8/2/2019 Why Should One Vote-Governance Now-March 16-31, 2012

1/250 GovernanceNow | March 16-31, 2012

Jagdeep S. Chhokar

Swaroop Pandits (GovernanceNow, March 01-15) title questionAnd I ask why should I vote? isperfectly legitimate but his last

question How is the pseudo-intellectualgoing to explain that? seems somewhatdiscriminatory. Can only pseudo-intellec-tuals explain this or can others also try?Assuming the latter, here is an attemptedresponse.

First, the agreement. I totally agree withPandit that blaming the citizens/voters

for voting undesirable people to poweris completely wrong. I also agree withPandit when he strongly condemn(s)and reject(s) the accusation that thecurrent or for that matter the past orthe future political leadership shouldnot be blamed for the crisis of condencefacing the average Indian(and) ratherthe blame lies with the citizens whovoted such a leadership to power.

Pandit is absolutely on the dot when hesays that Its the political parties whohave been consistently unsuccessful inproviding any inspirational purpose for

voting at the elections and, therefore, theeligible voter population does not vote. Icannot agree with him more.

This line of argument can be taken fur-ther to say that actions of political partiesare deliberately designed to make thethinking voters such as Pandit to notvote. The type of candidates political par-ties put up in elections brings out theseactions in sharp relief. Data gathered by

the National Election Watch (NEW) andthe Association for Democratic Reforms(ADR) from sworn adavits submittedby candidates as part of their nomina-tion forms (as mandated by the SupremeCourt) shows that in many constituenciesthere are as many as six candidates withcriminal cases against them in whichcharges have been framed by a court oflaw. Data from the last two parliamenta-

ry and UP state assembly elections is onthe next page (see boxes).

Now to the disagreement. After the titlequestion, Pandit gets into specics andasks three specic ones: (a) why shouldI vote? (b) What has my precious votegotten me so far? Apart from pot-holedroads, crowded and late trains, unendingqueues and various forms of harassmentfrom dierent levels of bureaucracy; (c)

How has my blind faith in this currform of democracy made my life anbetter?

There are two responses to (a), onpositive and one negative. The posione is that if a citizen/voter does nos/he forgoes the most fundamentaland disregards the most fundamenduty of a citizen. As a well-known jof the US supreme court, Felix Fran

er, said, No job in the land is moreportant than being a citizen. If I dvote, I am not doing my most impoduty as a citizen.

The negative response is that if I dvote, I run the risk of my vote beinused and cast for someone whom Inot want to vote for. This happens fraudulent voting, particularly afte4 pm on the day of polling, and hap

Why should one vote?A response to Swaroop Pandits article published in our last issue

people politics policy performance

Public Debate

8/2/2019 Why Should One Vote-Governance Now-March 16-31, 2012

2/2www.GovernanceNow

despite the continuingly more and moreecient and strict arrangements for poll-ing made by the election commission andis not a comment on the election commis-sions arrangements. Dubious elementsamong the polling agents of various polit-ical parties either in connivance with orby intimidating the polling ocers, sometimes get un-cast votes cast fraudulently.So, by not participating in the voting,

inadvertently, a citizen/voter is allowinghis/her vote being used nefariously. Theusual remedy for this is to use the provi-sion under Section 49(O) of the Conductof Election Rules and say that I do notwant to vote for any of the candidateson the ballot or the EVM. It is true that alot of polling booth ocials are not fullyconversant with this rule and they haveto be informed of it by the voter, andthat the voter has to sign her/his namein a register and that such votes are notcounted, but under the existing provi-sions, this is the only thing that can be

done. Attempts at getting a none of theabove button on the EVM are on; includ-ing a petition in the supreme court ofIndia but the outcome of these eorts islikely to take time.

The response to (b) has to be some-what philosophical. However faulty theelection system in the country is, it hasstill provided the citizens a somewhateective functioning democracy. Thisbecomes evident when we compare thecurrent state of the political systemsin our neighbourhood or among thecountries that got independence around

the same time as India. The survivalof democracy, in whatever form, withpeaceful changes of government, andwhatever level of freedom of speech thatIndia has, is the only one of its kind inthe post-colonial world. We can look atthe glass as half full or as half emptyinmy personal opinion, it is more than halfempty when we look at it as participatingcitizens living in the country but it is half

full when we look at it in comparisonwith other countries in our neighbour-hood or in the rest of the post-colonialworld.

The more than half empty bit takes usto the last question: How has my blindfaith in this current form of democracymade my life any better? This is a deepquestion as it touches on matters of faithand forms of democracy. Firstly, I do not

believe in blind faith. If India is to takewhat some of us consider to be its right-ful place in the comity of nations, andin keeping with the aspirations of thefounding fathers of the country, then itscitizens should not have blind faith andbeliefs but need to have faith and beliefsbased on logic and rationale.

The second key statement here is thiscurrent form of democracy. The cur-rent form of democracy is neither God-given nor etched in stone, and there is noreason on earth that we, citizen/votersof India, should have either blind faith

or even plain and simple faith in it. Wemust do all we can to give ourselves theform of democracy that is appropriatefor us.

We have been guilty of forgetting thefamous saying, War is too serious a busi-ness to be left only to the generals andleaving politics only to politicians. It isour politicians who have, over a periodof time, distorted the form of democracythat was intended, by making politicalparties, the basic unit of a representativedemocracy such as ours, completely un-democratic in their internal functioning.

The phrase inner party democracyis often used these days and politicalparties respond by brazenly saying thatthey do have inner party democracy. Itneeds to be understood that inner partydemocracy does not mean unani-mous election after bargains have beenstruck behind closed doors, or unani-mous authorization of the so-called highcommand to nominate a chief minister,

or even the high command or a nonated committee choosing candidacontesting elections. These are varmanifestations of the current formdemocracy.

What we need is actually functioninternal democracy in political parties where members of a party willchoose the candidate who should cthe election on behalf of their party

a constituency, in a transparently dcratic process transparent not onthe satraps of the party but also to membership and to the media andgeneral pubic. That will be the rstof democratic functioning.

The second level of democratic futioning will be when such democracally elected candidates will conteselection for the state assembly or thparliament. It is then that we will htrue representatives of the people ilegislatures and not the hangers-onlitical bigwigs. This multiple level, f

tioning democracy will also eliminthe need for spending hoards of uncounted money during the electiongenerating bulk of black money in country simply because candidatesbe known to the people who are reto vote for them.

So, my response to all right thinkiand concerned citizens such as SwPandit is to work towards an approate form of democracy by (a) votindisagreement with the current fordemocracy, and (b) visibly supporeorts being made to work toward

appropriate form of democracy. I aafraid not voting or opting out of thsystems will only prove the old adaThe price good people will pay for getting involved, is to be governed bad people. n

Chhokar, a former dean of IIM, Ahme

is a founder of Association for Democ

Reforms and National Election Watch

No of constitu-

encies with

3 candidates

against whom

charges have

been framed

No of constitu-

encies with 4

candidates

against whom

charges have

been framed

No of constitu-

encies with

5 candidates

against whom

charges have

been framed

No of constituen-

cies with 6 or

more candidates

against whom

charges have

been framed

Tota

Red

stitu

2007 47 5 1 0 53

2012 93 60 23 13 189

No of constitu-

encies with 3

candidates

against whom

charges have

been framed

No of constitu-

encies with 3

candidates

against whom

charges have

been framed

No of constitu-

encies with 5

candidates

against whom

charges have

been framed

No of constitu-

encies with 6 or

more candidates

against whom

charges have

been framed

Total No of

Red Alert con-

stituencies

2004 31 8 2 2 43

2009 83 56 33 23 195

Lok Sabha Uttar Pradesh State Assembly