Why do Politicians switch Political Parties

By Deepak Parvatiyar

July 31, 2014

Consider these facts:

• In Uttar Pradesh, as many as 19 defectors joined the BJP just before the Lok Sabha elections.
• In Bihar, five of the nine outsiders who were given party ticket by the BJP, won the seats.
• In Haryana, defectors to the BJP won four of the seven seats in the state.

This election, Narendra Modi was right in his judgment of getting absolute majority. But wasn’t the numbers of defections to the BJP a good indicator to boost his confidence? Just look at the names of some of the big defectors — Jagdambika Pal, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, Ashok Kumar Dohare (Uttar Pradesh), Rao Indrajit Singh, Dharamvir Singh (Haryana), Col Sonaram Choudhary (Rajasthan), Ram Kripal Yadav, Ajay Nishad, Om Prakash Yadav, Sushil Kumar Singh (Bihar), Vidyut Baran Mahato (Jharkhand), Heena Gavit (Maharashtra).
And the list goes on…

It could be the question of political survival for these defectors but it goes without saying that these party hoppers, mostly formidable politicians devoid of any compunction, could well be described as the barometer of any poll outcome. After all, aren’t they unarguably the true arbiters of realpolitik and unpretentious practitioners of political opportunism?

You may also like to read

• Un-Parliamentary Language of Politicians
• Do our Politicians even understand the problem of Rape?

Political Turncoats Fit into any Robe

The political turncoats, of course, are willing to fit into any robe and definitely, and unabashedly, subjugate a political party’s high ideological blinders. (At least they deserve the credit for this expose’). At the same time, these career politicians, indeed, step as a strong contender in case a political party is unable to find suitable leaders from its own ranks (as was the case with the BJP in Haryana – a state that had introduced the very concept of Aayaram Gayaram politics of defection in the seventies).

Time and again, it has been proven right that the larger the defections from a party, the lower the prospects of its victory and vice versa! Yet, a couple of decades of coalition politics did affect the party hoppers. Their political place was more dominantly taken over by political parties themselves. Individuals were replaced by outfits. After all, these ‘coalition partners’ could do harder bargaining with more muscle power to pull down the government! This was any day a better option for the errant parties after stringent anti-defection laws put a lid on ‘floor crossings’ by individual elected members of the legislature!

Not long ago, political jargons such as horse trading and fence sitters were quite common. They still are…but rather subdued because of better anti-defection laws. The 91st Amendment to Constitution succeeded in reining in party hoppers to an extent, but then, effectively contributed to the coining of a new term –‘poaching’ – a bequest of the coalition era. (Here the ruling party ‘poaches’ an entire group to remain in power!)

Coalition Era: Damaging the concept of principled politics

Can we say that the coalition era has done equal, if not more, damage to the concept of principled politics than turncoats? Of course, coalition allowed an individual political outfit to retain its identity while remaining a part of a larger coalition. Initially, it did provide the ideological leeway to a political party for supporting a coalition! (We had witnessed this when the BJP withdrew its support to the VP Singh’s government over the arrest of LK Advani in 1990. This had led to the fall of the National Front government at the Centre). But soon we discovered expedient politics to be at the core of such coalitions.

Indeed, the BJP had sensed this aberration early and tried to cover it with its pre-poll and post-poll coalition theories. Obviously, on a pretentiously high moral ground, the saffron brigade in the ‘90s wanted to project its pre-poll National Democratic Alliance (NDA) coalition as an honest grouping of ‘like-minded’ parties! Yet, can the BJP now defend its post-poll attempts to win partners to support the NDA in the Rajya Sabha where it lacks majority?
Obviously initially in the coalition era, the limelight had somewhat shifted from individuals to a perceivably more respectable ‘political alliances’, till the rampant corruption and inaction of the then prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh to stop so during the UPA-II regime woefully exposed the compulsions of coalition politics.

In comparison to a turncoat politician – who in any case cannot switch sides once he gets elected to the legislature, the alliance partners have proved to be tougher bargainers as besides having the numbers to flash their strength; they have no legal hurdle before them to back out of a coalition.

I would not like to sound like favouring turncoats. Yet these fence sitters led the political destinies of political parties as the torch bearers of opportunistic politics! More than any ethos, they did demonstrate an uncanny resolve for their own political survival, and in the process, oblige their chosen political outfits!

And their presence did reaffirm that all parties have the same purpose – of winning the election through every possible manipulation, what if it means compromising one’s ideology!

Still unconvinced? Here is an instance – in Andhra Pradesh, former minister B. Gopalakrishna Reddy (Telegu Desam Party), S.C.V. Naidu (Congress) and urologist Cipai Subramanyam (Praja Rajyam) were bitter rivals and had crossed swords in 2009. Yet, in 2014 all of them were members of the TDP!

Mahatma Gandhi once described politics without principles as a danger to human virtues. Can turncoats and alliances subscribe to any principle?