|
|
|
|
|
poll reform The Supreme Court’s direction to the Election Commission to allow a voter to reject all candidates by introducing the ‘None of the Above’ button on the EVM has come as a victory for the electorate. A landmark initiative to cleanse the electoral system, the provision, however, has its grey areas. Political leaders debate.
The Election Commission (EC) took the landmark decision following a Supreme Court ruling on September 27, in which it was directed to give voters the right to reject all contesting candidates if they found none of them ‘worthy’ of their vote. 51-page verdict The judgment was delivered on a PIL by People’s Union for Civil Liberties and another, seeking NOTA button, primarily to protect the identity of those who wanted to abstain from voting. Why it was needed
The question that comes to one’s mind is: what will be the outcome of an election if NOTA votes are more than the votes garnered by candidates? There is no confusion about it: the candidate who gets the maximum valid votes will be declared elected. It is a step in the right direction to clean up the electoral system that uses money and muscle power. It is time for the parties to initiate reforms to strengthen the democracy process. — Ashok Tuteja Punjab Right to recall makes more sense Will awaken parties Winner should secure at least 50 pc votes Safeguards must be in place Find ways to increase voter turnout Haryana Right to recall, not reject, more important Mockery of electoral process Could be tricky in insurgency-infested areas Himachal Could hit clean candidates too More needs to be done Proper legal framework must A non-issue Re-election may not be viable j&k Dissatisfied voters will have a say
Won’t change the result
Will benefit poll process in Valley delhi counterproductive experiment Wider consultations must A step forward, but not enough Vital for electoral reforms ec experience Irrelevant, meaningless
|
|||||||||
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
NOTA elsewhere
I believe that nobody in Punjab will opt for NOTA. In fact, this debate regarding disllusionment with politics is nothing more than drawing room discussion. In a politically charged state like Punjab, almost everybody has his political alignment, which will render NOTA ineffective. Moreover, in the present times, in order to garner maximum votes, all political parties field the best possible candidates, who are well educated and have a mass appeal.
The thought is noble, but it is not a practical move as at the end of the day, you need a government to run a state or a country. Our democracy is not mature enough to provide the voters with such an option. It may be misused in the times of EVMs that can be tampered with. It is a double-edged sword. The better option would be the right to recall, in which the electorate should have the power to recall any MP or MLA if they find him/her involved in a corruption or criminal case, or not performing up to their expectations. Under this option, a public representative can be recalled if a majority of voters are in its favour.
The judiciary has taken the right decision, which was the need of the hour. In wake of the criminalisation of politics, NOTA will encourage the voters to turn up at the polling booth to reject undeserving candidates. This would awaken political parties from deep slumber to the fact that the people of the country are fed up with criminal elements occupying the chair of public representatives. The parties would be compelled to field candidates with a clean image. This initiative will go a long way in cleansing the political setup. I do not see any practical problem in the implementation of NOTA.
The option is a painkiller for the dying democratic system. We need holistic treatment in the form of electoral reforms, where the use of muscle power, money and liquor does not enable one to win polls. We need more clarity. What happens if NOTA gets more votes than the leading candidate? It can lead to an absurd situation, like in Bihar, when in an Assembly seat few years ago, all candidates lost security deposit. No one could secure more than 6 per cent votes. Yet, the one who got the most votes became the MLA. We should have a ‘dislike’ button and a candidate should be declared elected taking into account the voters who dislike him. A winning candidate should secure at least 50 per cent votes. Voting should be made mandatory. Places like Chandigarh have low polling percentage. 
I support the NOTA option as it would provide the voters with an opportunity to reject candidates. Its main advantage would be that in future, parties will concentrate on integrity, honesty and crime-free record while selecting candidates. However, a group of persons with vested interests may exploit the sentiments of the people who are already frustrated due to the double standard of some parties.
votes shall be declared a winner. It has been heartening to see an increase in voter turnout in the last few elections. The EC must find ways to increase this percentage — perhaps by allowing people to cast electronic votes from any part of the world, or making voting compulsory. NOTA will stop bogus voting. But a clean polity can only be initiated by the legislature, which has to be exhorted by the civil society. If people want to be governed by wise people, they need to ensure more participation in the voting process.
The option will go a long way in strengthening democracy since it will clearly pronounce the kind of leader the electorate is looking for. What the voter wants has been every party’s dilemma. The public will vote since this option will allow them to register their protest if none of the candidates are suitable. It should be dove-tailed with the right to recall. A voter can get emotional and make the mistake of casting his/her vote in favour of a particular candidate, but with the right to recall, that can be undone if an elected representative fails to deliver. This will leave little scope for an elected candidate to make excuses at the end of his/her term.
It makes no sense. It neither empowers the voter nor strengthens democracy. There is no logic in voters queuing up, spending time to cast their vote in favour of NOTA, and going away. They should exercise their franchise in favour of a candidate. Giving the electorate the right to recall is far more beneficial. At present, once a candidate is elected, he/she gets the right to complete the full term, irrespective of the performance. Giving the voters the right to recall a non-performer will bring in accountability as an elected representative will know that any laxity could translate into losing the seat. NOTA will not achieve what it has been conceived to do.
The Constitution provides for the election of representatives to Parliament and state Assemblies. It does not provide for the rejection of candidates by the electorate. The Supreme Court directive to the Election Commission for making NOTA option available to the electorate would virtually make a mockery of the electoral process. In a diverse country like India this system could prove to be complicated. Already there is a question mark over the functioning of electronic voting machines and the new system could leave scope for their manipulation. It runs counter to the free and fair election process.
A welcome move, the provision has existed since the Congress amended the election rules. It was earlier available as a form at the voting booth, now it will be a button on the EVM. With the power to influence results, it will encourage parties to introspect on candidates, making merit the sole criterion of selection. However, it will require caution in insurgency-infested pockets where coercive measures are adopted by unlawful organisations to reject democratic institutions. A consensus by all parties is required to consider a hypothetical situation where NOTA polls more votes than the candidate getting the next highest votes.
The SC in its wisdom allowed the NOTA option. One can’t say if it will work, but we should give it a fair trial. There has been much debate over the need to cleanse politics and the core issue that emerged was how to block tainted leaders from entering Parliament or legislatures. There was a demand that they should not be allowed to contest elections, or to be disqualified, but the right to reject was never at the centre of the discussion. Any step that strengthens the democratic process is good. But what happens when a large number of voters exercise this option? It will be known only when it happens.
It is a good initiative, but will not be of much help. There is no clarity on what happens if a majority of voters exercise this option. It should be incorporated by amending election laws after going through its implications. Alternatively, the list system of Germany, under which the electorate votes for a list of candidates, should be considered. The provision could mar the prospects of candidates with a clean image. If campaign against a tainted candidate gains momentum, all other candidates will be affected. Voting would have to be made mandatory to ensure 100 per cent polling.
The BJP has been in favour of the right to reject and NOTA is just the beginning. At present, there is no way to gauge its impact on the outcome of the electoral contest as it is only an option for those who do not want to vote for any candidate. A lot more is required to be done to make it meaningful. There are no rules as yet to see what happens to the outcome of the election if a large percentage of voters go for it. A legal framework needs to be provided so that people are aware how the election result will be influenced if they exercise this option.
It is a welcome initiative, but it only touches the fringe of the larger issue of electoral reforms. Without a solid legal framework, no such provision can be a deterrent for keeping unwanted candidates at bay. The CPM has been asking for the right to recall to keep elected representatives on their toes. Further, the focus should be shifted from candidates to parties. Recognised parties and groups are provided proportional representation on the basis of the percentage of vote secured. Several reforms are needed to revamp the electoral system to help reduce the growing influence of money and muscle power.
It is a dicey provision, but the political class in the hill state need not worry as the situation is not that bad. Criminalisation of politics and tainted leaders are not a major issue here and the chances of many people exercising this option are bleak. However, there are states where this could have a major impact. If a good percentage of voters, say 25 per cent, exercise this option, and still a candidate with a modest 27 per cent votes wins, it will take away from the victory. It will be a good move if it yields the desired result and helps in preventing tainted leaders from entering the Vidhan Sabha.
It has been brought in without analysing its implications. It would turn out to be a mere formality if it is not well defined and incorporated by amending election laws. The law must lay down whether or not the election would be annulled if the largest percentage of voters opts for NOTA. If all candidates are rejected, there has to be a re-election, which might not be feasible. If the election is not annulled, NOTA will be a futile exercise. As politicians these days do not enjoy a great degree of credibility, the presence of one tainted candidate and NOTA hype during campaigning, could lead to the rejection 
Milestone in political history
It is a good initiative and a healthy step to strengthen democracy. It is in favour of the common man. The move would encourage people to participate overwhelmingly in the electoral exercise and reject candidates. It would go a long way in eliminating the corrupt and those with dubious credentials from the election process. It would bring more and more people with good image at the helm of affairs, both in Parliament and state Assemblies. This would foster purity and vibrancy in the elections.
The intervention by the court is an indicator of the growing urge in the public to clean up the political setup. That the reforms have not been initiated by the executive, but the court and the Election Commission, needs to be read into and considered. There is a need to look at the present democratic process vis-a-vis the Westminster form of government which recognises numbers more than merit. The present system compels parties to select candidates first on the basis of caste, then class, then geographical location and many a time, also money and muscle power. If the person who gets chosen is also meritorious, it is only incidental. It is a step forward, but more measures are needed. It would barely cater to the deep-rooted malaise. We should device a mechanism where we can segregate elected representatives from the executive.
The option is healthy for our democracy in view of the increasing criminalisation of politics and abuse of money power. The government and Parliament must take forward the process of reforms. If they do not, the current momentum will peter out. Though the court has stopped short of creating the right to reject in EVMs, it has paved the way for it. No modification would be required in the EVMs to create this option. The provision is easy to implement. It will be like one more candidate, represented by the last button. There are no financial implications.
