Let us think
and Act with an Open Mind to
Develop a
Vibrant Democracy – Article 1
SRB
Introduction: I have identified
thirty obstacles which cause a distorted and ineffective democracy and possible
solutions for these. Because very few people have time / inclination to read
long articles, these are presented in separate brief articles for pointed attention
and easier assimilation. I hope this will lead to spreading of awareness and
facilitating point by point debate on each of these for saving our sinking democracy.
(Please keep these articles within
easy reach for referring back till the series is completed.)
Eligible
voters:
For good reasons, only adults are allowed to vote in elections to Parliament, Assemblies,
Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samithi, Zilla Parishad and Municipalities /
Corporations (the pillars of our democracy). But this leaves out a large
percentage of our population which unfortunately includes many teenagers who
are (unlike in the past) more capable of
balanced thinking and energetic action to safeguard democracy than a much larger number of adults,
particularly
among lakhs of illiterates. Lack of balanced
thinking among most eligible voters is forcefully brought
out by the Press Council of India Chairperson Justice Markandey Katju’s statements:
“Ninety percent Indians vote in droves like sheep and cattle”,…many are ”voting
along caste and religious lines.”….many say “I won’t vote because my vote is
meaningless.” (Deccan Chronicle dated 31-03-13, page 6). What is worse, many
voters are only interested in selling their votes and making a
mockery of democracy. This has been emphasized by the anti-corruption
crusader Anna Hazare: “It often happens that after facing injustice, people
decide to teach [parties] a lesson in the elections. However, they forget to do
so after being treated to a party at a dhaba or after getting a Rs.200 or Rs.500
note.” (The Hindu dated 18-03-14)
A
large proportion of educated adults do not vote probably because
their votes are meaningless in the context of the overwhelming 90 % who vote in
droves or sell their votes without any intention of safeguarding democracy.
Callousness or laziness may also play a
part. Further, there are errors in voters’ lists (both human and manipulated)
which distort elections. Sad to say, effective attempts
have not been made to overcome this dismal state of voting, even after about 65
years.
Absence
of the truly democratic and sensible right to reject all candidates when
none are suitable had swelled the group of uninterested voters. The NOTA option recently allowed by the
Supreme Court (SC) order may not change the situation. Those who do not vote
because they feel their vote is meaningless (because of the reasons explained
above) or out of callousness or laziness may not come forward to exercise the
NOTA option. They cannot be blamed because the SC order does
not lead to rejection of the election even when NOTA voters form the majority!!
In other words NOTA option, which should have been respected as peoples’ voice,
has become meaningless. Only
a guarantee from the Election Commission that such a clear expression of
peoples’ rejection of all unsuitable candidates
by majority of voters will lead
to fresh election in which the rejected candidates cannot take part will help
to get over the feeling of meaninglessness of NOTA.
It
is pertinent that while the non-voting group may or may not exercise NOTA
option, those who vote in droves or sell their votes will not exercise the
NOTA option because they are influenced by other factors and are not at all
bothered about safeguarding democracy. The fact is that both these voting
groups together form a large proportion of actual voters and will vitiate the
aim of elections even with NOTA provision.
To sustain a
vibrant democracy, quality of voters is much
more important
than
extent of coverage of multiform adult population.
Inability to confine voting to only voters who are interested in
safeguarding democracy and to make them vote is the first obstacle which has resulted in a distorted and ineffective
democracy.
[Note:
Since information about elections to the three tiers of Pamchayat Raj
institutions is not well publicized, the above remarks about proportions may
not be fully relevant for these.]
The
main reason for including uninterested and unsuitable voters is blind enforcement
of the adult franchise requirement, even when all
adults are not interested in voting or are not capable of making proper independent
choice. To overcome this to a large extent, while preparing voters’ lists,
it should be ascertained from each adult whether he / she wants to exercise his
/ her night to vote or not, after the responsibility of a voter is explained to
him / her. Those who do not want to vote should be considered ineligible for
voting by their own choice and asked to sign
an affidavit in a prescribed form as a record of their voluntary rejection of
their right to vote. A copy of the affidavit should be given to such
persons to avoid doctoring of the list. However, chance should be given to
withdraw this affidavit during any subsequent revision of voters’ lists.
The
remaining interested voters with confirmed eligibility should be told that voting is not only their right but also their responsibility to elect suitable representatives and that if they do not
perform their responsibility without
valid reasons their right will be withdrawn. Similarly,
if there is sufficient reason to believe that a voter has “sold” the vote or
has voted in droves, he / she should be educated about the harmful effect of
this wrong action and warned not to repeat it.
In both cases, the relevant fact should be entered in the list and his /
her signature obtained. In case they repeat either of these twice (i.e., the
third time), their names should be deleted when revising the voters’ lists. However,
they should be given a right to appeal to safeguard against misuse or genuine mistakes.
The
above modifications are based on two principles: (1) no right can be thrust upon an
uninterested person and then blame him if he does not exercise it and (2) no
right is absolute and can be withdrawn if the responsibility arising from this
right is not fulfilled or the manner of exercising the right invalidates the
reason for giving this right. However, any voter should have the truly democratic and sensible right to really reject
all candidates when none are suitable (not notionally as per Supreme Court
judgment). Till then non-voter’s name should
not be deleted.
As
stated earlier, confining eligibility to adults only will exclude a large number
of younger persons who are capable of
balanced thinking and energetic action to safeguard democracy because of modern
(technological) advances in education and knowledge environment. To reduce such
illogical exclusions, eligibility should be extended to all those who have completed 15 years of age (United Nations,
World Health Organization, China and Australia have fixed the lower limit of
age for youth as 15 years.) A better alternative is a lower
limit of 14 years because a child is defined as below 14 years
for child labour. Among the so defined age group (15+ or 14+), eligibility should be confirmed only for those who have
expressed their interest in voting, after the responsibility of
a voter is explained to them.
It
is a pity that even after more than 65 years, most voters do not have the bend
of mind and capacity to use their franchise independently and effectively to develop a sound democracy (resulting in
90% voting in droves or large numbers selling votes – see paragraph 1 of this
Article). Most likely, they will not be able to develop these capacities for
many more years, in the absence of any mission to rectify matters. Therefore, should we not seriously think with an open mind
about other options for exercising peoples’ voice effectively?
This aspect will be further explored in later articles.
Amendment
of the Constitution will be necessary to introduce these changes in the system.
Comments (especially those which point
out errors or deficiencies, if any, in this article and thereby help to improve
it) and
other suggestions to overcome this obstacle
are welcome. Please send these to StartRemovingBlocks@gmail.com. I shall make use of all befitting
suggestions to prepare the last two articles of this series – Articled 23 will
spell out the basic principles which will guide formulation of the reformed
system of democracy and Article 24 will outline the reformed system of
democracy for public debate to arrive at a consensus.
No comments:
Post a Comment