Aaya Ram Gaya Ram.
In 1967 there was a member of the Haryana Legislative Assembly from Palwal district in India. His name was Gaya Lal. He won elections as an independent candidate and soon joined the Indian National Congress, then defected from the Indian National Congress to the United Front. Shortly after, he counter-defected back to the Indian National Congress and then redefected to the United Front again. All this happened within a fortnight.
His defections and counter defections lent the Indian political lexicon the term Aaya Ram Gaya Ram. This is an expression used in Indian politics which means the frequent floor crossing, turn-coating, switching parties and political horse trading within the political landscape.
Back home, we have had our fair share of Aaya Ram Gaya Ram. There has not been a shortage of Gaya Lal’s, ranging from presidents and presidential advisers, to MPs and senators, to labor union officials, governors and political sponsors.
In other lexicons, they are called political turncoats. These are people who shift allegiance from one loyalty to another, betraying or deserting an original cause by switching to the opposing side.
It is not uncommon in our political history for politicians, political attack dogs and political sponsors to decide at a certain point in their life’s sojourn to make a switch of their allegiance, in fact similar to Gaya Lal, to make several switches.
To the rest of us, we characterise this defection and counter-defection with negative connotation. This is because defections damage the myth of the perceived enigmatic political leaders, erodes the legitimacy and traction of the political messaging, weakens morale of the supporters and provides valuable opposition intelligence from the turncoats. And this is significantly damaging to any political party or faction.
Yet in the face of fear and insecurity, the turncoats' prime motives to defect is mere survival. Often those in a leadership position are the first to switch loyalties. This is because they have had access to privileged information and are more aware of the hopelessness of the situation of their former cause.
To the political turncoats, switching allegiances seems anything but a mistake. To them, when the returns are enticing, why remain wedded to one ideology? If they stick to the same faction, it is usually because that’s just good business. Otherwise, their dogma is one. AGIP. Any Government In Power.
But to the rest of us, what we define as betrayal is heavily nauseating. This is because the phenomenon of turncoats is set against the backdrop of two sides that we see as mutually exclusive yet mutually dependent. As faithful adherents to the political faction they support, they are seen as contributing to the public duty of other party supporters. When they become political turncoats, they are seen as representing their own individual interests. Tumbocrats, we deride them.
However, in other spheres of life such as conflict resolution and religion, defection is highly applauded. In fact, a lot of resources are allocated towards encouraging defections. It is seen as a voluntary renouncement of association with an opposing group, for instance a non-state armed group, and cooperate to some degree in actions against it to degrade or defeat it.
Or in the religious circles, it is seen as denouncing the faith and tenets of a particular religion and embracing those of the new belief. In professional football parlance, transfers of players is not frowned upon and is even accompanied by insane amounts of money.
Begs the question, why do we find political defections so antithetical to other defections?
I submit it is because the political turncoats are not ideologists. They do not espouse the credo of their faction because they believe in its axiom. They are hatchet men. They are political mercenaries. Of course, they arrogate themselves the titles of political advisers and political consultants, but the reality is that they are operatives charged with doing dirty political work both during a campaign and even as part of normal government functions.
To their credit, hatchet men are less dangerous than true believers. Whereas they might cut a deal, the true believers have to go to the end and drag the whole world down with them. A true believer is a good thing if one is an activist, a soldier, a salesperson, or an athlete. But it is a fatal flaw if one is a political mercenary.
Their tactics include denigrating, attacking, exploiting perceived weaknesses, or undermining political opponents through negative campaigning, spreading rumours, delivering pointed public criticisms and engaging in character assassination, while extolling their clients achievements.
They command a hefty fee from their clients as they turn campaign cash into social media hashtags and posts. Not only do they get paid, they also get payoffs. Once their candidate wins, they often obtain sweetheart government contracts.
These tactics may be viewed as necessary by some political figures and their party supporters, especially in highly competitive and polarised political environments. Their roles are seen as that of gods of political wars. But this is up until the point they become turncoats and cross over to the other side. Then their actions are deemed to be ethically dubious and damaging to the overall political discourse.
The implication of political turncoats is significant. It has occasioned the rise of permanent campaigns which brings with it the rise of a permanent campaign industry. And this is why as soon as our elections are over and the winner is announced, we immediately revert to campaign mode.
As if trying to win an election is not tough enough, political parties also have to contend with the strenuous task of ensuring that their party stalwarts do not ditch them for the opposing side. Hence the campaign mode becomes a permanent fixture in our election landscape.
Finally, my unsolicited advice is to political party stalwarts. Jeremiah in the Old Testament invites us to interrogate the question – can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard its spots? In today’s parlance this means that what the political turncoats have been in their former allegiance is an accurate predictor of what they will be to their new fidelity.
This is because politics is not advanced by ideology. It’s about capturing and keeping political power where political survival is best assured by depending on a few people to attain and retain power. In politics, all that varies is how many backs have to be scratched, and how big the supply of backs available for scratching is.
If a prince holds on to his state by means of mercenary armies, he will never be stable or secure. - Machiavelli
