Can Power Afford Principles? Raghav Chadha, Machiavellian Statecraft, and the Ethics of Party Defection in India

“Let a Prince set about the task of conquering and maintaining his state, his methods will always be judged honourable, and he will be universally praised” ~ Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince).

Politicians are never as idealistic as they appear. One of the central ideas that Machiavelli discusses is that rulers must master the art of appearing virtuous without necessarily being bound by virtue itself. Politics has always been far from coherent with morality. Throughout history, political thinkers have argued that if a ruler wants to stay in power, he has to trade off morality. 

Illustration by The Geostrata

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli discusses the idea that ethics has to be forgotten once one becomes a ruler because political survival depends more on realism rather than moral idealism. According to him, a successful leader is one who is able to maintain stability in power, even if that requires a calculated compromise.  

POLITICAL IMAGE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF VIRTUE

This can be observed in contemporary politics through figures like Raghav Chadha. He emerged in the Aam Aadmi Party largely because of the image that he represented: a clean, reformist, and ethical leader, which made him appear as an ideal modern politician. By giving the illusion of being a moral man himself, with ideas of accountability, transparency, and reforms, he strengthened his political relevance. In a highly competitive democratic arena, the maintenance of ethics becomes necessary for the leader to survive and flourish in politics. 

Public Morality becomes political capital. By cultivating an image of an educated and transparent leader, Chadha was able to gain public trust and legitimacy as a political leader. He further increased his political relevance by addressing issues faced by the common man, like inflation, electricity bills, education, corruption, public services, etc. These issues were political ploys since they helped him create a connection with the common man. By chanting reformist and people-centrist narratives repeatedly, he was able to create a favourable image of himself that enhanced his public visibility and influence in modern democratic politics.

POLITICAL REALISM AND THE COMPROMISE OF IDEOLOGY

At the same time, a question arises whether ideology becomes secondary to personal political survival? Leaders create their identity as a challenger of rival parties with a political vision or an ideology. But when the political climate changes, the same politician goes with his opponent, whom he used to be a rival. This phenomenon is a blend of ethics and politics. Machiavelli propounded that a ruler should be adaptable and flexible and not stick to morality in every situation. A moral politician will ultimately lose his power since his political adversaries are not bound by the same rules. Such a morality versus effectiveness dilemma is evident in almost every democratic political system.

Political parties start with idealistic agendas and promises, but as they age, they are compelled to join hands with other political parties and even engage in political horse-trading.

The Aam Aadmi Party itself was born out of an anti-corruption movement that focused on moral governance, but like every political party, it had to compromise with the brutal realities of competitive politics as it shifted from idealistic governance to prioritising electoral power campaigns.

DEFECTION AND POLITICAL REALIGNMENT

An important example of this is India’s Anti-Defection Law, which was enacted to stop political representatives from jumping from one party to another for personal gains, thereby ensuring party discipline and political stability. But it does not stop opportunism; rather, it gives a way to channel it in forms of collective defection, planned resignation, and timed defection. Politicians didn’t stop keeping score; they just kept score within more stringent parameters. 

Seen from this perspective, someone like Raghav Chadha cannot be an exception. He becomes a case study. His career raises an unpleasant question: When a politician defected or was instead forced out by his party, was he acting on moral principles or did he do it for his own benefit? India's coalition politics has, with time, demonstrated how political survival is seen as more important than ideological consistency.

Parties with opposite ideologies have formed alliances over time, revealing that political necessity often outweighs ideological purity.

The same goes for individual leaders. Realignments are justified as being in the interest of stability or principle, but also viewed as moves to stay in power, as in the case of Nitish Kumar’s repeated shifts of alliance between rival coalitions, and Eknath Shinde’s rebellion against the Shiv Sena.

Leaders who used to criticize their rivals a lot often change gears, change sides, and realign their interests to keep their political careers alive, as well as to ensure personal security. Raghav Chadha’s political positioning has also changed, with the Aam Aadmi Party having moved from being an anti-establishment movement to an established political party. His role today reflects the priorities of an established party rather than a movement. This reminds me of Machiavelli's argument that politics demands adaptation.

However, the question arises: if a leader abandons the very ideologies they used to stand on, which they used to gain public support, what happens to collective political trust? Have we become followers of actors rather than issues? 

THE ETHICS-POWER PARADOX

People often follow politicians not so much as individuals but as carriers of values, principles, and collective aspirations. When one leader switches sides for strategic advantage, followers begin to suspect that ideology was nothing more than a temporary instrument for attaining popularity and power. This separates political leaders and the public, strengthening Machiavelli’s claim that in politics, the preservation of power often trumps moral consistency.

This doesn’t mean that there is no morality at all in politics. It means that morality is debated, performed, and awarded ex post facto, after the fruit of those choices has become apparent. So, don’t think the case of Raghav Chadha needs to be framed in terms of loyalty or opportunism. Instead, it should be cause for more uncomfortable reflection: are we really applying moral standards to political action, or are we simply attaching moral labels to political outcomes that we like or dislike?

India’s democracy is built on the promise of stable, accountable, and ethical government. But its political practice is often based on a very different logic, one that is more Machiavellian than constitutional morality, and the anti-defection law has sought not to resolve the tension between the two but to reveal it. It is an attempt to bring moral clarity to a sphere that resists it.

The question is not one of whether or not politics can be moral in an absolute sense. It is whether or not citizens are ready to confront the gap between the morality they claim to insist upon and the strategy that animates them. Until that gap is acknowledged, discussions over defections, loyalty, and integrity will continue to boil with more heat than light.

---

BY VATSAL

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com