Celebrating over nothing

The Supreme Court recently passed a judgment to introduce a button to select ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) as an option on the voting machines. The educated middle-class section of the society has taken this decision as a marquee for radical change in our political system and considers it to be a cause for celebration. However, my views on this subject differ greatly and need to be expressed firmly.

Many people believe that this decision will result in an increase in the voting percentage. Some people are also hopeful that this will be a great improvement in our democracy. I believe that the falling percentage in voting isn’t the main problem here; it is lack of faith in politics. The decrease in voting is simply a symptom of this greater sickness. The utter ignorance that our middle-class has towards government and politics is general is as clear as it can get. Blessed with the capabilities of understanding who is governing us and how they are doing it, the middle class is more than proficient to make informed decisions. But, instead of performing their own duties, the middle class shows a tendency of criticizing the government beyond reason.

For instance, after the last Lok Sabha elections, I asked a man why he didn’t vote. “All candidates are the same. You just cannot pick one of them. Sab chor hain!”, he replied. Then, I asked him whether he could name all the candidates he had available to choose from and what his views were regarding the promises put forth in each of their election manifestoes. Sadly, he couldn’t answer any of my questions. He hadn’t even glanced through a simple pamphlet of the candidates who would later represent him in the lower house of the parliament. The next question I asked was that how could he reach to a conclusion that all of them are bad if he had no idea who the contestants were in the first place? The man had absolutely no answers.

When I discussed this issue with a friend the other day, he pointed out that I am expecting too much if I want all the people to read the manifestoes of all the contesting candidates. He said that our people are not that responsible. To that, I ask, if these people are not even willing to make a minimal effort during elections, and if they are so irresponsible, then, should these reckless people be given the NOTA option? Who can guarantee that the innately pessimistic section of the society won’t go ahead and hit the button without any prior thought or rationale? Who can guarantee that a few genuinely good candidates won’t suffer at the hands of these negligent voters?

Our educated class doesn’t show up to choose an option from among those available and neither does it come forward with alternatives in case they are not satisfied with the options that are available at the moment. It becomes the elected candidate’s responsibility to represent his/her people. But just because you don’t know or like a particular candidate, you don’t vote. Add to that an overall lack of courage to voluntarily suggest a new option, and you will get a majority of our citizens today.

“The savior must be born, but in the neighbor’s home” remains the dominant mentality. Plus, even if a savior is born, the tendency then is not to help him, but to hold him back. In such a situation, one may think whether the British were running our country far better than we are. But the shameless masses might go ahead and agree that we should actually call the Brits back to rule us.

Election means the process of ‘electing’ someone. What point are we trying to make by saying we want NOTA? Some people argue that this will force political parties to field a good candidate. But people are not even willing to accept that as an option. It is not that no political party is incapable of providing us with a decent candidate. And even if they do, no one can guarantee that our people will be informed, aware and responsible enough to vote that candidate into power. The candidates fielded by political parties will improve their standards when candidates better than them start contesting elections. And an example that the best candidate will win needs to be set. But this responsibility lies with the voter. In the battleground of democratic elections, the alternative to a person has to be a person. ‘None of the above’ cannot be an option. This will only lead to a rise in pessimism and the process of change will come to a standstill. I am okay with some people believing that the system can be changed without actually entering it. However, if the majority starts to think like this, we can see ourselves going in the direction of utter chaos and anarchy.

With respect to the freedom of expression given in the Indian constitution, it is fair that I have a right to reject all candidates. But it is also important to follow my duties as a citizen. In times where we are aggressive about our rights and least bothered by our duties, this option may end up being a bane. Besides, the romanticized concept of instant change that is being propagated by this decision will only end up in disillusionment.

The only way to improve politics is by entering it, backing the right candidates, voting for them and getting them elected; not by saying ‘none of the above’. Therefore I urge the educated middle class to realize that their celebrations over the introduction of this new button on the voting machines, is short-lived and that the only way that the system will improve is by pro-active participation.

-Translated by Omkar Rege.
(Original Marathi article was published in Maharashtra Times of 3rd November 2013)