Elected representatives switching camps isn’t new to Indian politics – and pervasive to an extent that every political party, at some point of time or the other, has been at both the receiving and perpetrating end of defections.
We, the people, were horrified initially, then got inured to it, viewing it as another messy aspect of electoral politics, another manifestation of the larger moral slide in society. Now, we are being nudged into celebrating it as a mark of shrewd political strategy, a growing acceptance of a new idea of India.
Changing Dynamics Between Candidates & Political Parties
Depending on where one’s sympathies lie, the tendency is to blame the bleeding side for not keeping its own house in order, lacking ideological glue, and awarding tickets to opportunists in the first place. Or to blame the benefiting side for resorting to dirty tricks, horse-trading, blackmail, and such.
This however, doesn’t quite explain why potential turncoats have to be locked up in resorts – surely, they can be trusted to stick to their decision, given their supposedly genuine grievances and ideological epiphanies – but that is a story for another day.
For now, let us focus on a less-discussed reason for the ship-jumping trend: the changing relationship between candidates and political parties. Traditionally, candidates depended on the party for strategic positioning and financing, and relied on the party’s goodwill, cadres, and musclemen to influence the vote. In those (relatively) simpler times, the party pretty much covered all bases for its candidates – making loyalty not only an honourable choice, but also a pragmatic one for candidates.
Of course, candidates brought their personal goodwill and foot soldiers to the arena too, but it was generally the party that had the upper-hand in the relationship. This was the time when even lampposts were said to have winning chances, as long as they had the right party backing them.
Do Candidates Not Need Party Support Anymore?
Two waves of somewhat overlapping developments would change that.
- One: as political consciousness and the awareness of the perks of power grew, parties began seeing greater jockeying for tickets among long-timers. Under such circumstances, it became the practice for parties to weigh ticket seekers’ cases based on the finances, muscle, and caste or religion groups they could mobilise. This, in turn, would lead to the emergence of rival camps within the party at the local level, and bring the role of money, muscle, and identity-based appeals to the foreground.
- Two: in time, the musclemen, the financiers, and the group influencers began recognising their own ability to shape electoral outcomes. If they could swing things for candidates plugged into the party’s state and national network, why not do it for themselves? This would add still further to the ticket seekers’ pool, create more internal divisions, and introduce the ‘winnability’ parameter for candidate selection, essentially a reading of whether the individual had the wherewithal and hunger to sink sizeable money into the campaign, flex intimidatory muscle, and make resonant, even if crude, appeals to identity. The tickets began going to the ‘highest bidders.’
As a result of these two developments, candidates have, over time, found themselves less dependent on the party when it came to contesting elections. They raise a large proportion of the election costs. Internal divisions within the party mean they rely less on the larger party apparatus. And, the growing distance between party high commands and the electorate has led to the realization that the party line may not cut sufficient ice with the voters and pushed them to tailor messages to local contexts – understandable, at one level, given the sizeable, personally-mobilized resources at stake.
A Short Journey To ‘Party-Hopping’
If parties have not been rendered completely peripheral to candidates’ interests despite this, it is because of several other things that they continue to offer. Parties are now more a vehicle that lend credibility to a candidate’s case (independents don’t excite voters much), bridge-funding gaps, field star campaigners, and offer possibilities of ministerial and equivalent positions if voted to power.
From here, it is a short journey to party-hopping. For it makes sense for prospective candidates to take their connections, money, and manpower to the party that looks better placed to finance campaigns, keep a lid on local dissent, harness its leadership appeal, weave local specifics into larger narratives, and, importantly, assume power and dole its perks.
That party happens to be the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the moment – and this explains the pre-election exoduses to it in recent times.
It also makes political sense for the BJP (or any other dominant force) to welcome such elements.
BJP Is Restoring Link Between Candidates’ Fortunes & Party’s Importance
The union between a party whose electoral machinery is in top shape, and a local who brings her/ his own might to the table is – and has proven – difficult to beat. For those who miss the bus in the pre-election phase, there’s always the option of picking up the threads post-election. After all, there is little to suggest that things are going to change in the immediate future. The BJP meanwhile benefits from a truncated Opposition footprint going forward.
Given the BJP’s formidable electoral record in recent years, and the role of the party’s upper echelons in achieving this, it can be argued that the older salience of the party with regard to candidates’ fortunes is being restored.
That, however, is debatable. The trend is observed largely in the BJP’s case (and perhaps one or two regional parties) – and it only adds to rival’s woes, the BJP’s present momentum earning it friends among those who challenged it not so long ago. Meanwhile, the larger polity remains on tenterhooks, singed by the freelancing impulses it left unchecked.
(Manish Dubey is a policy analyst and crime fiction writer and can be contacted at @ManishDubey1972. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)