Political crossovers during election time are not exactly a brand new occurrence in this country but those of the type we are having now, are almost spectacular. Usually, they don’t happen so late in an election cycle, but they are happening these days with a vengeance.
These political crossovers are being lampooned by cartoonists, and being subject to super-satirical takes from the hack writers and the comic sketch specialists. That is to be expected. Sudden crossovers seem to challenge the intelligence of the voters severely, and they are not always pleased. But on a closer perusal, these crossovers are more often than not a reflection of what the voters themselves are up to during various election seasons. Many voters are not faithful to party or personality. But when it comes to voters, or constituents, that amount of latitude is granted to them. They are supposed to take informed decisions and not stick to a bloc, even though the majority of voters do so in practice.
If crossovers are acceptable when it comes to ordinary voters, why is crossing-over frowned upon and laughed at when politicians do it? When politicians cross over at the last moment, people see it as crass opportunism spurred on by selfish motivations. But does that mean that those who ask for your vote, don’t have a right to cross over, at any time they please?
They do, and they have been doing so as long as we voters can remember. A conscience vote where MPs cross party-lines and vote against their party’s interests on specific issues in Parliament, has been considered a democratic right, or more accurately, a democratic imperative for a long time. Strict allegiance to party and platform has never been considered a virtue in modern democratic practice, which begs the question why political crossing over is considered such a fickle and selfish practice when politicians as opposed to voters do it before elections?
There is a reason for that. Individual cross overs are different from forming political alliances. Individual politicians sometimes cross-over and abandon the work they have been doing and the platforms they have been loyal to with a vengeance, for decades.
SWITCHED
They don’t merely abandon these platforms, sometimes their disassociation syndrome runs so deep that they cross over to the exact opposite side of the divide, and lambaste the leaders they have been loyal to for years. That’s not seen exactly as exercising the right to switch loyalties, or as a matter of conscience.
Some political parties (JVP being a case in point) have come out strongly against the practice and said that they don’t have turncoats among their ranks. But they appeal to voters who traditionally vote with the larger more conventional political parties, to break ranks and vote for them when it comes to casting a ballot.
It just seems they don’t like turncoat politicians but like turncoat voters. Of course they are entitled to say that politicians swinging from one branch to another — they are called valvulas or bats in the colourful local argot — are motivated by greed for power, and other corrupt intentions. But they had no problem a few years ago when a minister who was a party General Secretary switched sides and became a common candidate for President.
This particular candidate switched sides after serving the incumbent Government faithfully for over a decade until he changed sides and challenged his party’s candidate at the Presidential election, just months before that election was held. Though the JVP on that occasion did not join the coalition of forces that fought the election under the banner of the common candidate, they publicly announced their intention to campaign against the incumbent, effectively throwing in their lot with the challenging common-candidate who was by now lambasting the leader to whom he was loyal to as a minister for nearly a decade prior to the election.
All this is now history, and maybe taken to be part of our political lore, and taken to be accepted practice. After all, the victory of the common Opposition candidate on that occasion mentioned above was generally celebrated by most political watchers, and certainly by the JVP, which now condemns the crossovers this election season which they see as corrupt and flagrant trapeze acts, that are naturally frowned upon by a ‘clean and incorruptible political party such as theirs’.
How a party that openly supported a last moment political switch-over almost moments before a Presidential election a few years ago could now say that crossover culture is anathema to them, is rather risible to say the least. It shows that all of these values are relative, to put it generously.
That’s not to say that politicians should never cross over or that they should be encouraged to cross over without any consideration of previous positions taken, and previous loyalties, just because they see it fit to selfishly grab a perceived opportunity. It is also unbecoming to say crossovers are not part of our political culture, when a party taking up this position encouraged a last minute crossover by no less than a major presidential election contender a few years ago.
The least that can be said is that crossing over is not considered a good practice, until it is. It happens all the time, is frowned upon most of the time and cheered on most of the time as well, and that’s the reality. So who is to condemn crossovers and say these particular crossovers are in good spirit, but another set of allegiance-switching is nothing but demonic and selfish?
Perhaps the decision on whether crossovers should be considered benign and politically useful, or whether they should be considered selfish or opportunistic, should be left to the voter himself/herself. If the voter thinks “Selfishness and opportunism” is to be rewarded at certain given times, so be it. Perhaps the voters think switching over at the eleventh hour, is not all selfishness and petty-minded politics and is par for the course in a democracy, because no loyalties are cast in stone.
BANDWAGON
The political somersaults taking place this particular Presidential election season are quite the spectacle, and it could be said that these types of inter and intra-party acrobatics were rare in the past, even in this country. This time, there are all types of political trapeze acts occurring barely a month to go before the polling date.
All this is probably because this is one of the most unusual of elections held under the most uncertain of circumstances. But does that necessarily require MPs and active party politicians to abandon any sense of propriety and jump around until they find a comfortable political niche to settle in? It may serve as a good reminder to people that this is exactly what most Sri Lankan politicians have been doing for decades now, with politics always being seen by them as a game of marriage by convenience. Politicians have abided by the one cardinal principle that there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies in the practice of statecraft.
There may be no permanent friends and enemies, but of course there are working smart phones always. These ubiquitous gadgets can and have captured enough videos of politicians lambasting various leaders who they are praising to the high heavens now, after they found how good it is to hitch their bandwagon to the circus they had so unreservedly condemned in the past.
Voters too are naturally cynical in a political climate in which this type of thing is very much par for the course, but then they know better than to reject the phenomenon entirely. They know every party has encouraged the practice at various times, including those that condemn it now and say they stand aloof from these types of party-switching acrobatics.
Voters know better, because it’s what they do too; they switch allegiances and are sometimes not decided on whom to vote for until it is time to tick the box for a candidate at the polling booth. However, voters have not pledged to a certain set of policies and certain leaders, only to turn their back on all that in an instant as some politicians do. But these days that difference in voter and politicians’ perspective may be considered a mere difference in degree.
