By Vinod Varshney
The political class does not like to take up issues of electoral reforms seriously though it continues to debate over them at various fora. The reason is simple and straight. Why should politicians tamper with the existing system when it has offered them so much ?
So far as the latest reform is concerned, the situation became funny when a fait accompli was converted into a deed of conviction in a dramatic manner by Rahul Gandhi for banning convicted elected representatives to retain their membership of the house. The moral of the story is–serious work would only be done by the Supreme Court and the credit must be grabbed by one or several political parties or just an individual.
Such dramas of stealing thunder are much needed by the media to remain interesting. They always look for spicy and sensational developments to retain some of its entertainment value amidst a lot of morose happenings. It gives good opportunity for the chattering class also to run their avocation with passion.
However, many politicians might be shuddering at the prospects of more electoral reforms that may befall in their way sooner or later by judicial intervention, hurting their interests even more. They may again have no choice but delay implementation by their peculiar tactics in the name of parliamentary democracy. Ultimately the voice of aam admi would be heard in a vibrant democracy.
The next bolt from the blue can be the right to reject only an individual candidate during elections. The Supreme Court recently approved voters’ right to reject all the candidates contesting elections if they so wanted by clicking the button—NOTA (None of the above). This is harmless for individual contestants. It will not be able to check election of an undesired candidate as one of the rejected candidates will still be declared elected. Thus the purpose of checking an undesirable candidate cannot be achieved. For this many activists recommend that voters should be given the right to cast a negative vote against a chosen candidate. One will not be surprised if any time soon the Supreme Court gives a verdict of this kind. The hint is already there in the judgement passed on the petition related to rejecting all the candidates.
Getting a right to reject all candidates is only a cosmetic change in the electoral process and does not fulfil the true desire of people who are frustrated with the way politics is conducted by their elected representatives. Many activists therefore demand a right to cast a negative vote against a chosen individual. Sometimes a winner gets only 15-20 percent of the total votes cast showing that majority of voters were not in favour of the winner. Negative voting against a chosen individual can qualitatively change the electoral chances of contesting candidates. The focus of elections then might be not so much on who should win, but on who should not win at all. But ultimate result would be the election of a clean candidate.
( The Article was first published in the monthly magazine of political affairs the ' Lokayat' (October, 2013 issue)
The political class does not like to take up issues of electoral reforms seriously though it continues to debate over them at various fora. The reason is simple and straight. Why should politicians tamper with the existing system when it has offered them so much ?
So far as the latest reform is concerned, the situation became funny when a fait accompli was converted into a deed of conviction in a dramatic manner by Rahul Gandhi for banning convicted elected representatives to retain their membership of the house. The moral of the story is–serious work would only be done by the Supreme Court and the credit must be grabbed by one or several political parties or just an individual.
Such dramas of stealing thunder are much needed by the media to remain interesting. They always look for spicy and sensational developments to retain some of its entertainment value amidst a lot of morose happenings. It gives good opportunity for the chattering class also to run their avocation with passion.
However, many politicians might be shuddering at the prospects of more electoral reforms that may befall in their way sooner or later by judicial intervention, hurting their interests even more. They may again have no choice but delay implementation by their peculiar tactics in the name of parliamentary democracy. Ultimately the voice of aam admi would be heard in a vibrant democracy.
The next bolt from the blue can be the right to reject only an individual candidate during elections. The Supreme Court recently approved voters’ right to reject all the candidates contesting elections if they so wanted by clicking the button—NOTA (None of the above). This is harmless for individual contestants. It will not be able to check election of an undesired candidate as one of the rejected candidates will still be declared elected. Thus the purpose of checking an undesirable candidate cannot be achieved. For this many activists recommend that voters should be given the right to cast a negative vote against a chosen candidate. One will not be surprised if any time soon the Supreme Court gives a verdict of this kind. The hint is already there in the judgement passed on the petition related to rejecting all the candidates.
Getting a right to reject all candidates is only a cosmetic change in the electoral process and does not fulfil the true desire of people who are frustrated with the way politics is conducted by their elected representatives. Many activists therefore demand a right to cast a negative vote against a chosen individual. Sometimes a winner gets only 15-20 percent of the total votes cast showing that majority of voters were not in favour of the winner. Negative voting against a chosen individual can qualitatively change the electoral chances of contesting candidates. The focus of elections then might be not so much on who should win, but on who should not win at all. But ultimate result would be the election of a clean candidate.
( The Article was first published in the monthly magazine of political affairs the ' Lokayat' (October, 2013 issue)
No comments:
Post a Comment