By Kiran Karnik
Party-hopping Delhi socialites, boasting about how many “do’s” they went to in a single night, now have competition: party-hopping politicians. “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” has been a phrase in common use for such politicians for some decades. Despite the anti-defection law enacted many years ago, peripatetic politicians travel from one party to another as frequently as Churchgate-Andheri local trains, best exemplified by a nine-time chief minister who has changed parties five times!
In this election season, politics, leaders, and candidates, are centre stage. Gone are the days when fiery political arguments would end with unanimous agreement that politicians are self-serving and corrupt. Proponents now unrelentingly insist that their favoured party is incorruptible and pure as the driven snow; arguments run on parallel tracks without converging as they once did. Yet, very many voters are unhappy about the ease and remorselessness with which turncoat politicians switch parties.
The problem, though, is voters, not politicians. The latter are expected to be as faithful to ideology and party as a traditional Hindu wife to her husband. This is an erroneous analogy on the part of voters. Instead, look at politicians as corporate executives. There is no expectation that executives will stick to only one company throughout their career. Mobility is an almost essential part of managers’ upward trajectory, and inter-company movement is a well-accepted process.
Low and mid-level executives move to better their prospects, lured by bigger pay-packets, a more important position, or a company with greater growth prospects. Swollen-ego senior managers, with an exaggerated sense of their capabilities, nurturing grudges about lack of recognition, are also amongst those most likely to look for a position elsewhere. High-flying top executives who lose hope of becoming the CEO, because the present one is firmly in the saddle and has the support of the Board, are also serious flight-risks. In all three cases, there are immediate analogies with the movement of politicians across parties. One can even think of specific names!
Then, there is the CEO who fears that his company is losing the battle in the marketplace. He may unhesitatingly switch to a competing company and help it become the dominant player. An immediate political analogy is the example of the nine-time CM with five switches to his credit.
Sometimes, a leader brings his full team to the new company. This has become an accepted practice: one which is not an uncommon occurrence, especially amongst the “Big 4” accounting firms. Now, politics in Maharashtra has emulated this corporate precedent! Interestingly, here too there is a Big 4, and two of them have seen large teams joining a third.
Why is it that what is acceptable in the corporate arena – where the attributes of good governance, ethics, transparency, and trust are supposedly given great weight – should not be kosher for politics? All we need to do is to consider politics as one more sector of business. Looked at through this lens, there is little that is reprehensible in the much-pilloried “chameleon politician”: like any ambitious executive, s/he is navigating his/her way up the career chart, and this often requires a change in the company (party). Loyalty – to company (party) or purpose (ideology) – is a virtue of the past: companies and political parties value other traits, including the disruption a new entrant may cause in the earlier company/party.
Political parties, it seems, are like corporates. After all, politics is (good) business!
*The author loves to think in tongue-in-cheek ways, with no maliciousness or offence intended. At other times, he is a public policy analyst and author. Among his books is Decisive Decade: India 2030 Gazelle or Hippo (Rupa, 2021).
