Once more, Pakistani politicians are in the news for all the wrong reasons. As if defections from the ruling PML-N or PTI were insufficient to provide material for deadlines, Nadeem Afzal Chan of the PPP also made headlines for defecting to the PTI. Afzal, in recent years, gave the impression to have upgraded his role within the PPP by representing the party on different forums, especially the media. He was also bracketed with some senior PPP leaders such as Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan and Qamar Zaman Qaira who it was believed, had established a liaison between the PPP and the powerful militablishment. Whereas as the former are still with the PPP, at least till the writing of this piece, Chan feels ensconced within the PTI as part of the cadre, if not the leadership. Political defections are not a recently initiated practice in this country. Indeed, certain politicians defected from the Muslim League to form the Republican Party, perhaps the first King’s party in our political history, in the mid-1950s. Interestingly, within years, some members of the newly formed Republican Party chose to defect to re-join the Muslim League, which was divided into various groups. The intra-Muslim League divisions led to the formal formation of two separate political parties, namely the Muslim League (Council) and Muslim League (Convention) during the military regime of General Ayub Khan — who with help of politicians, became president of Muslim League (Council). Importantly, the phenomenon of defection was not restricted to the Muslim Leagues or the Republican Party. Certain politicians from other political parties such as Krishak Saramik Party and the Awami (Muslim) League also defected. There are two main factors that can help us explain defections during the 1950s and 1960s. The majority of Pakistani politicians from 1947 until now have put their personal interests over the country’s democratic health First, the politician’s own rational calculations on which party would win, and hence serve the politician’s interest. For instance, the Muslim Leaguers who formed the Republican Party seemed to have realised the political insignificance of the Muslim League due to ideological and organisational degeneration. Moreover, they wanted to be in close proximity of the powers that be, and then it was the civil bureaucracy led by Iskander Mirza that ruled the roost. Secondly, the legal measures such as Public and representative Officer disqualified Act (PRODA, 1949) and Elective Bodies Disqualification Order (EBDO, 1959), enacted on the behest of civil and military governments, contextually constrained political and electoral choices of politicians who were compelled to either quit politics or mend ways with the regime of the day. Unsurprisingly, those politicians who opposed Ayub Khan had to face severe consequences, including jail time. By the late 1960s, when Ayub Khan was cornered by his own men, some of his supporters including Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, formed the PPP, which ruled the country till the late 1970s, when General Ziaul Haq banned all political parties. Little wonder then that many PPP members defected and sided with the Zia regime, including senior members. The primary motive behind defection was political opportunism, since the PPP had lost power and was facing the wrath of the military regime. In the post-Zia period, especially the 1990s, low-scale defections continued. These were primarily between PPP and PML-N. The main factor here was also personal gain and opportunism. However, large-scale defections happened under the Musharraf regime for both opportunistic and restrictive reasons. In the context of the National Accountability Ordinance (1999), a significant section of PMLN defected a little before the 2002 general election to form the PML-Q. Similarly, a good chuck left the PPP to form PPP-Patriot. Smaller parties witnessed small-scale defections as well. In the post-Musharraf period, the civil dispensation led by PPP (Parliamentarians) and PMLN attempted to put an end to defections once and for all. Thus, the Eighteenth Amendment (2010) to the 1973 Constitution added strict legal repercussions for defectors. Paradoxically, however, neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Eighteenth could stop defections. Most recently, during the senate elections, some seventeen PTI senators ‘sold’ their votes to other parties. This falls under indirect defections. As already mentioned, direct defections among the PML-N, PTI and PPP have taken place too. This time around, there is no legal (restrictive) framework imposed on politicians to defect. Thus, its pure opportunism based on political calculations that factors in rationalisation of cost and benefit. Since the PMLN is facing the music these days, its defectors, while thinking prospectively, find the PTI to be the favourite for the next elections. On the other hand, those who defected from PTI to join PML-N think retrospectively while referring to the past performance of the party in the Centre and Punjab. They also view Shahbaz Sharif as non-controversial vis-à-vis the militablishment. Lastly, the defectors from PPP such as Nadeem Chan indubitably believe in the power prospects of PTI; however, they do leave this impression that the PPP has become redundant, at least organisationally in Punjab — the province which is the key to forming the federal government. In sum, the majority of Pakistani politicians from 1947 until now have preferred their personal to larger interest over the country’s democratic health. They have acted rationally rather than ideologically whenever things have gotten tough. Hence, they deemed defections as a way to ensure they stay in power and keep enjoying their perks and privileges. Indeed, in the process, they compromised on democratic norms by legitimising bureaucratic and military regimes. Until our politicians correct their political behaviour and action in accordance with democratic principles, defections will continue to happen and, sadly, at the cost of democracy. The writer is Head, Department of Social Sciences, Iqra University, Islamabad. He is a DAAD, FDDI and Fulbright Fellow. He tweets @ejazbhatty Published in Daily Times, April 22nd 2018.