Crossing the floor or changing side or, transfugisme in French, is a common phenomenon in Mauritius and even in Rodrigues where the autonomous Regional Assembly is composed of only eighteen members. When, as a young administrator, I studied the Indian political electoral system for my dissertation, I learnt that in one single day, some twenty members from different parties changed side in order to be on the government side. So, there is nothing surprising or degrading about crossing the floor unless this is done for personal advantage.

Reasons for changing side

In life there are many reasons for changing our opinions on important issues. Change, we learn in management, is the only constant. Some people, I am sorry to say, are narrow-minded and will stick to one way of doing things even if doing so will lead them to perdition. My parents in Mahebourg who were die-hards labour supporters were pitted against my father who was a Bissoondoyalist to the marrow. They used to say that “I have always carried my gun on this shoulder; I am not going to change whatever happens.” With education and greater exposure to enlightened ideas nowadays, they would have changed. A person cannot remain a blind follower of a leader who thinks only for himself. All his so-called strategies are for his own advancement and aggrandizement. There are many respectable reasons for changing side as we shall see below.

Honourable reasons for changing side

When the world changes and white becomes black as when a leader betrays his original goals which are diametrically opposed to his present erratic ones and which enabled him to pull large crowds of supporters, it would be the height of folly not to leave him and seek one’s own sanity elsewhere. There is nothing wrong in forming one’s own group or joining another group of people, whose ideas one espouses. Rezistans Ek Alternativ is one group whose adherents are honest and serious members and which has laudable objectives. If one is not after power which, in any case is quite legitimate if one wants to achieve things which would benefit the people, such a group might be attractive to people who want to fight for a cause and for whom party politics is incidental and an accessory. Likewise, there is nothing wrong in leaving a political party whom one has supported for many years and join a party that makes things happen.

Another reason why a reasonable politician should leave a party, as if it were the plague, is when the leader or a group around him becomes unmovable and captures the reins of power. Other members become mere spectators and open their mouth at the risk of being humiliated by the leader or his lieutenants. In case opposition becomes too strong, the leader will call his hundreds of stooges who will frighten you so that you toe the line. This must have been the technique used by Hitler and his henchmen. Nearer to us, I saw Albert René using this technique to silence protest and stay in power.

When everywhere in the advanced world, leading politicians serve their time and leave it to others to take over, like in the UK, Australia, France and the US, it is not understood why some politicians, although, they have taken their members repeatedly to the butchery at elections time, continue to cling to the leadership role in which they have failed more than once. Some people will tell me it is because their constitutions make provision for regular changes where the electorate has no say. In the US, for instance, many would have wished Obama to stay for a third term but the law did not allow it. So, it is normal for members of a party to walk out if he has no chance to become a successful politician and translate his dreams into reality. He may not aspire to become Prime Minister but why can’t he become a senior minister when he has already proved his worth in that capacity? Why should members prostate themselves at the feet of a selfish leader who has failed many times and who is looking for an opportunity to jump on a successful bandwagon although he keeps on repeating we are strong enough to face them alone? This bravado will not impress us.

Why should members not walk out when they seldom have an active role to play? In such meetings whenever you attend you will hear only one voice. On television you will hear only his voice, while other groups allow some of their members to speak on behalf of them all. Rezistans ek Alternativ sets the good example. The members who speak are those who specialize in a subject and put across sensible and weighty arguments for or against a proposal. Dictators will never change; they should be chucked out before they pollute the whole body. If that is impossible for the reasons I have mentioned earlier, who can condemn those who leave for more democratic structures? Experience teaches us that if we do not express ourselves freely our ideas die out and we become idiotic. Who is prepared to suffer from mental atrophy just because of dictators?

Unjustified crossing of the floor

In some cases, it is justified to change sides. This can happen when a party had veered completely from its original objectives. Like a party that pretends it will defend the interest of “ti-dimounes” but in reality side with the “barons” and hoodwink the former with breadcrumbs. The beneficiaries of such insignificant benefits and similar goodies are made to believe that they are fortunate and they start singing the praise of their benefactors. A member who respects himself has a duty to change side before he catches Cholera. In a democratic organisation where rules are clear, it is normal that not all our suggestions or ideas will be accepted, the majority must have its way. But if the majority is composed of yes-men who bully the minority, reasonable members who respect themselves should either attack from inside or leave.

To explain my next point, let me use an incident which occurred in Rodrigues which I witnessed at close quarters, where crossing the floor changed the whole configuration of the Regional Assembly and was catastrophic for the leading party. After the regional election the majority party had bagged ten seats against eight to the opposition. It so happened that two members of the majority party fell foul of their leader. Courted by the opposition with promises of higher positions, they left. The result was that new Commissioners had to be appointed by his Excellency the President of the Republic. In the twinkling of an eye the majority was converted into a minority and the new majority against the will of the electorate, took the reins of power from the elected members. I don’t think that such crossing of the floor can be countenanced. It was at best a pitiable spectacle and at worse a show of immorality because the electorate had no hand in it.

Of course, there are other instances where members should feel free to leave. Of course, they will be accused of being traitors and “transfuges” by those unscrupulous people who stand to gain if their idols come back to power.

I maintain it is unfair to speak ill of people who conscientiously feel they cannot stay and leave for a different party. Otherwise why did they join politics in the first place?