Can independent MPS join political parties?

By Crispy Kaheru

A couple of weeks back, I learnt of the political clamour around the amendment of Article 83 of the Constitution to allow independent MPs to freely join political parties if they wish to.

This article lays out grounds under which an MP shall vacate his or her seat in Parliament.  Article 83 (g) prescribes that an MP shall vacate their seat, if that person leaves the political party for which he or she stood for as a candidate for election to Parliament to join another party or to remain in Parliament as an independent member.

Article 83 (h) in the same spirit provides that an MP leaves or vacates his or her seat if, having been elected to Parliament as an independent candidate, that person joins a political party.

I am very inclined to imagine that the provisions under article 83 of the Constitution were framed after much thought to ensure stability and contribute to the strengthening of parliamentary democracy and respect.

And that if they are amended with an antithetical inclination, then this would be a perversion of the democratic process and that, would also be one sure way to increase voter apathy and kill the respect for parliament and its institutions.

Although floor crossing can be explained as a befitting response to a changing political context, it has to be a carefully streamlined democratic process that will not undermine the electorate's voice.

 It is thus important to note that people do not only consider an individual before election but also consider his or her ideology (a set of his or her ideas). An ideology in this case is not merely exclusive to a political party.

Therefore, if an independent MP has to cross to a political party, then that MP should indeed vacate their seat, go back to the electorate and seek a fresh mandate through a by-election.  A by-election would in fact provide the electorate with that democratic space to pronounce themselves on that MP's decision to defect.

A by-election vote in favour of that MP now contesting under a different political party or space would, therefore, voice the approval of the electorate – indeed, allowing the MP to cross.  In the same way, if voters vote against the candidate who vacated his seat on the basis of attempting to cross to another party, which would precisely express their discontent with the candidate's move to cross.

 The looming dins to allow independents to freely cross might unavoidably open the floodgates for intra legislative instability.

This could also be the beginning of pseudo candidates coming on the political stage. The chances of getting candidates who position themselves as independents during campaigns, only to cross to a political party after getting into parliament will inevitably become high.

 To avoid situations where people steal the mandate of the people by positioning themselves as pseudo independents and later on crossing, we must seek to strengthen mechanisms governing floor crossing rather than diluting or suspending the already existing ones.

 As we speak now, over 40 constitutions around the world are being amended to integrate anti-floor crossing provisions. This is simply because, from experience, the practice has turned out to be very counterproductive especially for growing or fragile democratic countries. South Africa has since 2009 moved to abolish clauses that originally gave members of the national assembly legroom to switch political parties.

 Ugandans today are yearning for consistent legislators who will represent their best interests, not political nomads who will switch their political persuasions depending on the weather of the day.

The writer is the coordinator for Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda