No carnival, no roller-coaster ride and indeed no show on earth could possibly be more colourful, exciting and vibrant than India’s general elections. The players, parties and candidates themselves are too intensely involved in the complicated and multi-dimensional dynamics of electioneering to get any objective view, while the objects if the Indian electorate may be termed are quietly watching the show which is being put on for them. In all probability, voters would have already decided which button to push on the electronic voting machines (EVMs).
My personal view is that barring very few momentous events such as the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, or local events relating hugely to a particular constituency, the electorate has already made up its mind on how to vote, and is unlikely to change now. There can be no doubt that mobilisation of supporters to vote on the polling day and booth management are very crucial pillars of managing the election. Sometimes the selection of good and clean candidates by parties swings the mood of the electorate.
Sometimes dissent within the ranks of one’s own party damages a candidate’s prospects since more often than not, one’s internal enemies are far more deadly than any from outside. Also, it is almost axiomatic that a strong party cadre with high morale can make or break an election.
In between and until the elections, TV shows hectically discussing various electoral issues and opinion polls are a part of the election carnival and probably will not have a decisive effect upon the outcome. Particularly because every day a new controversy replaces the previous one, and unless motivated or calculated, yesterday’s controversy is usually forgotten. The point of these particular thoughts is really the result of wondering why substantive and absolutely fundamental issues do not appear to have found much mind space with either the electorate or the media, even at an important time like this.
Much has been discussed about why tainted and corrupt candidates should not be fielded by political parties. Much is written about the model code of conduct, about the need for state funding and about ways and means to make our electoral system more fair, transparent and less corrupt. To my mind, one of the most important ideas thrown up has been the issue of “NOTA” and there has simply not been sufficient discussion or attention given to this issue.
As is well known, NOTA is an acronym for “None of the above” an option on the EVM. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to place NOTA option on the EVMs in order to enable the voter to indicate that his or her preference did not extend to any of the candidates offered by political parties or by themselves for election. This would not only bring hitherto indifferent voters to the voting booth, but also give them a chance to say that they were unhappy with all the candidates contesting, thereby indicating mainly to political parties that they should put up good, untainted and worthy candidates for elections.
The percentage of the electorate which actually votes in an Indian election has not been very heartening news for our democracy, 58 per cent at last count. There has been a concerted effort by the Election Commission to encourage people to vote. Some have even suggested that voting should be made a fundamental duty, but that is a different problem and a different issue. The idea of NOTA is to encourage disinterested and disgusted voters to come out and express themselves, thereby encouraging political parties to improve the quality of their candidates.
The 2013 judgment of the Supreme Court regarding NOTA was both far-reaching and visionary in terms of deepening our democracy. However, the inherent problem in the judgment is that it does not go far enough. NOTA votes are, as it were, only for information and not action. They make no difference to the winning or losing of an election even if the number of NOTA votes polled is greater than the difference in votes between the winning and the losing candidate.
For example, in the Assembly elections in Pansemal, Madhya Pradesh, the winning BJP candidate polled 77,919 votes, the second-highest Congress candidate polled 70,537 votes, whereas the votes recorded under NOTA were 9,288 far more than the difference in the victory margin.
Various suggestions have been made to make NOTA meaningful. One obvious one is that NOTA votes should be counted as valid votes. In case 50 per cent of the electorate votes NOTA, the elections in that constituency should stand cancelled, and none of the candidates whose names found a place on the ballot box should be allowed to contest. Parties would then be forced to put up better candidates.
A constant complaint in our country is that tainted politicians get into our legislatures. The counter argument is that these legislators are elected by the people themselves.
The obvious problem is that people have little choice but to vote for a lesser evil or abstain from voting. In my view, a practical and dynamic implementation of the NOTA principle will go a very long way in breaking this vicious circle.
Certainly, an important fact to reflect upon is that from the time the NOTA idea was first floated by the Election Commission, it was tossed around for 12 long years before the Supreme Court gave it a partial seal of approval in late 2013. Clearly, NOTA has considerable detractors, although I myself am unable to fathom any reasonable objections which may be raised against its implementation.
Our democracy and its continuing vibrancy are India’s greatest achievement. However, there is an undeniable growing hostility between the electorate and the political class.
It is, therefore, incumbent upon all thinking citizens to constantly endeavour to understand and reflect the ever-changing needs and aspirations of our people in order to reduce the hostility and encourage strong institutions. An effective NOTA would go a long way towards understanding the pulse of our people.
