4

The parliament of India enacted the Anti-Defection Law in 1985.

The stated purpose was

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

The evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles which sustain
it. With this object, an assurance was given in the Address by the President to Parliament that the Government intended to introduce in the current session of Parliament an anti-defection Bill. This Bill is meant for outlawing defection and fulfilling the above assurance.

The provisions it laid were

Disqualification  on  ground   of defection.-(1)  Subject  to  the provisions  of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, a member of a House belonging to any  political  party shall be disqualified for being a member of  the House-

(a)  if  he has voluntarily given up his membership of such  political party;  or

(b)  if he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to any direction  issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any person  or  authority  authorised  by  it  in  this   behalf,   without obtaining,  in  either  case, the prior permission of  such   political party,  person or authority and such voting or abstention has not been condoned  by such political party, person or authority within  fifteen days from the date of such voting or abstention

Does a provision like this have respect and space in what are legitimate concerns of a democracy?

How far from or close to the ideal of democracy is a provision like anti-defection or any whip like article?

My concern is such provisions take away the agency and conscience from an MP, and make him just another point in the number game. It makes the system very hard to evolve from party-based democracy to issues based democracy. When the whole discussion is about what party to elect, there is little space for what direction should we as a people take? and the process is prone to slip in identity politics, and portion of the power pie politics, which is at its worst a form of feudalism.

The institution of whip in Britain works quite non-invasively in comparison, and whip pressures(and how you bear them) are a part of inner party workings rather than being instituted in the law.

|improve this question
  • "How far from or close to the ideal of democracy is a provision like anti-defection or any whip like article?" Any value of measured distance would probably be quite subjective or must carefully be defined before stating anything about such a distance. – Trilarion Oct 25 '18 at 11:24
2

It models how many people choose to vote: for a particular party, uncaring of the specific representative.

It does not stop an MP from changing party, but it requires that they resign their seat and fight a by-election to do so.

|improve this answer
  • 2
    which means you lose most of the pluses of FPTP – user19831 Oct 24 '18 at 11:28
-1

WHIP in the context of India is related to politics during voting. If suppose there are two political parties in the country. One party want to support a bill and the other party want to reject or deny the bill. If a person from the later party want to support the bill then he cannot do this in his discretion because party's Whip is binding him not to support the bill..

I told whip is binding that means if you are not following the party's advice then you are to be challenged in the court and the court disqualifies you..

Remember, during the election of President's office whip is not followed that is it is not binding you and moreover you can give preference according to your wish..

This whip is beneficial to a democratic country because being a party member if you are not following the words of party i.e., the collective decision then people get confused whether in the coming election they have to elect this party or the other.

|improve this answer
  • "...following the words of party..." The question would be who defines the words of the party if not the elected MPs. The party members maybe but there may be less party members than voters for the party. The party leader alone by himself? And what if there is no consensus within a party? If half of the supporters of that party support one view and the other half another view but the issue may not really be that important that you want to split the party over it. – Trilarion Oct 25 '18 at 11:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .