Defections affect moral sanctity of democracy
Winston Churchill once said that, “some men change parties for the sake of their principles; others change principles for the sake of their party”. India
Winston Churchill once said that, “some men change parties for the sake of their principles; others change principles for the sake of their party”. India, however, seems to have perfected a third category — politicians who abandon both party and principle for the sake of power. The break-up of the Trinamool Congress and the Shiv Sena-UBT (Uddhav Bal Thackeray) are only the latest examples of a disturbing trend concerning elections. Leaders campaign bitterly, questioning each other’s integrity and commitment to the nation, with voters asked to choose between sharply contrasting visions for India’s future. Yet once the ballots are counted, many of those differences dissolve, and hitherto irreconcilable opponents become political partners. Principles give way to pragmatism, and power becomes the only enduring conviction. The immediate consequences are political, with governments becoming stronger, and Opposition parties weaker. But the deeper casualty is something far more precious — the sanctity of the democratic mandate. Far-reaching consequences In a parliamentary democracy, citizens do not vote merely for individuals. They vote for an idea, a manifesto, and a political alternative. When an elected representative crosses over after winning on another party’s symbol, it is not simply a change of affiliation; it is a unilateral rewriting of the contract entered into with the voter. The mandate, which belongs to the electorate, now becomes the private property of the elected representative.
It also exposes the perverse incentives increasingly operating within Indian politics. Politicians facing investigations or legal troubles often appear to discover ideological compatibility with the party in power. Equally striking is the troubling public perception that investigative intensity frequently diminishes after such realignments. Democracies rely not only on fairness, but also on public confidence that institutions operate without political favour. Once that confidence erodes, the damage extends far beyond any single party or government. The larger casualty is democratic competition itself. Every democracy requires an elected government as well as an Opposition capable of scrutinising, questioning, and presenting a credible alternative. Without that balance, elections risk becoming contests over access to power rather than contests of ideas. Yet there is an even larger paradox. Prime Minister Narendra Modi continues to command the trust of a significant majority of Indian voters. Few leaders in independent India’s history have enjoyed such sustained popular support. The Bharatiya Janata Party has repeatedly demonstrated that it can win elections on its own political appeal. If the electorate has already bestowed such a powerful mandate, why must that mandate be reinforced through the steady migration of dubious legislators elected on rival party symbols? History suggests that great democracies are distinguished not by governments that accumulate the greatest power, but by governments confident enough to allow a credible Opposition to survive and compete.
The BriefWire