Unprincipled defections by lawmakers define the theatre of politics
The recent BRS defections, viewed against the backdrop of similar episodes a decade ago, which once again exposed the weakness of the system in protecting the voters’ mandate also expose the continuity of opportunism and offer an opportunity to break the cycle.
Defections by BRS Legislators like ‘two sides of the same coin’ highlight inadequacies of legal and political mechanisms and the erosion of people’s mandate. Voters elect their representatives as part of a collective platform, ideology, and leadership, not anticipating midstream shifts of loyalty. Yet defectors exploit loopholes, delay disqualification process, or seek protection under ruling party patronage. In this vacuum, the concept of ‘socio-political boycott’ among ‘well-meaningful idealogues’ emerges as a moral corrective, reminding democracy of its deeper ethical foundations.
BRS working president K T Rama Rao challenged defected BRS MLAs to resign and recontest, Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy maintained silence, defectors claimed before the Speaker that they still belong to BRS, and PCC President Mahesh Kumar Goud openly admitted that they had joined Congress for a ‘good cause.’
KTR also described the defectors as ‘trampled upon people's aspirations and betrayed the trust placed in them.’ He further castigated Rahul Gandhi of staying silent on the mass defections in Telangana. Each of these contradictory confessions reflects the ‘theatre of politics’ as ‘big political jokes and a comedy of comics.’ Similar Comics were enacted post 2014 and 2018 Assembly elections.
The Supreme Court directed the Assembly Speaker to decide on defectors’ disqualification petitions within three months. This, once again put the ‘anti-defection law’ under scrutiny and into the spotlight. The public, more intelligent than political managers and manipulators, is observing carefully, weighing events, and will give its verdict at the right time. This is the resilience of Indian democracy.
Defections are not new to Telangana’s political landscape. In the formative years of TRS, many Congress and TDP legislators crossed over, citing the Telangana cause and the emotional appeal of strengthening the statehood movement, but equally guided by personal calculation in anticipation of future expectations.
After state formation, ‘orchestrated loyalties switching’ under the pretext that the TRS government had meagre majority in the House, set the tone for defections in Telangana.
A decade back, defections into TRS were tolerated and even tacitly endorsed, by public opinion, because they were seen as contributing factor to a larger collective aspiration, existence of Telangana, and strengthening the state. But the same indulgence was undesirable to be extended further, till today, when defections are plainly transactional and devoid of any higher principle.
For instance, TRS quizzically continued to attract MLAs from across parties even when it had comfortable majority after 2018 elections. MLAs elected on ticket from different political parties queued for joining TRS, ostensibly for a political reunion and polarization, often prompted by TRS. They openly stated that, they were fascinated to CM KCR, his government, and welfare and development. Fair enough!
Another critical angle in 2019 was, two-thirds MLAs elected on Congress symbol decided to form a separate group and approached the Speaker to recognise them for merger with TRS Legislature Party. By irrational logic and law, the Speaker was left with no option but concede the request. It was, however, ridiculous to say that such a move shall not attract ‘anti-defection law’ provisions. It is always debatable, especially in the context of the then Telangana High Court observation. What happened later is part of history.
Today a similar story is being played out in a fine-tuned chorus by the defected BRS MLAs. The defections are explained in the language of political pragmatism, despite the underlying motivation remaining strikingly similar: self-interest and personal opportunity wrapped in public justification. BRS legislators openly issued statements that they would like to work under the leadership of Revanth Reddy for development of their constituencies. Again, fair enough!
History shows defections are not unique to Telangana. Since 1967, governments across states, from Charan Singh in UP to Namboodiripad in Kerala, rose and fell through defections. Eventually it has become an incessant process. While some realignments genuinely reflected ideological shifts, most were opportunistic. The fundamental aim of the ‘anti-defection law’ was to curb unprincipled defections while allowing scope for genuine ideological mergers. But process delays and loopholes have blunted its effect. It is incorrect to say that every defection is either unprincipled or genuine.
The Anti-Defection Law of 1985 (In the Tenth Schedule), through the 52nd Amendment, which essentially seeks to provide safety measures to the government as well as the opposition against unpredictability of shifting allegiance, failed in achieving its purpose. There is also an apprehension that the law, while deterring defections, might lead to suppression of dissent in political parties. Interpreting the ‘anti-defection law’ may differ from expert to expert. Mere constitutional provisions unless otherwise supported by well laid conventions, practices and past experiences have no value. As a matter of fact, despite prevalence of defections, many developed democracies have not enacted anti-defection law to restrict floor crossing.
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, in its report ‘Ethics in Governance’ noted that ‘Defection has long been a Malaise of Indian Political Life.’ There is no doubt that permitting defection in any form or context is a travesty of ethics in politics.’ The National Commission to review the working of the Constitution recommended ‘the power to decide on questions of disqualification on ground of defection should vest in the ‘Election Commission of India’ (ECI) instead of in the Chairman or Speaker of the House concerned. Debatable.
It is in this context that the concept of ‘socio-political boycott’ merits serious reflection, as a collective refusal by civil society, media, and citizenry to legitimize defectors. Public events, community honors, and even day-to-day recognition can serve as arenas for non-cooperation, signaling that betrayal of mandate is a form of moral corruption. Unlike the slow grind of legal remedies, such as ‘socio-political sanction’ is immediate, visible, and resonates deeply in a society where honour and recognition matter as much as office.
In Indian society, from time immemorial, order survived for centuries through unwritten codes such as religious, caste, customary obligations, and binding acceptance of elders’ decisions. None of these were statutes in the legal sense, but bonds beyond the reach of formal law. They were conventions that held communities together. Similarly, democracy must be seen not merely as a political system but essentially as ‘social-moral discipline’ something akin to a sacred faith, a ritual, and a higher stream beyond law. If conventions of public disapproval existed, no honors, no felicitations, no social recognition for defectors. Then the incentive to betray voters would diminish. Honor in society matters as much as office in politics.
The inference that emerges is not that legal remedies be abandoned. Legal remedies alone cannot address malice of defections. They must be supplemented and complemented with moral sanctions. If society were to respond with quiet but firm non-cooperation, such as, no garlands, no felicitations, no invitations, then, the message would be unmistakable that, power obtained through betrayal of mandate is power without dignity.
The recent BRS defections, viewed against the backdrop of similar episodes a decade ago, which once again exposed the weakness of the system in protecting the voters’ mandate also expose the continuity of opportunism and offer an opportunity to break the cycle. A democratic culture that prizes loyalty to voters over loyalty to ruling dispensations and expediency, can only be nurtured not only through Constitutional Law but also equally through the living conscience of the people, by whatever name it may be called by experts.
The anti-defection law exists, but only in name, because delays and loopholes blunt its effect. In such a setting, ‘socio-political boycott’ emerges as a ‘social-moral discipline.’
Society with ‘righteous indignation’ emerging out of anger and moral outrage, would eventually evolve its own checks. For ‘democratic integrity, honesty and trust’ let lawmakers choose from among power through defection or respect without defection.
