Election season
comes with its own idiosyncrasies one of which is the defections. The days of
Aya Ram Gaya Ram might be over in the traditional sense due to the prevalence
of Anti-Defection Law but nevertheless, they continue to find new modus
operandi to defect. To the political party taking in the defectors, there are
multiple reasons. These reasons were captured in an earlier post “The
Allure of the Political Defector”. It highlighted the several factors that
go in the party’s decision to admit the defector. These issues once again
seemed to have gained traction in the view of recent defections to the BJP in
West Bengal. Suvendu Adhikari once a key a Mamta lieutenant has now changed
boats and is sailing with the Modi-Shah boat in the run up to the Bengal
elections. There are reports of a large number of Trinamool MLAs besides those
from the Congress and the Left joining BJP prompting some to wonder what would
be the fate of the original BJP workers. There is a good possibility of the original
image of the BJP being reshaped. To add, there is a question of would the
newcomers remain loyal to the party. There are apprehensions, perhaps rightly
so to substantial extent, whether the defectors would have any incentive to
stay in the party if the party does not remain in power. Therefore, there must
exist some analysis on the possible outcomes of such defections, irrespective
of the underlying reasons for defection.
Defectors
forming the bulk of the party is not unknown. In fact, the current BJP
government in Arunachal Pradesh is essentially the Congress party in the state.
Pema Khandu merged his Congress into the Peoples Party of Arunachal which later
merged with the BJP. This happened in the past too when Gegong Apang merged his
Arunachal Congress into the BJP in 2000s. there is an instance of Bhajan Lal
merging his Janata Party into the Congress en masse in 1980 to avoid being
dismissed by Indira Gandhi. Incidentally, he went on to have very significant
influence on Mrs. Gandhi and thus acted as a road block in more ways than one
in finding a solution to the Punjab crisis of the early 1980s. While these have
been post poll mergers in certain context, the question does emerge over the
large scale pre-poll defections. At the outset, the party must weigh its
options on the mode of growth. It must decide whether to opt for an organic
growth route or adopt a route of inorganic growth. The route of organic growth
would perhaps be long and might result in a long period of below average
returns. The state political landscape might vary thus limiting the reach of
the political parties. In this context, if the party wishes to expand into new
territories, it must recognize the possibility of inorganic expansion. The growth
to a certain steady state might take long and in the process, the party might
lose a lot of voters who would have come in anticipation of victory. Sustaining
a loyal base might be a detriment.
The alternate
route, the parties found was to form alliances. In fact the late 1990s was more
of the political defectors forming smaller parties which they could use to
bargain with the larger parties when the country was facing the landscape of
coalition governments. In other words, Nitish Kumar instead of being poached by
BJP from Janata Dal, formed the Samata Party which allied with the BJP. The Samata
later morphed into JD-U. In the coalition era, the cost benefit analysis favoured
the smaller parties. Therefore, the defectors would not be admitted into the
party but would be a part of another party. The political party would thus keep
its ideology intact, allow its original party workers and leaders say in the
party but remain a junior or senior partner as the case might be in the
coalition government. This is how BJP perhaps ended as a junior partner to the
JD-U in Bihar. The same perhaps went true with the other states as well. While BJP
perfected this in the late 1990s, Congress was a bit late to the party.
In the current
scenario, the paradigms are changing. While the ruling party can continue to
exercise certain say in the coalition, but it might not be long lasting. The partners,
junior or senior could migrate at will depending on the political
contingencies. The BJP for instance found out on numerous instances in states
from Orissa to Bihar to Karnataka to Maharashtra in the last decade or so. Therefore,
a party might view getting into a partnership might be detrimental not just to
the party growth prospects but to the coalition itself where it might find
itself wanting at a critical time. Induction of defectors would perhaps solve
this problem or at least is perceived to. In fact if Naveen Patnaik or a Nitish
Kumar were to be the Chief Ministers of the States either way, it would have
been better had they been part of the party rather than a partner with free
will to go. Inducting them into the party imposes certain transaction costs
with no easy barrier to exit. Moreover, the prospects of growth within the
party might make them take different steps. In fact within the Congress, it
would be the loyalty to the first family of the party and in the BJP it might
be a trip to Nagpur.
The political
party’s dynamics within the state would depend upon a certain personality who
would carry votes with him or her. In absence of any ground level leader who
can mobilize votes, they are forced to look for lateral inductions. The model
to retain the party ideology would be to make these lateral entries come
through a coalition route which brings with it, its own hazards as seen above. An
alternative is to bring them within the fold. Every political arrangement is
temporary. It is something that is well known to all the leaders in the
decision making calculus. The political strategies are based on convergence of
interests than any other aspects. Therefore, it would should not be shocking of
admitting defectors. Every party only admits a certain percentage suiting its
requirements. The alignment would work till such time the party gains
sufficient traction on its own when its organic bred leaders start emerging. Therefore,
rather than a sell-out, it must be viewed in a context of immediate gains and
consolidation in pursuit of the party objectives.
Comments
Post a Comment