The new ‘normal’ of political division and change

Political parties sometimes break up like marriages, and like remarriages, individual legislatures switch parties. In both cases, the consequences can be dire. When individual legislators or groups decide to leave one party, form another or join another party, this can have implications in terms of government formation, maintenance and termination. In Maharashtra, more recently, and in Madhya Pradesh, some time ago, splits in the ruling party and subsequent reorganization of legislators led to the inauguration of new governments.

different waves

Splits and switches are common in assemblies around the world, and have seen at least three separate waves in India. The first wave came in the late 1960s when challengers to the Congress tried to displace it in the states. The free movement of legislators among political parties has indeed resulted in a lot of uproar and quick business of governments.

The next phase was inaugurated with an effort to end free movement and regulate the behavior of legislators through an anti-defection law. While the law discouraged individual movement, it encouraged mass movement of legislators as it prescribed specific numbers to legitimize and validate party switches. When legislators switch groups, costs are shared, and the move appears to be even less opportunistic, defeating the purpose of the law in many ways. Although the law has placed barriers before the split and switch, the activity continues. To make matters worse, the implications of the law now affect the strategies of legislators and parties.

The third phase was inaugurated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014, when already dominant parties began to use split-and-switches to undermine and destroy their competitors. Aided by friendly governors, the BJP, as the Congress did before, benefited from a number of government changes including Arunachal Pradesh (2016), Bihar (2017), Karnataka (2019), Madhya Pradesh (2020), and Maharashtra (2022) . , which was brought by the legislators who switched sides. In Puducherry (2021), the switch led to fresh elections, bringing the BJP alliance to power. In Goa (2022) and Manipur (2017), although the Congress was returned as the single largest party, it was soon overtaken by the BJP. It was only in Uttarakhand that the intervention of the Supreme Court of India saved the Congress government.

a regional example

It is not the BJP alone, because around the same time, the ruling parties in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh had a field day. In Telangana (2014), the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) overtook the Congress and the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) by encouraging changes. In 2018, Congress again fell under pressure. Similarly, in Andhra Pradesh, first TDP did the same with Yuvajan Shramik Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) after 2014, and later, when YSRCP came to power in 2019, it paid back to TDP in the same coin. In all these cases, the ruling party already had a comfortable majority on its own and did not need additional support.

Hence, the present phase is strange compared to the past as the major teams actively hail division and change and have no respect for the basic rules of the game. Anti-defection laws and control of institutions have now become a tool for major parties to interfere in the internal workings of opposition parties and sometimes to make and break them. In addition, legislators are switching support, even if it does not count for forming or maintaining a government.

an approach

So what do we do with the split and switch? Much of our discussion is dominated by the ethics of divide-and-switch, and it revolves around the damage to the foundations of representative democracy. And these are undoubtedly reasonable arguments. First, switchers violate trust relationships with their constituents because voters get something other than what they bargained for. Second, assuming that voters vote for parties, not candidates, the argument is that unaffiliated parties make it difficult for voters to draw definite lines of responsibility. As a result, it is difficult for voters to hold party governments accountable for their actions during elections.

Despite the sound arguments about the lowly nature of splits and switches, they continue to happen regularly. The question then arises: Why do MLAs part ways without fearing negative connotations? We cannot answer this question as long as our view of political parties is out of date.

When we look at party system change, we tend to overlook that the constituent parts of the system, the parties, also change and change. Our concept of parties is static and is derived from a long bygone era. Parties are constantly adopting new methods to achieve and maintain success for themselves.

Our popular image of a party is that of the classical mass party, which emerges from social movements and is essentially democratic in nature. They are associated with mass organizations and groups that share a common goal covering different dimensions of social life. Leadership comes from the organization, is accountable to it and is committed to the goal. This is where our regulatory currency comes from. The Election Commission of India also envisions a party as many of its guidelines emphasize ‘democratic spirit’ and the need for transparency and participation in internal decision-making.

However, in reality, parties are anything but this. While they organize and compete on issues of identity and collective solidarity, such as mass parties, the internal democracy element is missing, and their links with society and mass organizations are at their weakest. Today’s parties are centralized vote-getting machines that work primarily to ensure the return of political leaders to office. Public input and views do not matter, and it is the central leadership that matters. All party activities begin and end with elections.

In this model, it is not surprising that paid professionals occupy a central place. They choose strategies, run campaigns and sometimes are involved in ticket distribution. New forms of communication and campaign methods have displaced the traditional campaign mode. As a result, the vast pool of voluntary unpaid labor, which traditionally formed the backbone of parties and parties with grassroots roots, are no longer as closely involved as they were in the past.

The leaders are “elected by consensus” and choreographed party conventions where ordinary members meet and greet the leaders. These events are used to raise the profile of the leadership elite and are not really a forum for inter-party debate and discussion. Since parties are primarily concerned with electoral success, anyone who enjoys the trust of the top leadership and can help increase seat share is likely to get a ticket. Furthermore, we now know that parties prefer candidates who bring their own money, fund other candidates, and raise resources for the party. All this makes the party stand in shadow on the ground.

new alignment

Finally, the most important change is that the parties are more closely associated with the state rather than civil society. The parties exchange material and psychological rewards and goods and services that the state provides for electoral gains. Voters also see parties as suppliers of services. This relationship leads legislators and parties to be in or at least close to the government. This was one of the most common reasons for members of legislatures who switched parties in the two Telugu-speaking states. As a result of this change, the party has become as much a shadow as before and has been reduced to an instrument to protect the policies and programs of the government.

On the supply side, the party on the ground no longer calls the shots; Parties are suppliers of election vehicles and services. Party bond exists as long as it ensures success for the MLA. On the demand side, the voter does not see any problem, be it ‘A’ or ‘B’, as long as “services” are available. As a result, the split-and-switch is not considered objectionable by the legislators and is also not punished by the voters. Therefore, legislators will be willing to do anything if the benefits exceed the costs.

KK Kailash is with Department of Political Science, University of Hyderabad