A few weeks ago, several well-known members of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) defected to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI). This was easily understood in as much as the PPP was believed, in certain circles, to be ailing and on the way to becoming dysfunctional. In an unexpected development a few days ago, four important Punjabi politicians ditched the PML-N and entered the PPP’s ranks although it had shown no signs of regaining its former status. This turn of events invites examination. Switching of party loyalties is bad politics and it can destabilise democracy. In a democratic arrangement, the individual is entitled to govern himself through the agency of his chosen representatives. He cannot achieve this objective by his own exertions alone. He joins others and forms groups that operate to serve the common interests of their members. After they have found their feet, attained a measure of stability, established their rules and procedures for making decisions and taking action, they have become political parties. Political parties are in the business of attaining entitlement to govern the country. In a democracy, they mobilise public support, diagnose the people’s vexing problems and say how they propose to meet them. These interpretations can be left to each member of the party to articulate according to his own lights or whims. They are more often provided by the party’s higher echelons at the national level. There may be internal disagreements and debates on the issues at hand within the party’s councils, where they are resolved, and a line finally established that the rank and file accept. If these differences are not resolved and if they are made public, the party may break up into factions or even disintegrate. Dangers such as these create the necessity of party discipline. It will have to be enforced if the party is to achieve and maintain internal coherence. In the well-established parliamentary regimes, if a member publicly repudiates his party’s line and advocates one that is contrary to it, he will invite the termination of his political career. His party will disown him and others will be reluctant to take him in. Winston Churchill was one of the few politicians in the United Kingdom who changed from the Conservative to the Liberal Party, then back to the Conservative Party and survived the storm that ensued on each of these occasions. It should also be noted that the voters do not approve of switching party loyalties by members of parliament and councils whom they had elected. They consider it an act of bad faith and a violation of the mandate they had given. They will most likely deny him re-election. What does a member do if the party line on a given issue is repugnant to his reason or conscience? John Stuart Mill offered an interesting way out. Such a member, he said, may speak against his party’s declared position but vote in its favour when a show of hands is called for in parliament. I doubt that his party’s managers will go along with Mill in this regard. Nothing is to be gained from forming a party if members are free to ignore its policy and directives, and feel free to go their own way each time the spirit moves them to do so. We will encounter a variety of party systems in world politics. In authoritarian monarchies, factional groups competing for the ruler’s ear may exist but not formally and officially. In an ideological state, such as fascist or communist, a single party controlled and directed by the ruling authority may perform the function of mobilising and instructing the people. Democracies may have a one dominant party, two party, or multi-party systems. The Congress ruled as the single dominant party in India when Jawaharlal Nehru and later his daughter, Indira Gandhi, served as prime minister. It was the same way in Pakistan when prime ministers belonging to the Muslim League held office between 1947 and 1956. More than 100 groups claiming to be political parties have registered with the election commission in Pakistan. A credible substantive basis for this claim is missing in most of these cases. Only about half a dozen of them are recognised as credible political parties, namely, the PPP, PML-N, PTI, PML-Q, PML-F, JI, JUI, MQM, and ANP. The PML-N and PPP are nationwide parties in that they maintain their presence virtually in all parts of the country. The influence of the MQM is limited to Urdu-speaking Mohajirs in Karachi and other urban centres of Sindh while that of the ANP is focused on the Pakhtuns in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Certain commentators insist that Pakistan is an ideological state. That might be true as an aspiration but it is not the case in fact. After studying Pakistani politics for many years, I am still not able to figure out what that ideology is. With the exception of the JI and possibly PTI, no political party is the bearer of any specific ideology. Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, most of them are pragmatic in their outlook and programmes of action. If a person abandons the party to which he had belonged and defects to another, the reason for his move is not likely to have been ideological dissatisfaction with his former affiliation. Turning now to the four Punjabi politicians who left the PML-N, which is thriving, to board the PPP which is being perceived as a sinking ship in tumultuous waters, we have to concede that their move is, to say the least, puzzling. One possible explanation may be that they had not received the places of honour in the party organisation, felt insulted, and their defection was a retaliatory act of defiance. Their resolve may have been strengthened by their belief that they did not need the PML’s nomination and support to get re-elected. It is hard to say why these gentlemen moved to the PPP instead of, let us say, Imran khan’s PTI. In another interpretation, their break with the PML-N is more symbolic and apparent than real; they have not gone into Imran Khan’s camp because he is Mian Nawaz Sharif’s formidable rival and they have instead joined the PPP because it is said to have made a secret deal of cooperation with the PML-N (muk-muka). Their action may also have ratified President Asif Zardari who may be relied upon to reward them in his own ways. The writer is professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts and can be reached at anwarsyed@cox.net