"NOTA" or "None of the above" in election has been described as maturing of India's democracy as it provides voters option to disapprove all the candidates in election.In the historical People's Union for Civil Liberties(PUCL) v. Union of India case ,Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right of citizens to cast negative vote in elections.Although it does not provide voters the "Right to Reject",that means even if the number of votes against NOTA is more than the number of votes secured by the candidates,the candidate who secures the largest number of votes among the contesting candidates is declared to be elected.
In a recent judgement,Supreme Court rejected a PIL petition which asked for re-election if NOTA votes exceeds in an election.This was a major blow to the democratic sentiment.Petitioner raised a valid point that if NOTA get the highest number of votes,it would amount to an expression of public dissatisfaction with the candidates in the fray.In its judgement, Supreme Court cleared that conducting elections in our country costs money and conducting re-elections on such basis would create an extra burden on the public exchequer.
It is to be noted that Gujarat Legislative Assembly elections of 2017 recorded 5.5 lakh NOTA votes,making it 1.8% of the total valid votes.In assembly elections of 2016, Tamil Nadu recorded 5.6 lakh(1.31%) votes while West Bengal recorded 8.3 lakh (1.5%) votes.Earlier, in Lok Sabha elections of 2014, 60 lakh voters chose NOTA over all other candidates which is 1.1% of the total valid votes.
This is a small figure,of course.Merely 1-2% votes will remain symbolic instrument of expressing resentment.The way NOTA functions in our democracy, it is rightly considered as "Wastage of Vote",which is no different than absentention and boycott. However, if considered from a different and opposite perspective, it can be argued that NOTA votes are casted in a small number because it is ineffective and doesn't convert inherent resentment into outright public distrust against political class. People believe that it will not fetch anything but internal satisfaction.If they are ensured of re-election, NOTA might be proved an effective instrument of democracy.
It is not that improvement plans are not suggested for the same.Various proposals have been recommended one being re-election if NOTA receives highest number of votes. This is certainly a praiseworthy suggestion.It ,however, raise a pertinent question that disapproval is against whom:The candidate,Political Party or Manifesto of political parties?Re-election can be conducted after due deliberation between public and political class if the disapproval is against the candidate or policies.
However,if it is against political parties, much can't be changed and the result of re-election would be more or less same on the ground. Further,if the same candidate contest with same policies again,then electorate will choose NOTA until candidate or policy is changed.It is evident that in absence of a direct and clear-cut dialogue mechanism between electorate and candidate or political party, there are risks of getting into the vicious cycle of elections.However,advocates of NOTA argue that NOTA button may be disabled to avoid a series of re-election.
As part of recommendations, it is also suggested that political parties that loose to NOTA should bear the cost of re-election.It will not only solve the problem of election conducting costs and expenses upto a certain extent, but will also limit excessive expenditure in campaigning by political parties in the very first instance.
There are certainly issues with re-elections but those issues can be resolved if we look for the light bulb in the dark room with due deliberation and discussion among all the stakeholders involved in the process.Outright rejection of an idea is going to take the us nowhere that too at a time when we vehemently demand electoral reforms.
As I said earlier, barely giving a symbolic representation in the EVM does not serve the purpose at all.It can make upto the headlines at most but hardly change any situation on the ground.Need of the hour is to provide more powers to this instrument.It will ensure accountability of the political class to the people.It will also ensure cohesive and inclusive manifesto alongwith better candidatures in political arena.
In a recent judgement,Supreme Court rejected a PIL petition which asked for re-election if NOTA votes exceeds in an election.This was a major blow to the democratic sentiment.Petitioner raised a valid point that if NOTA get the highest number of votes,it would amount to an expression of public dissatisfaction with the candidates in the fray.In its judgement, Supreme Court cleared that conducting elections in our country costs money and conducting re-elections on such basis would create an extra burden on the public exchequer.
It is to be noted that Gujarat Legislative Assembly elections of 2017 recorded 5.5 lakh NOTA votes,making it 1.8% of the total valid votes.In assembly elections of 2016, Tamil Nadu recorded 5.6 lakh(1.31%) votes while West Bengal recorded 8.3 lakh (1.5%) votes.Earlier, in Lok Sabha elections of 2014, 60 lakh voters chose NOTA over all other candidates which is 1.1% of the total valid votes.
This is a small figure,of course.Merely 1-2% votes will remain symbolic instrument of expressing resentment.The way NOTA functions in our democracy, it is rightly considered as "Wastage of Vote",which is no different than absentention and boycott. However, if considered from a different and opposite perspective, it can be argued that NOTA votes are casted in a small number because it is ineffective and doesn't convert inherent resentment into outright public distrust against political class. People believe that it will not fetch anything but internal satisfaction.If they are ensured of re-election, NOTA might be proved an effective instrument of democracy.
It is not that improvement plans are not suggested for the same.Various proposals have been recommended one being re-election if NOTA receives highest number of votes. This is certainly a praiseworthy suggestion.It ,however, raise a pertinent question that disapproval is against whom:The candidate,Political Party or Manifesto of political parties?Re-election can be conducted after due deliberation between public and political class if the disapproval is against the candidate or policies.
However,if it is against political parties, much can't be changed and the result of re-election would be more or less same on the ground. Further,if the same candidate contest with same policies again,then electorate will choose NOTA until candidate or policy is changed.It is evident that in absence of a direct and clear-cut dialogue mechanism between electorate and candidate or political party, there are risks of getting into the vicious cycle of elections.However,advocates of NOTA argue that NOTA button may be disabled to avoid a series of re-election.
As part of recommendations, it is also suggested that political parties that loose to NOTA should bear the cost of re-election.It will not only solve the problem of election conducting costs and expenses upto a certain extent, but will also limit excessive expenditure in campaigning by political parties in the very first instance.
There are certainly issues with re-elections but those issues can be resolved if we look for the light bulb in the dark room with due deliberation and discussion among all the stakeholders involved in the process.Outright rejection of an idea is going to take the us nowhere that too at a time when we vehemently demand electoral reforms.
As I said earlier, barely giving a symbolic representation in the EVM does not serve the purpose at all.It can make upto the headlines at most but hardly change any situation on the ground.Need of the hour is to provide more powers to this instrument.It will ensure accountability of the political class to the people.It will also ensure cohesive and inclusive manifesto alongwith better candidatures in political arena.
No comments:
Post a Comment