Laws Against Party Switching , Defecting , or Floor-Crossing in National Parliaments

Many western scholars may be surprised to learn that parliamentary members who switch parties during the session may be expelled from parliament because they violate the law in their country. This paper studies such “anti-defection” laws. It investigates the extent of such legislation; why and how often legislators switch parties; how this phenomenon has been studied; why some scholars favor banning party switching; why politicians have legislated against party defections; and the consequences of such bans for political parties and party systems. It reveals that anti-defection laws are rare in established democracies but common in nascent democracies, where anti-defection laws are often defended as temporary measures to consolidate a chaotic party system. However, many nations enshrine anti-defection provisions in their constitutions, which are not depositories for temporary legislation. Party law differs systematically between established and nascent democracies (Janda, 2005a). One of the most peculiar differences lies in the existence of laws against party switching, defecting, or floor-crossing in national parliaments. Laws that expel members who change parties are often called “anti-defection” laws, but they have other names. In Malhotra’s 1,200 page treatise on the topic, said that in different parts of the Commonwealth the phenomenon of defecting from a parliamentary party is known by different nomenclatures—such as “floor-crossing,” “carpet-crossing,” “party-hopping,” “dispute” and “waka [canoe]-jumping” (2005: 15). Note also that “crossing the floor” sometimes refers merely to voting with the opposition, not to changing party affiliation (Australian Parliamentary Library, 2005). Outside the Commonwealth in what Mershon and Shvetsova describe as “a small but still-growing body of research” (2008: 99), changing parties is more commonly called party “switching. ” Typically, however, Western scholars of party switching do not study countries that have anti-defection laws. Janda: Laws Against Party Switching 2 Malhotra observes that in some countries party defections “are a non-issue and not perceived as a problem,” whereas in others the practice threatens government stability and is taken as very serious. The latter countries tend to legislate against parliamentary party defections. India, for example, enacted different variants of anti-defection laws in 1973, 1985, and 2003. The 2003 law provides that a person can be disqualified from serving in parliament for “voluntarily giving up the membership of his original party” (2005: 965). Furthermore, the Indian law permits parliamentary expulsion simply for voting (or abstaining from voting) “in the House contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs” (2005: 970). Malhotra’s massive work undertakes to review and analyze “the established laws, rules, practices and procedures and conventions” in 40 Commonwealth countries, with brief references to anti-defection laws in 25 other nations (2005: 15). His data show that laws in 23 of the Commonwealth countries (58%) penalize deputies with parliamentary expulsion for changing parties and that 7 of the 23 also prescribed expulsion simply for voting against their parties (2005: 76-110). Only 7 of his 25 non-Commonwealth nations (28%) had anti-defection laws and none cost members their seats for voting against their parties. Malhotra, who was Secretary-General of the Indian Parliament, issued his study as a government document that assessed India’s experience with anti-defection legislation. He concluded that the law has “succeeded, to some extent, in checking the menace of defections in India’s body politic,” but that “comprehensive legislation” was needed to make the law more effective (2005: 996-997). This paper aims at expanding research on anti-defection law beyond the Commonwealth countries and at linking such legislation to the comparative analysis of political parties more generally. It begins by reviewing the extent of anti-defection laws across nations. The Extent of Anti-Defection Laws Laws against crossing the floor (a phrase often used for party switching or defections in developing democracies, not just for voting with the opposition) are sometimes not mere “laws,” they are often enshrined in national constitutions. To illustrate the nature of anti-defection legislation, Table 1 reports constitution provisions in eight nations. Table 1: Protecting Parties with Anti-Defection Provisions in the Constitution Belize, Article 59. Tenure of Office of Members (1) Every member of the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House at the next dissolution of the National Assembly after his election. (2) A member of the House of Representatives shall also vacate his seat in the House— (e) if, having been a candidate of a political party and elected to the House of Representatives as a candidate of that political party, he resigns from that political party or crosses the floor. Namibia, Article 48. Vacation of Seats (1) Members of the National Assembly shall vacate their seats: (b) if the political party which nominated them to sit in the National Assembly informs the Speaker that such members are no longer members of such political party. Nepal, Article 49. Vacation of Seats (1) The seat of a member of Parliament shall become vacant in the following circumstances: (f) if the party of which he was a member when elected provides notification in the manner set forth by law that he has abandoned the party. Janda: Laws Against Party Switching 3 Nigeria, Article 68. Tenure of Seat of Members (g) being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected: Seychelles, Article 81. Vacation of Seats (1) A person ceases to be a member of the National Assembly and the seat occupied by that person in the Assembly shall become vacant— 27(h) if, in the case of a proportionally elected member— (i) the political party which nominated the person as member nominates another person as member in place of the first-mentioned person and notifies the Speaker in writing of the new nomination; (ii) the person ceases to be a member of the political party of which that person was a member at the time of the election; Sierra Leone, Article 77. Tenure of Seats of Members of Parliament (1) A Member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament— (k) if he ceases to be a member of the political party of which he was a member at the time of his election to Parliament and he so informs the Speaker, or the Speaker is so informed by the Leader of that political party; Singapore, Article 46 (2) The seat of a Member of Parliament shall become vacant— (b) if he ceases to be a member of, or is expelled or resigns from, the political party for which he stood in the election; Zimbabwe, Article 41. Tenure of Seats of Members (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the seat of a member of Parliament shall become vacant only(e) if, being a member referred to in section 38 (1) (a) and having ceased to be a member of the political party of which he was a member at the date of his election to Parliament, the political party concerned, by written notice to the Speaker, declares that he has ceased to represent its interests in parliament. SOURCE: Janda (2005a: 13) It is difficult to determine exactly which nations had anti-defection laws and which still had them as of 2007. Malhotra’s list of 23 nations provide a useful start, but two of his countries rescinded their laws and other countries show up in different surveys. Subramanian’s list (2008) of twenty-nine nations overlaps with Malhotra’s but deviates somewhat. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA, 2006) uncovered more nations in its survey of party officials in 64 developing democracies, who were asked: Is it possible for a member of parliament to leave the party with which s/he was elected and join another party or become an independent MP (floor-crossing)? Data from these sources and reports from the Council of Europe (2005) and Breeveld (2007) are combined in Table 2, which identifies 41 nations with laws against parliamentary party defections and groups them by type of democracy, as classified by Norris (2005) based on data from Freedom House (2007). Table 2: Nations with Laws Against Parliamentary Party Defections Type of democracy, 2007 Number of nations Those with floorcrossing laws Nations with floor-crossing laws Older democracies 36 5 (14%) India, Israel, Portugal, Trinidad & Tobago Newer democracies 54 13 (24%) Belize, Bulgaria, Ghana, Guyana, Hungary, Lesotho, Mexico, Namibia, Romania, Samoa, Senegal, Suriname, Ukraine Semi-democracies 58 19 (33%) Armenia, Bangladesh, Fiji, Gabon, Kenya, Macedonia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles, Janda: Laws Against Party Switching 4 Macedonia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tanzania,