The functioning of democracy in the USA, especially in its legislature, is very different from that of India. This was sharply brought out in the Syrian crisis, when president Obama decided to seek the approval of the US Congress before taking military action against Syria for use of sarin gas against its own citizens. The president used his cabinet members as well as government officials to interact and persuade members of the Congress to approve the use of force against the Syrian government. Whether they were his own Democrats or Republicans in the opposition, persuasion was the strategy. Some Democrats opposed the policy. Obama didn’t have any party whip who could rein in the recalcitrant Democrats and force them to approve the policy the administration wanted. The Republicans, too, were free to either support or disagree with Obama’s policy.
As Obama looked over his shoulder, he found that the ranks of his followers had thinned down. While a majority of Democrats were inclined to support him, over one-third disagreed with his assertion that military action would be the logical policy. They strongly felt it was not in the national interest. A unique situation arose when liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans came together to form an odd “coalition” to oppose military action. In fact support for US intervention was more in the Republican party than the Democrats. The battle within the Republican party was between its non-interventionist wing and the traditional internationalists. While among Democrats even five years ago a majority wanted to focus on the domestic front, now more and more want to do so even as Obama argued for military intervention in Syria.
In India, on the other hand, if such a policy issue had arisen, the parties would have issued a diktat to their members to vote in a particular manner. There would have been no attempts at persuasion by party leaders or the government. Any MP belonging to the ruling party and voting against the party whip would have come under the Anti-Defection Law. The party then could have asked for his ouster from the party as well as parliament. Voting in the legislatures in India by the elected members is not done on what the individual legislator believes in or accepts, but what the party decides. The control of the party over the elected MPs and MLAs is complete. The chief whips decide if a Bill placed in parliament or state assemblies for debate and voting should be supported or opposed.
In USA another important aspect of democracy is the voice of the people. When the vote on the Syrian policy was due, civil society groups activated citizens to send letters to their representatives in Congress to oppose the proposed action. The constituents met their representatives to persuade them to vote in a particular manner. Party leaders too called meetings of Congressmen to convince them of the policy they wanted to adopt. No party was however empowered to issue any directive on the matter.
In India it has become a norm for the party whip to decide which member will speak. This list is officially given to the secretariat and the speaker/chairman calls the speakers from that list (excluding, of course, the Independents and nominated members). Time allotted to parties is based on their strength in the particular House. This is not so in the USA and any member can request the chair to give him time to speak.
The Anti-Defection Law was introduced in parliament in India for the ostensible reason that the legislators of one party may otherwise be lured by money or other means to vote against it. The law was premised on the distrust of the legislator, exactly the premise on which the British framed their laws in India — complete distrust of Indians. What is the relevance of the Anti-Defection Law when democracy has deepened and matured in the last 65 years? Today we have an extremely vigilant press and electronic media. We have very active civil society groups. The legislator should be allowed to vote according to his conscience and not told to comply with the party whip like a subordinate.
In UK, on the Syrian issue while the prime minister wanted to go with Obama and support military intervention, his party, though it was in a majority, couldn’t muster enough votes to support the motion. His own party members voted against the motion and no action was taken against them by the party. In India, on the other hand, when the Indo-US deal was being hotly debated and contested the ruling party resorted to using the whip to muster adequate voting support. Many of its members were against the agreement but the threat of action under the Anti-Defection Law forced them to comply.
Morally and democratically, the political party by using the power of the whip is curbing the freedom of the individual legislator. It is eroding the privilege of the elected member and is breaching the rights of the MP/MLA.
The party should, however, be free to expel him if according to it the member does not believe in its philosophy or has acted against its interests. This is a right which every organisation enjoys. But in exercising this right the party must not be allowed to cite the actions of the member for what he said and did in the House. However, removal from the party should not lead to termination of the membership of the House of the MP/MLA. After all it is the citizens of his constituency who have elected him. Moreover the parliament and state legislatures have their own rules under which membership can be terminated, besides the election laws under the Representation of People’s Act.
The Anti-Defection Law should be withdrawn. It is a blot on the elected members as well as an insult to our democracy. It has led to the dictatorship of parties and their leaders at the cost of the independence of elected members. On the other hand the party leaders should first ascertain the views of the party members on a particular legislation/motion before imposing their views.
Furthermore each political party should concentrate on identifying the persons who can best represent it in the legislature. With a large number of legislators facing serious criminal charges, it is obvious that selection process is defective at the initial stage itself. An Anti-Defection Law might be good for the parties but it’s detrimental to the development of democracy.
Yogendra Narain is a former secretary general of Rajya Sabha.
E-mail: yognarain@gmail.com
