OPINION | Manish Tewari’s Anti-Defection Bill: A sensible call to rethink the whip culture

“After a quarter of a century of the enactment of the Tenth Schedule, it needs certain adaptations and further strengthening so as to be of greater relevance to our democratic process today. As against the need of the hour when the Tenth Schedule was brought in, the debate and voting in Parliament and State Legislatures have matured to such an extent that they merit revisiting some provisions of the said Schedule in order to streamline and strengthen them further, albeit without losing sight of its salutary intent and purpose.”

Key Amendment Proposed

The key amendment proposed in the Bill is that a member should lose his membership “only when he votes or abstains from voting in the House with regard to a Confidence Motion, No-confidence Motion, Adjournment Motion, Money Bill, or financial matters contrary to any direction issued in this behalf by the party to which he belongs, and in no other case.”

Explaining the reason for moving the Bill in the Lok Sabha, the Congress MP, in an X post, said he had taken this step “so that democracy may be resuscitated in Legislative institutions, and conscience, common sense, and Constituency can once again prevail.”

The Need for Informed Discussion

Much as it may be convenient for some to view Tewari’s Bill as an attempt on his part to make a point to his own party, the issue he raises deserves more informed discussion among all stakeholders, including civil society, because of the fundamental questions this Bill implicitly raises.

Even the realisation that this Private Member's Bill to amend the Anti-Defection Law (which Tewari had moved twice before in 2010 and 2021) is unlikely to immediately achieve the results which the Congress MP seeks does not undermine the necessity to examine with an open mind the rationale behind the introduction of the said Bill.

The Role of the Whip in a Democracy

In a democracy, where "of the people, by the people, for the people" is the default operating norm, can the interests of citizens be adequately served by their political representatives if legislators feel they are being stifled by being compelled to follow the whip directive on each issue?

Does the whip culture, as it exists today, raise the possibility of a scenario where the interests of people become subservient to those of political parties, and by extension, weaken the democratic fabric of the nation?

Does resorting to the use of a whip on every matter do any good to the image of political parties themselves? Wouldn’t the all-too-frequent use of a whip signal to the electorate that the party cannot keep its flock together otherwise?

Revisiting the Whip Culture

As with any institution, political parties, too, cannot compromise on the issue of discipline. However, the overuse of the whip to instil discipline among its elected members, whether in state Assemblies or Parliament, may be taking things a bit too far. It can reduce the legislative capacity of members, which may not be good news for political parties going forward.

At the end of the day, every mature, confident, and flourishing democracy in the world needs, from time to time, to reexamine whether the provisions of a law that once seemed to hold the solution to an issue require amendments or modifications to meet present-day requirements.

The Potential Impact of Tewari’s Bill

If Congress MP Manish Tewari’s Private Member’s Bill could spark more conversation on whether the whip culture in its present form needs a relook, that, by itself, would be no small achievement. It may well be the precursor to a more lasting change.

(Sumali Moitra is a current affairs commentator. X Id: @sumalimoitra.)

Views are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.