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’.
