GS Question

The role of individual MPs has indeed diminished over the years, and the anti-defection law is one factor that has contributed to this phenomenon. The anti-defection law was enacted in India in 1985 with the aim of preventing political defections and ensuring political stability. However, over time, it has had unintended consequences that have affected healthy and constructive debates on policy issues.

One major impact of the anti-defection law is the imposition of party discipline on MPs. As per the law, if an MP disagrees with the party's official stance on a particular issue, they can face disqualification from their party and subsequent loss of their parliamentary seat. This has resulted in MPs being compelled to vote along party lines rather than independently analyzing and debating policy issues. Consequently, MPs often prioritize party loyalty over their own perspectives or the interests of their constituents, leading to a lack of diverse opinions and critical analysis during policy discussions.

Moreover, the law has also enabled party leadership to exert greater control over MPs. The fear of disqualification, loss of position, and other punitive measures discourages MPs from openly opposing or criticizing their party's policies. This further curtails individual MPs' ability to engage in rational, constructive debates and make valuable contributions to policy discussions.

In addition to the anti-defection law, other factors such as the increasing influence of political parties, the rise of centralized decision-making, and party whip mechanisms have further restricted the freedom and involvement of individual MPs.

However, it is essential to note that the diminished role of individual MPs cannot be solely attributed to the anti-defection law. There are various other structural and political factors at play, such as the party system, electoral dynamics, and changing socio-political context, which have collectively influenced the declining significance of individual MPs in policy debates.