vote for party candidate, rarely for an individual person. The voters may hardly know anything about the candidate, may hardly have an opportunity to see or interact with the person. The voter votes for the party the candidate represents because that is the party of her/his choice. The voter knows about the party from the leaders’ speeches and behaviour as well as from the party’s conduct over the years. To defy or to jettison the party post election is doing violence to the idea of representation. Social, political and legal walls should be built to protect our representative democracy from such grave systemic damages. The Rajasthan MLAs have a chance to set an example in this regard.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV