NOTA - not a option

I have been wanting to write about the ‘None of the above’ option on the Electronic Voting Machines since it was mandated by Supreme Court but somehow procrastinated over it. Got to see post the elections in the 5 states dubbed ‘Semi-final to the general elections’, I just have more reasons, data, numbers and armour to back my claims.


The day Supreme Court validated the right of the electorate to reject all the candidates, all hell broke loose on social media with #NOTA being the top trending topic. People went ballistic as to how they now have a reason to visit the polling booth before of this empowerment of picking ‘none of the above’ over all the rest party symbols. All the cynics who I am pretty sure don’t even have faintest of the idea of how a polling booth looks, were singing yodels about the empowerment of the electorate it would bring about.


In fact there is nothing new about NOTA option per se. The Indian constitution had always provided us with this option of rejecting all the candidates. Remember those mail forwards regarding Section 49(O) that used to flood our inboxes whenever any election was round the corner?


For the uninitiated, Under the existing provisions of Section 49(O) of the Representation of People Act, a voter who after coming to a polling booth does not want to cast his vote, has to inform the presiding officer of his intention not to vote, who in turn would make an entry in the relevant rule book after taking the signature of the said elector. He thus would be exercising his right for not picking any of the candidates in the fray. The issue with the process besides being cumbersome was that it would reveal the identity of the voter which amounted to violation of his secret ballot entitlement. With the recent judgement the apex court just conceded that Section 49(O) in its present form was violative of the constitutional provisions guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 21 (Right to Liberty) and violated the concept of secret ballot. It further directed the Election Commission to start implementing NOTA button on EVMs forthwith in a phased manner and asked the Centre to render all assistance.


The Supreme Court bench in its prudence think that negative voting would foster purity and vibrancy of elections and ensure wide participation as people who are not satisfied with the candidates in the fray would also turn up to express their opinion rejecting contestants. I for once and whole heartedly disagree with this thought process of the honourable court. I do not think the empowering with option of NOTA is any a panacea towards the deep cynicism that has ingrained in some of the voters. More so I dis-agree that it’s the onus of Supreme Court to coax people out of their siestas, picnics or apathy towards the system.


Though the judgement might have been passed with noble intentions, I suspect it might end up doing more harm than good in due course. The way I look at the mind-set of the large sections of Indian electorate is that they do tend to go for the lesser evil amongst all. On most occasions we might not see the name of the person on the EVM whom we would actually want to see as our legislature but then we have gotten used to picking the best candidate among the lot; so I would believe with a tinge of hope. If I am allowed to largesse to assume that these #NOTA voters would have otherwise voted for the lesser evil, they might end up inadvertently helping the greater evil.



Very often the difference in the victory margins is so trivial, that the quantum of votes cornered by NOTA would actually turn the results topsy-turvy.  The recently concluded elections in the states of Madhya-Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Delhi had seen NOTA claiming vote percentage up to 3%. For the number-crunchers types who strictly go by the numbers and stats following is the analysis (courtesy mint): They have examined the impact of NOTA on the margins of victory which suggests there are 56 constituencies were the margin of victory less than the number of votes polled by NOTA. Of these 26 are in Madhya Pradesh, 15 in Chhattisgarh, 11 in Rajasthan and four in Delhi. Given that the Chhattisgarh assembly has 90 seats, one-sixth of all its seats were decided by a margin less than the number of votes polled by NOTA in those constituencies. In Madhya Pradesh, this proportion fell to one-tenth, and it was closer to one-twentieth in Rajasthan and Delhi. Such a huge vote share has potential to change the turn the outcome of an election in case of close contest and thereby adversely seal the faith of the AAM Aadmi for at least the next 5 years.


Offering my respects where due, contesting an election needs a lot of courage; keep aside the financial prowess as well as backing of the masses. It’s unfortunate that we have had candidates of more shady characters than none, but NOTA is no cure to it. I feel NOTA in its present form won’t coax any of the good candidates to file their nomination papers.


Another thing I feel is that NOTA will just remain as hype among few voters, especially urban and the cynics. It might see some takers during the early adoption phase but soon it will taper out left to itself. One reason for its prospective demise would be Supreme Court clarification which says the NOTA option is simply hypothetical—votes marked to “none of the above” would simply be ignored while deciding the winner and it wouldn’t matter even if over half the votes were for NOTA. This renders NOTA as nothing more than a placebo. This very clarification from SC voids its original reasoning which said having NOTA option would prompt people out of their couches. How would be selecting none of the candidates be any different for skipping the exercise the adult franchise altogether?


Ours is a participatory democracy and the zest of the system lie in people participating in its day-to-day running, directly or indirectly. Though the intent behind getting NOTA might not be flawed, its utility and relevance are still in reasonable doubt. Empowering people with such rights should be tagged along with enforcing some obligatory duties on them which would prevent its misuse. Provisions like NOTA would only be effective if you precede it with compulsory voting upon people. Needless to say it should also be provided with more teeth, which should range from calling fresh elections if NOTA garners highest vote share, and even barring the same candidates for contesting subsequent elections.


Until such amendments aren’t done, we need to keep the 5 yearly exercises to its literal meaning… let it be ‘election’, NOT A ‘rejection’.

No comments: