It is worth reconsidering this act, primarily for two reasons. One, it keeps our legislative proceedings starkly superficial. For a political party there is nothing as invigorating as questioning by back-benchers. The extraordinary power given to party high commands by the anti-defection law blunts any questions that may be posed by well-meaning legislators. Two, even if a party leadership decides on a course of action, it is unsustainably undemocratic to force a legislator to stick by the whip’s command. A rationale for the law is that it tackles horse-trading, but surely a mature Parliament can find ways to deal with corruption.

Because look what the law deprives us of. It prevents the formation of a strong middle ground by governments who can never be sure that they’ll have enough votes to force through their agenda. And given that every vote becomes a show of strength on party lines, the law is an impediment to reforms that would allow private-member bills to gain viability and give Parliament meaningful scrutiny of international agreements and high-level appointments.