Dear
fellow citizens,
Our
democracy has become an object of ridicule. Only
if we become active and put our heads and shoulders together we can save our
democracy.
YES. WE CAN. If we believe in
this and act with
conviction.
In
doing so with conviction, let us be guided by the following thoughts also:
1. Have vision: A
blind person asked Swami Vivekananda: Can there be anything worse than
losing eye sight?" He replied:
"Yes, losing your vision!"
2.
Be bold: “Boldness has genius, power and
magic in it” - Goethe
3. Learn from history: “Never
forget that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the
world; it is the only way that ever does.”
- Margaret Mead
4. Make efforts: “There can be efforts that fail but there should not be a failure
of efforts” Anonymous
5. Have an ethics of care: “Developing an ethics of care for the suffering millions will not clash with your legitimate self interests
and will make you happy.” - Anonymous
I
am reproducing below the first article in a series of 22 articles entitled “Let us think and Act with an open mind to
Develop a Vibrant
Democracy” which
draw attention to 30 obstacles which cause a distorted and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. You can help to
save democracy by making as many people as possible aware of
these obstacles and possible solutions, through e-mail and social media like face
book and twitter so that we
can have healthy debates and arrive at some innovative ideas to save our
democracy.
Making
use of some of these innovative ideas, I intend to finish this series with two
more articles - 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.
A
citizen who cares
Note:
Evolving ideas to save democracy after debates on these
22 articles will take some months. To immediately save democracy to some
extent, I hope you will actively support the two suggestions given at the end
of Article 1 for voting during 2014 Lok Sabha elections.
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 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 Rs.200 or a 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, 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. Meanwhile, we can save democracy to some extent if voters
apply their mind to the following aspects before casting their vote during the 2014
Lok Sabha elections:
Expertise required to win an election is different from that needed for
good governance. Moreover, while the former needs capacity only
for one hectic effort, the latter needs capacity for sustained efforts for many
years. Another aspect is that politicians who help to win elections by
mesmerizing voters by their oratory and false promises are unlikely to be
effective in governance. The above lacunae explain why experts in winning
elections have often failed even to make good use of a reasonably good
administration system to provide good governance. An
efficient voter has to watch out to prevent being duped by experts in winning
elections. They should demand for facts about their capacity for
good governance and merely blaming others and hate speeches should be
considered as disqualifications.
All voters interested in saving democracy should use the NOTA option
during the coming Lok Sabha elections as told by the anti-corruption crusader
Anna Hazare “if they did not find a right candidate with character and clean
image”(The Hindu dated 18-03-14). They should insist
on fresh elections after excluding all present candidates who have been
rejected by majority of voters by NOTA option. Those
who want to save democracy should not only consciously use NOTA option in the
coming Lok Sabha elections but also educate and motivate others to do so. During
the coming election, a responsible voter should reject even right candidates
if they belong to a political party which is observed to be giving money incentives or has sponsored candidates
with criminal background elsewhere. This is very
important because, after election, even these “right persons” will be forced to
support party interests at the cost of peoples’ interests, for
example give support to the party in not punishing those who are corrupt
or have misused their power to help vested interests.
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.
