Question:

This question is posted by ACE on behalf of Dr. Jenni Newton-Farrelly

There is currently a proposal before our State Parliament here in South Australia which would prevent parties from mandating that their elected Members vote along party lines. 

Party discipline is very strong in Australian parliaments, and the major parties can withdraw party membership from elected MPs who vote against party lines (except where the vote has been declared a conscience vote). 

I understand that Germany has a Constitutional provision (article 38) which prevents parties from binding their members to vote in a particular way. I do recognise that parties in Germany do still, as elsewhere, recommend how their elected members should vote and that occasionally there are free votes or conscience votes even within this system. 

I have been asked whether there are other countries which have similar provisions to the German provisions which prevent parties from binding their elected members to vote along party lines. 

Many thanks for this very useful service!

Summary of Responses:

On practitioner noted that a constitutional provision in India, commonly known as the Anti-Defection Law, allows for expulsion from the legislature for failure to vote according to the party line when the party issues a “whip.” The term “whipping” was inherited from British Parliament, and countries that take after British parliamentary heritage often use this process in some way. India uses a common whip system:

• A one-line whip is non-binding, and merely serves to inform the members of the vote.

• A two-line whip seeks attendance in the legislature during the vote.

• A three-line whip is a clear-cut directive, to be present in the legislature during the vote and cast vote according to the party line. Violation of the whip could lead to the member's expulsion from the House.

The lines refer to the number of times the motion is underlined in a list of parliamentary business sent to MPs, with more underlines signifying greater importance. Binding whips are often reserved for important measures, and their usage differs across country contexts. Other countries invoking a whip system include New Zealand and Ireland. In the United Kingdom, nearly half of Prime Minister David Cameron’s “backbenchers” defied a three-line whip in 2011, voting “in favour of a motion calling for a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the EU on current terms, whether to leave or whether to renegotiate Britain's membership.”

Another practitioner noted that in Colombia, Law 974 of 2005 essentially states that all representatives elected from the same political party or movement, whether they serve in the national congress or at the municipality level, must coordinate and act as a block. The law itself does not outline sanctions, but discipline for dissenting party members may be laid out in the statutes of each “group of representatives,” or bancada. A group may allow its members to vote according to their conscience in some cases.

Contributing Members:

Francisco Barrera

Dr. Noor Mohammad

En Colombia (S A), existe la  Ley 974 del año 2005, sobre la  regulación de las bancadas y su actuación, también existe la Ley 1475 del año 2011, la cual regula el tema de los partidos en estas leyes puede encontrar los temas que menciona.

La ley de Bancadas estableció que los miembros de las corporaciones públicas elegidos por un mismo partido o movimiento político deben actuar en bancada, esto es de forma coordinada y en bloque. Las bancadas deben votar en bloque los proyectos de acto legislativo, de ley, de ordenanza o de acuerdo que sean debatidos al interior de las corporaciones públicas. Los estatutos de cada colectividad –y no la ley- deben definir las sanciones para los congresistas, diputados, concejales y ediles que violen la disciplina de su bancada. No obstante, la bancada puede otorgar a sus miembros la libertad de votar de acuerdo a su criterio individual únicamente cuando se trate de asuntos de conciencia.

Las bancadas también pueden citar a debates de control político. Antes de la implementación de la ley de bancadas, este derecho sólo podía ser ejercido por los parlamentarios a título individual.

Por otro lado, las bancadas pueden participar con voz en las decisiones plenarias de las corporaciones públicas, intervenir de manera preferente en los debates de proyectos, presentar mociones de cualquier tipo, postular candidatos, hacer interpelaciones y solicitar votaciones nominales.

Además, las bancadas parlamentarias pueden presentar proyectos de ley, designar a uno de los ponentes cuando se trate de iniciativas de su autoría, e incluir un proyecto de su interés en los órdenes del día de plenarias y comisiones constitucionales

There is provision of whip in the Indian system but this whip should be issued only for voting on very important issues.  A whip is of three kinds.

·   A one-line whip is non-binding, and merely serves to inform the members of the vote.

·   A two-line whip seeks attendance in the legislature during the vote.

·   A three-line whip is a clear-cut directive, to be present in the legislature during the vote and cast vote according to the party line. Violation of the whip could lead to the member's expulsion from the House.

·   In India, under the anti-defection law, a three-line whip can be violated only by more than one-third of a party's strength in the legislature.