India just conducted the biggest electoral process in the history of mankind, and so let's take a moment to laud ourselves for spending over 7 billion dollars to elect people like Pragya Thakur, Karti Chidambaram and A. Raja. These lawmakers don't in any way discredit the idea of democracy, or its importance in a modern world. They simply draw attention to the lack of viable options in the world's largest democracy. Now one could argue that people who voted for Pragya Thakur, were indeed voting for Modi, and that she was a mere intermediary. But these intermediaries are the pillars of Indian democracy. Irrespective of the power wielded by the man sitting in the PM's chair, the 'intermediaries' put him there. Just look at what's happening in West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh, and you'll understand the value of 'intermediaries'. The alternative to Pragya in Bhopal was Digvijay Singh, a man so hated apparently, that even pro-Godse statements from his opponent couldn't help him! It was Mr Singh's 'exemplary' governance that had ushered in 15 years of BJP rule in the state, and the Congress decided that he was the man for the job. The victory of tainted leaders like Karti Chidambaram, A. Raja and Kanimozhi are examples of why our electoral system needs a revamp, and not a notional one!
In 2014, NOTA, or None of the above, polled around 1.08% of the vote share in India. In 2019, it remained more or less same at 1.04%. But beyond their numerical presence, what does NOTA hope to achieve in Indian politics? How are the people who vote for NOTA any different from the people who don't bother to vote? Non-voters are essentially disenchanted by the whole system and the wide umbrella of parties contesting the elections; or in some cases- lazy! But NOTA voters are active participants who want to contribute to politics and nation building. They are voting for 'none of the above' candidates, which is an expression of their anger at the candidates put forth by the political parties. It cannot be interpreted as distaste for politics in general, or parties in particular. So what can a guy do when a worthless bigot like Pragya, or a greedy leech like Karti is declared as the candidate for the party you want to see at the Centre? Maybe angle for a change in candidate? This is exactly what NOTA should be empowered to do. If NOTA polls more votes than all other candidates, all parties must be forced to put forward new candidates. This would justify the idea of NOTA in our electoral process, and would help it serve a bigger function than shaming mainstream parties. Shame is not something our leaders are worried about. Look at Rahul who is having a hard time, not just in winning elections, but even in resigning from his position. You think Rahul Gandhi is privileged? The guy doesn't even have the agency to leave his family business!
As long as NOTA remains a showpiece for flashy election coverage, its purpose remains unfulfilled. The Supreme Court of India is equally culpable in letting this stupidity continue. In a reply to a PIL asking for what I have stated above, the Court said that it was 'unworkable' and gave a sermon about how elections are a serious and expensive affair. It's an argument that belies its own logic. Since elections are a serious affair, let's go on with a candidate whom the people have clearly rejected? And since elections are expensive, let's go ahead with a candidate who has already scammed us out of hundreds of crores?
Every politician harps on about how the electorate is almighty. They butter up the electorate and dangle their sugary lollipops once every five years. But what about in constituencies where the electorate has vehemently rejected mainstream parties? The people remain important as long as their verdict is consistent with the leaders' political goals. But NOTA is not a rejection of political ideals, or representative democracy. It should be considered as the electorate's demand for a change in stance, or a change in personnel. In fact, NOTA can be encouraging for parties, as it's not an outright rejection. Imagine sitting down for an exam and keying in NOTA, only to see a more popular, yet wrong answer get marked green! That's what India is doing!
In 2014, NOTA, or None of the above, polled around 1.08% of the vote share in India. In 2019, it remained more or less same at 1.04%. But beyond their numerical presence, what does NOTA hope to achieve in Indian politics? How are the people who vote for NOTA any different from the people who don't bother to vote? Non-voters are essentially disenchanted by the whole system and the wide umbrella of parties contesting the elections; or in some cases- lazy! But NOTA voters are active participants who want to contribute to politics and nation building. They are voting for 'none of the above' candidates, which is an expression of their anger at the candidates put forth by the political parties. It cannot be interpreted as distaste for politics in general, or parties in particular. So what can a guy do when a worthless bigot like Pragya, or a greedy leech like Karti is declared as the candidate for the party you want to see at the Centre? Maybe angle for a change in candidate? This is exactly what NOTA should be empowered to do. If NOTA polls more votes than all other candidates, all parties must be forced to put forward new candidates. This would justify the idea of NOTA in our electoral process, and would help it serve a bigger function than shaming mainstream parties. Shame is not something our leaders are worried about. Look at Rahul who is having a hard time, not just in winning elections, but even in resigning from his position. You think Rahul Gandhi is privileged? The guy doesn't even have the agency to leave his family business!
As long as NOTA remains a showpiece for flashy election coverage, its purpose remains unfulfilled. The Supreme Court of India is equally culpable in letting this stupidity continue. In a reply to a PIL asking for what I have stated above, the Court said that it was 'unworkable' and gave a sermon about how elections are a serious and expensive affair. It's an argument that belies its own logic. Since elections are a serious affair, let's go on with a candidate whom the people have clearly rejected? And since elections are expensive, let's go ahead with a candidate who has already scammed us out of hundreds of crores?
Every politician harps on about how the electorate is almighty. They butter up the electorate and dangle their sugary lollipops once every five years. But what about in constituencies where the electorate has vehemently rejected mainstream parties? The people remain important as long as their verdict is consistent with the leaders' political goals. But NOTA is not a rejection of political ideals, or representative democracy. It should be considered as the electorate's demand for a change in stance, or a change in personnel. In fact, NOTA can be encouraging for parties, as it's not an outright rejection. Imagine sitting down for an exam and keying in NOTA, only to see a more popular, yet wrong answer get marked green! That's what India is doing!
No comments:
Post a Comment