Recently British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Welfare Reform Bill was passed in the House of Commons. Theoretically, passing bills for Starmer’s Labour Government shouldn’t be an issue, for it has 403 out of 650 MPs. But it is, as in British politics, the independent views of an MP (irrespective of the leadership view), matters. Party ‘Whips’ cannot be issued at all times, as democratic deliberations and dissenting views within a party are considered healthy, and even necessary.
A staggering (by Indian standards) 49 Labour Party MPs voted against a bill brought by their own government. This is not surprising as the Centre-Left Labour party is a mélange of democratic socialists, social democrats, trade unionists and even hard leftists. It is the same for the main opposition grouping, the Conservative Party, which hosts an array of traditional conservatives, one-nation conservatives, That – cherites and even hard-right factions. Sub-factions within the party debate and disagree with each other publicly and it is usually the majority faction within each party that gets to elect the leadership and pass bills.
The traditions of democracy and its essentialities of debate are afforded externally and internally in British Democracy. “Brexit” was a classic case that demonstrated various positions amongst the Parliamentarians that cut across party lines. Cohorts included Hard-Brexiteers, Soft-Brexiteers, Remain, Refuseniks, “People’s Vote Faction”, Lexit-Eurosceptics, etc., which ensured that the then ruling Conservative leadership could not take its parliamentary majority for granted. Befittingly, while the Labour Party officially voted ‘against’ Brexit, 32 Labour MPs defied the official position and chose to ‘abstain’ symbolically in the decisive vote. All this points to the importance of individual opinion and the assertion of the same in British politics. It is not predicated blindly on the “Party Line” as is effectively man-dated in Indian politics.
A recent record from the British parliamentary system is worth noting ~ till about a year back, the Conservative Party had ruled for 14 years. The Labour Party had been in the doldrums by losing four General Elections in a row. But more importantly, the Conservative Party went about its own internal churn, dissonance and factionalism whilst it fought Labour externally. Within 14 years of Conservative Party rule (2010-2024), it had five Prime Ministers i.e., David Ca meron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Lizz Truss and Rishi Sunak ~ each had ousted his predecessor within the party. Once ousted from the leadership role, none of the former Prime Ministers were labelled as “anti-party”, “disloyal” or as is the wont in the Indian normalcy, even “anti-national”. Similarly the Labour Party in the same period had its own internal democratic wrangling with leadership changes from Harriet Harman, Ed Miliband, Jeremy Corbyn to finally Keir Starmer.
Despite all the political upheaval and reversal of fortunes in British Politics, there are hardly any instances of Parliamentarians jumping partisan ships across the ideological divide. Indeed there could be odd instances of Conservative parliamentarian joining a Reform UK platform (still ideologically compatible) or a Labour parliamentarian joining a New Left Group (same side of the fence) ~ but for over 650 MPs, there have been only two MPs i.e. Dan Poulter and Natalie Elphicke, who moved from one principal party i.e. the Conservative to the ideological opposite, Labour in nearly two years. Contrast this with Indian politics where in the last General Election, 28 per cent of the candidates (37 members) from the ruling/winning party that claims to be the “party with a difference” were defectors from the principal opposition party. One in four members of the ruling party had once opposed the government that they are now part of, tooth and nail.
To talk about “ideology” in Indian politics is absurd as it is solely about “winnability” ~ the individuals who made the most vile, personalised, and hateful aspersions against an individual/ party can then merrily be singing hosannas to the same individual/party. Across the Indian political system (in all national and regional parties), “internal democracy” is a joke not is not even cracked for fear of eliciting laughs. Challenging the leadership or its policies automatically leads to questioning one’s “inte grity” as a “loyal soldier of the party”. If it is dynastic insistences in some parties, then it is the dictatorial reign by “one or two” individuals who remain beyond questioning in the other.
The “wor ld’s largest demo cracy” is in the throes of repressive fear, intolerance and absolutism that brooks no individual opinion, except the blind subscribing of the official party/ leadership line. Without getting into the merits or the plausible intent of adopting a contrarian position by the said individuals, Indian democracy has witnessed a slew of ousters or telling discomfort against individuals who did not toe the official line blindly. If Shashi Tharoor is becoming persona non grata and a hot potato for the Congress to handle for his recent actions and statements, a firebrand MLA T Raja Singh (with over 100 criminal cases) has had to resign from the BJP for his views on the Central Party’s choice of State leader (and not for offensive, provocative or communal comments that he has made in heaps). Recently, three party MLA’s of the Samajwadi Party were expelled for asserting their individual choice and therefore for the “betrayal of the party ideology”.
A Tej Pratap Yadav who had made enough gaffes and controversial remarks earlier was expelled by his family party, the Rashtriya Janata Dal, for posting his supposed long-term relationship on social media that apparently “violated party values”. The AAP phenomenon which rode on the wave of anti corruption and “change” in Indian politics has had its own share of expulsions, exoduses and sidelining of those who dare question its leadership. The seemingly undecided sacking and reinstatement of nephew Akash Anand by the BSP supremo, Mayawati, is a saga of political dogmatism of its own. The essential storyline remains unchanged whether it is DMK, BJD, JMM, NCP or any other national or regional party.
There is a shrinking space for internal expression that trips meritocracy, diversity of opinions and maturity in Indian politics. It is, as the now increasingly and sadly ridiculed Nobel laureate Amartya Sen presciently said, “if you make discussion fearful, you are not going to get a democracy, no matter how you count the votes”. Indian politics may be based on the British Westminster style of political structuring but it is a far cry from its prevailing spirits. For all its ills in the past and present, British politics have evolved to a stage where a Conservative party (with a decidedly more colonial past with the likes of Winston Churchill in its ranks) could make space for a Mayor of London with a name like Sadiq Khan, and a Prime Minister called Rishi Sunak. Lack of inclusive politics, hence polarisation, is a natural outcome of the lack of questioning or internal democracy In India, as there really is no “party with a difference”.
The writer is Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), and former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry