Anti-defection law: destabilizing the democracy

The recent developments in the political dynamics of different states with respect to the
defection and toppling of the running government, by the means of no-confidence motions
and the trend of horse trading. The reason can be boiled down to two prominent ones, either
the constant actions by the ruling government to be in power infinitely, or diminishing
vigilance of the opposition, which makes it alluring for the MLAs to switch parties. The
highest court has upheld the constitutionality of the 10th schedule in the Kihoto Hollahan
case, but it seems that the parties have found a backdoor way to achieve the same objective.
It thus becomes imperative to look into the structuring of the schedule in different
paragraphs. In this article I have critically analyzed para 2 and 4 of the Anti-defection law,
how they are based on the baseless assumptions, which have nothing substantial to back up
with. also the parallel has been drawn between the Indian National Congress and the current
National Democratic Alliance. It is evident that toppling of an elected government will have
severe repercussions on the functioning and stability of a democracy be it at national or at the
regional level. The parties are expected to have the democratic morality to gain the trust of
people they are elected by.
 
1. The trend has remained intact- INC and its downfall
2. Assumption of mass defection valid?
 
Section 2 of 10th schedule gives us the grounds of disqualification of a member, if he votes
or abstains from voting against the party whip, no doubt this makes us question the
conscience right to free speech and right to represent in a democracy, it seems to be in total
violation, but the highest court has settled this matter saying that this is a reasonable
restriction on free speech under article 105. This clarifies the assumption on which the
section resides, people vote not for a person but for the party, he has to be bound by the party
whip irrespective of whether the party's decision will affect adversely or be indifferent to his
constituency. Well I find this assumption to be vague in its totality, it might have been true in
1980s when the people were not well informed or had no access to the information to decide
on who to vote, but today people are very well aware of the person they are voting to an
extent his criminal records are made public, this is the basis of democracy, the voters are well
aware about the candidates they are voting, we must stress on what this person has to offer to
his constituency once he wins, rather than knowing what ideology he follows. We have seen
the trend in the past and well aware about how INC fell off power, the concentration of
power with the High command and all decisions were made by itself for both center and
states, in the process the regional demands or discussions were totally ignored, this definitely
did not bode well for the party. The very presence of 'party whip' is making the members
powerless, slowly this power is transferred to the few at top in the party and it goes on
concentrating, which consequently will make the elected members just mouth piece of the
party orders and if the same trend repeats again, we might see downfall of national party.
It is evident that the objective of anti-defection law has not been met, the recent incidents of
Maharashtra, and many such incidents in the last couple of years have proved that there is a
need to bring in nuances into the defection law. Section 4 provides for mass defection in the
guise of merger, while individual defection is sternly criticized. While it does not change the
fact that defection, whether individual or a group have a severe implication on the
functioning of the government, but mass defection unchecked can be even more derailing to
the functioning and stability of a democratic government than defection of an individual. The
recent incidents in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra evidently shows that mass
defections are destabilizing the functions of an elected government, and we often get to see
the opposition blaming the party at the center for practicing horse trading. While this blame
game continues between the parties. The real ones to bear repercussions are the citizens of
that democracy, who elected these legislators. While anti-defection was bought to regulate
the defections, now it seems it is causing a new and more severe problem than just defection.
The cure has become the cause.