The Hindu Newspaper Analysis

Strengthening India’s Anti-Defection Law: Enhancing Democratic Integrity

Background and Purpose of the Anti-Defection Law

• Introduction and Objective: Enacted in 1985 through the 52nd Amendment and included in the Tenth Schedule, the Anti-Defection Law aimed to prevent legislators from switching parties, a practice that had destabilized many governments and undermined public trust in democracy.
• Historical Context: Rampant defections post-independence, such as the infamous “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” episode in Haryana (1960s), showed how political loyalty was compromised for financial gains or positions, eroding governance stability and democratic integrity.

Key Provisions and Loopholes

• Disqualification Grounds: Legislators can be disqualified if they voluntarily resign from their party or defy party directives on critical votes like confidence motions or budgets.
• Initial Loopholes: The 1985 law permitted a split if one-third of party members defected; however, the 91st Amendment in 2003 raised this threshold to two-thirds, making defections harder.

Implementation Issues and Challenges

1. Delayed Decision-Making: Delays by Speakers in deciding defection cases—sometimes stretching for months or years—allow defectors to remain in office, which weakens the law.
2. Discretionary Powers: Speakers’ significant discretionary powers without a fixed decision timeline create room for bias, undermining the law’s impartiality.
3. Transparency of Whips: Lack of transparency regarding party whip issuance creates ambiguity, leading to disputes over members’ awareness of party positions.
4. Judicial Reluctance: Courts generally avoid interfering in defection cases to respect legislative autonomy, limiting oversight over Speaker’s decisions.

Proposed Amendments for Enhanced Effectiveness

1. Time Bound Decision-Making:
   • Introduce a four-week deadline for defection cases. If unresolved within this period, defectors should be automatically disqualified to ensure timely action.
2. Transparency in Whip Issuance:
   • Political parties should publicly communicate party whips through official channels like newspapers or electronic platforms for clarity.
3. Independent Tribunal: In the 2020 Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. Speaker, Manipur Assembly case, the Supreme Court suggested replacing the Speaker’s role with an independent tribunal, though maintaining Speaker accountability remains essential.

Reform Recommendations

Several committees, such as:

• Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990)
• Law Commission’s 170th Report (1999) and 255th Report (2015)
• National Commission for Constitution Review (2002) have proposed reforms to enhance the law’s scope and impartiality.

Future Directions: Urgent Reforms and Political Commitment

• Amendment Prioritization: Amendments to the Tenth Schedule can reinforce the law’s relevance in modern politics and support the “One Nation, One Election” framework.
• Leadership Initiative: Key political leaders, including the Prime Minister, Leader of the House, and Leader of the Opposition, should prioritize these amendments to fortify Indian democracy.

Conclusion

Revamping the Anti-Defection Law will safeguard parliamentary integrity and democratic stability. Timely reforms can adapt the law to current political challenges, balancing party discipline with elected representatives’ accountability to the public.

 

 

 

 

The Hindu Newspaper Analysis

Re-evaluating AJR’s Development Framework: Addressing Eurocentric Shortcomings

Overview of AJR’s Contributions

• Nobel-Winning Research: Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson (AJR) won the 2024 Economics Nobel for their work on how colonial institutions influence modern economic development.
• Key Argument: AJR’s research, particularly in “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development” (over 18,715 citations), posits that colonies with lower European settler mortality developed “inclusive” institutions, while higher mortality rates led to “extractive” institutions, stunting growth. These ideas are also expanded in Why Nations Fail (2012).

Core Critiques of AJR’s Framework

1. Eurocentric Perspective

• Universal Model: AJR’s model assumes that the European concept of “good institutions” universally applies, downplaying alternative development paths in the Global South.
• Challenge from Yuen Yuen Ang: In How China Escaped the Poverty Trap, Ang argues against AJR’s static model by presenting “directed improvisation,” where institutions evolve with economic changes. China’s flexible approach with Special Economic Zones (e.g., Guangdong) demonstrates growth through decentralized experimentation, rather than relying on fixed “inclusive” institutions.

2. Misrepresenting Western Development

• Partial Inclusivity: AJR’s framework fails to capture the complexities of Western development, overlooking the role of exclusion and cronyism in early industrialization.
• Case of Britain: The Industrial Revolution was fueled by labor exploitation and selective political inclusivity. Early capitalist states used crony networks for economic management, contrary to AJR’s view of purely “inclusive” systems.
• Protectionism: Scholars like Ha-Joon Chang note that industrialized Western nations initially relied on protectionism and state intervention, adopting “inclusive” institutions only after attaining wealth. AJR’s framework ignores the strategic role of government policies in fostering industrial dominance.

3. Simplification of Colonial Institutions

• Binary Classification: AJR’s model categorizes colonial institutions as either “extractive” or “inclusive,” ignoring hybrid institutions that incorporated both local and imposed structures.
• Hybrid Outcomes: Researchers like Frederick Cooper and Mahmood Mamdani emphasize that many colonial institutions led to varied post-colonial outcomes, defying AJR’s simplified framework.

4. Oversight of Colonial Legacies

• Dependency Theory: AJR’s model downplays how colonial institutions entrenched economic dependencies, leading to underdevelopment in colonies while benefiting European metropoles.
• African Case Study: In countries like Congo, colonial institutions were created to extract resources, leaving the country impoverished despite its natural wealth, underscoring the limitations of AJR’s framework.

Conclusion

• Need for Holistic Perspective: While AJR’s Nobel-winning work emphasizes institutional impact, it overlooks the complexities of the Global South’s historical development. A more nuanced model that acknowledges diverse development paths, colonial legacies, and adaptive institutional changes would provide a fuller understanding of global economic trajectories.