The ongoing political tamasha in Maharashtra has drawn condemnation across the country with civil society questioning the propriety involved in the switching of sides and alliances by politicians. As social media slammed the politicos, one point stressed was that since the voter is not allowed to change his vote once it is cast, why should the politician be permitted to change parties after being elected an MLA?
The point assumes validity in this context as voters in Maharashtra went to the polling booth to choose between the alliances of the Bharatiya Janata Party-Shiv Sena on one side and the Congress-Nationalist Congress Party on the other. Following the announcement of the results, the political positions in the State have changed, throwing Maharashtra into a political crisis that needs resolution from the Supreme Court.
The question can also be asked in this manner: Why is it that the common man has to brave the weather patiently, while standing in a queue to vote whenever the elections are called, but has no say after the vote has been cast? There are power games being played that have arisen from the vote that has been cast, and the voter remains but a mute spectator to what is occuring. Should the MLA elected by the voter be allowed to trade his support to the higget bidder?
What is being witnessed in Mumbai is not new in the country. It has happened in the past and Indian law-makers have worked to curb and reduce defections. The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which is also known as the Anti-Defection Act, came about by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment in 1985, and it listed out the provisions for disqualification of elected members on grounds of defection. Over time this proved to be not entirely effective and a good 18 years later, this was amended in 2003 by the 91st Constitutional Amendment, that is still in force and makes it mandatory to have two-thirds of the members of a party in favour of merger to make it valid under the law.
Given recent incidents in Goa, Karnataka and the on-going drama in Maharashtra, this law needs to be revisited to further strengthen it. Goa in the long past and recent past has seen politicians floating from party to party, much like driftwood that is taken along by the current. Such politicla happenings are, however, not restricted to Goa but occur across the country. The reforms that are required need to address this on an immediate basis, as governance of a State cannot be allowed to come to a standstill, while politicians play their own power games.
The current political situation calls for electoral reforms that would effectively outlaw defections and any changing of sides by elected members at all levels. Under the current law, if two-thirds of a legislative party split and merge with another they get legal sanction for their defection. While this appears to be a deterrent, it has not always been so. The law has been effectively exploited in Goa by MLAs of the MGP and the Congress, who earlier this year, broke off from the parent party and joined the BJP. In Karnataka, the MLAs who defected from the Congress and Janata Dal (S) did not make up two-thirds of the party strength and so hav ebeen forced to resign and contest a by-poll.
To be fully effective, any reform in the section of the law pertaining to defections must bar the politician who defects from contesting any election for a certain period of years, so as to succeed in reducing the number of turncoat politicos. The NDA government at the Centre, should it want to, has the numbers to enact such legislation. It is the will that is required.
