In the forthcoming panchayat/municipal/corporation election, as has become the practice, the choice we get to exercise will be voting for A,B,C……. or Z. It’s bad that there isn’t barely any choice. Worse still, though all A to Z may turn out to be criminals as has been the reality earlier in some constituencies. Often a voter is faced with the choice between a crook and a criminal, which is no choice at all. Why to choose between two evils? Behind the noisy and colorful facade of elections, political parties decide which candidate they will field regardless of the background. He may not be a criminal before law, as he is not convicted or punished but the society would not be in a position to accept him as their representative. Vote we must, but the question is for whom, if the choice happens to be between two devils. To vote without a real choice is not fully democratic. Hence an option of ‘do not vote for any of the above candidates’ has the potential of giving voters some real choice, taking them closer to real democracy. It can nudge political parties to select better candidates. To make this effective, a rule should be made that the winning candidate should get a definite percentage of the total voters or else would require re-polling, that too with the earlier candidates not being allowed to contest again. This will act as Negative polling. The very need to resolve the dilemma of political nihilism and effective political participation in the present state of democratic system. As the Negative polling accounts “Negative Votes” which can give the quantum of negativity of the voters it is the best step towards fair election.
It is essential that the best available candidates should be chosen as people’s representatives for proper governance of the country. This can be best achieved through men/women of high moral and ethical values, who win the elections on positive votes, obtained on their own merit and not by the process of elimination based on comparative demerits. But what if no candidate of attractive merit and established characters comes to the election? Will the voters still have to select the lesser of two evils? Will they still have to pick from a slate of unworthy candidates in today’s world of choice? If the electors decide that none of the candidates is worth their vote, what is the way out? There is no scope for a voter to refuse to vote. Providing an extra button in the electronic voting machines that says ‘none of the above’ will enable the voter to exercise his right in secrecy and also will convey a memorandum of anger of the voter to the political mentors.
If this is exercised, parties are sure to learn to be fair and sensible. The purpose of the exercise is not to ask voters to boycott voting but rather to nudge political parties to select better candidates. Democracy is all about choice. This choice can be better expressed by giving the voters an opportunity to verbalize themselves unreservedly and by imposing least restrictions on their ability to make such choice. Pressing the button of ballot machine is not just the pressing of a button, but it is the expression of sincere choice through intelligence, sensitivity and understanding, which are fundamentals for democracy.
What could the voters in a constituency do if they did not want to vote for those who are not worthy? There is no option currently; but there could easily be one. That is "None" at all.
It is essential that the best available candidates should be chosen as people’s representatives for proper governance of the country. This can be best achieved through men/women of high moral and ethical values, who win the elections on positive votes, obtained on their own merit and not by the process of elimination based on comparative demerits. But what if no candidate of attractive merit and established characters comes to the election? Will the voters still have to select the lesser of two evils? Will they still have to pick from a slate of unworthy candidates in today’s world of choice? If the electors decide that none of the candidates is worth their vote, what is the way out? There is no scope for a voter to refuse to vote. Providing an extra button in the electronic voting machines that says ‘none of the above’ will enable the voter to exercise his right in secrecy and also will convey a memorandum of anger of the voter to the political mentors.
If this is exercised, parties are sure to learn to be fair and sensible. The purpose of the exercise is not to ask voters to boycott voting but rather to nudge political parties to select better candidates. Democracy is all about choice. This choice can be better expressed by giving the voters an opportunity to verbalize themselves unreservedly and by imposing least restrictions on their ability to make such choice. Pressing the button of ballot machine is not just the pressing of a button, but it is the expression of sincere choice through intelligence, sensitivity and understanding, which are fundamentals for democracy.
What could the voters in a constituency do if they did not want to vote for those who are not worthy? There is no option currently; but there could easily be one. That is "None" at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment