The politics of defection

THE EDITOR: Political defection according to the Cambridge dictionary, is the act of leaving a political party for another. Merriam-Webster amplifies on this, saying it is the “conscious abandonment of allegiance or duty.” The Collins dictionary provides alternative synonyms for the defector as a “deserter, renegade or turncoat.”

Meanwhile, a “defect” as a noun, is used to describe “something or a lack of something that results in incompleteness, inadequacy, or imperfection,” and “defective” as that which is “imperfect in form, structure, or function.”

Given my reliance on these citations, I hope my “jumping” from dictionary to dictionary is not construed as linguistic or grammatical defection.

Fact of the matter is that political defection is not unique or exclusive to TT. Neither is the skilful art of political deflection and distraction. More often than not, political defection comes at very opportune times.

It may be so well-disguised and orchestrated, that a defection is in reality the consummate deflection and distraction. But forgive my digression.

Political defection is not without international precedent.

In 2005, the Australian Parliament first published a study (which is updated annually) and the findings of that revised research suggested that between 1950 to 2019, there were 520 defections or “crossing of the floor” by Australian parliamentarians.

That study suggested approximately 23 per cent of all MPs in parliament in the said period, had crossed the floor and that a larger proportion of senators (27.5 per cent) had crossed the floor as opposed to elected MPs (20.7 per cent).

Before that, in 1985, the government of India introduced the 52nd Amendment Act, to challenge the politics of defection by way of Constitutional reform.

That law effectively outlined a procedure by which parliamentarians may be excluded from serving on a legislative body on the basis of defection based on a petition by any other member of the House.

Other relatively new democracies have also embraced such changes including Bangladesh, Belize, Fiji, Nigeria, Seychelles and Ukraine.

Of note, however, is that none of the “older and greater world democracies” such as the US, Canada, UK, Germany and Belgium, have laws against defection.

There is a school of thought that defection is essential in ensuring competitive politics, which in turn would have the natural consequence of curbing abuse and providing a healthy check against the intrusion of autocracy.

Maybe, defection is also a necessary political evil as it cleanses and sanitises that which is defective and purifies the system from defects.

There are others who articulate that defection reeks rancid of opportunism and epitomises a deficiency of political values, ideals and morality.

Such advocates hold strong to the view that politicians are elected or appointed to political office not necessarily on account of individual competence, skill or appeal but on the potential of their political parties as vehicles and instruments of political change.

As for the defectors? There is perhaps an irrefutable presumption that diversity is the spice of life. Hence the reason why life is governed by choices.

We choose our way of life, even our political life. That is the essence of our democracy; we all have a right, even the right to be wrong. One does not have to be a detective to spot that which is inherently defective or apparently deceptive.

ASHVANI MAHABIR

Cunupia