words per minute
5
deep_singh
00:00
Speed
A blanket ban on defection will weaken rather than strengthen democracy in whose name it is being sought to be imposed. Granted, political defection is increasingly less an act of ideological defiance than one of pure opportunism. Granted also that it is illogical to allow a third of the party to split but not a lesser number. Yet, for all its flaws, the current law recognizes and respects one fundamental principle: the right to dissent; democracy is not about showing the door to one who dares to disagree. Democracy is about granting her the right to dissent from within the fold. In a household context, it would be akin to a father throwing out his rebellious daughter. How would a democratic father deal with this situation? He would allow the daughter to register her protest, knowing full well that to not do so would stifle the youngster's intellectual growth and turn her into a malcontent.
The need to foster a democratic spirit is all the more in a political party which derives its legitimacy from participation in democratic elections. Indeed, like charity, democracy must begin at home. A political party that is intolerant of internal dissent can hardly be expected to be liberal and democratic in its external conduct. To tell a legislator that he owes it to his party, which has facilitated his election, never to disagree with it is the equivalent of asking that he remains forever in bondage. To do so is to journey back to the feudal age, when a supplicant who rebelled against the master would be called a 'namak haram'. Take the case of a party that asks for votes on one ideological platform but switches course once in government. What is the sanctity of the party whip issued in such a situation ?