The newly passed amendments to the Anti-Defection Act in the Maldives have been designed to prevent elected officials from switching political parties during their tenure, requiring them to resign if they defect or join another party. While the proponents argue it ensures accountability to voters and maintains political stability, there are several arguments against these amendments:
1. Restricting Individual Freedom: The law infringes on the freedom of elected representatives to reassess their political affiliations. Circumstances and party ideologies may evolve over time, and this law restricts the ability of members to make independent decisions that align with their conscience or changing political realities.
2. Risk of Centralized Control: By tying representatives to their party at the risk of losing their seats, the law could empower party leadership to exert undue influence over elected members. This centralization of power might undermine the democratic principle of allowing representatives to act in the best interests of their constituents, even if it conflicts with party directives.
3. Administrative Burdens: The requirement to hold by-elections for vacated seats due to defections adds administrative complexity and financial strain on the Elections Commission. This could divert resources from other pressing electoral or governance activities.
4. Limiting Democratic Flexibility: In a multi-party democracy, coalition-building and realignments are natural processes. The act may hinder this flexibility, making it harder to form pragmatic alliances that reflect shifting political landscapes or public sentiment.
5. Risk of Misuse for Political Purposes: The provisions could be weaponized to marginalize dissent within parties. Leaders might exploit the law to silence critics or remove opponents under the guise of maintaining party discipline.
Critics also note that while the act claims to promote stability, it could exacerbate political polarization by discouraging constructive dissent and dialogue within parties. This approach, while aimed at preventing opportunism, may ultimately stifle the healthy functioning of a representative democracy.
