Why vote?
It is not
unusual to find this sentiment being expressed. When we use the expression 'not
unusual', there is no exaggeration because even for a high voting percentage of
75, one out of every four, subscribes to the above line of thinking. Of the
three who do vote, discounting the ones who vote on caste lines, religious
overtures and patriarchal dictates there isn't much left to be counted as
ethical voting. Every five years, this opportunity ordained by our
constitution comes to us; and we let it
go, perhaps unaware of the import of the opportunity. Swear we do whenever we
would. Vote we mostly don't; at least not in the manner we should!
Many reasons
have been attributed to the low voter turnout in elections. Despite the good
work done in maintaining a healthy electoral roll, it is often found that many
voters are far away from their names in the voter list when it comes to the day
of voting. Many have their names in the place of their permanent domicile; and
have not cared to find out if they are eligible to vote where they are normally
resident. Ironically the legal provision is that your eligibility (and duty) to
vote is where you are normally resident (and not at your permanent
'non'-residence). Your voting rights (and duty) exists where you 'normally rest
in the night'. With the Election Commission being swift in the process of
adding, deleting and shifting names in the electoral roll, it is
relatively safe to assume that you can shift your name to where you can
and must vote.
Apathy regarding
political issues and an acquired indifference to the systemic instruments of
democracy of the urban population is often cited as one of the main reasons why
people don't vote. Another factor is that politics is generally treated as an
arena of the old by the youth and they stay disconnected from the political
stream. There is also a visible absence
of women in the voting process in some areas. They do not find the intricacies
of politics appealing; and cannot, perhaps
care less. Many of the women who do come out to vote are remote
controlled and their participation is at best an attestation of the assertions
sought to be made by the males in the family. Vulnerability arising from
financial constraints or social position is another deciding factor in voting.
If threatened or cajoled, a common man might desist from voting or vote under
pressure. Objectivity of the process is lost and enfranchisement instead of
becoming an empowering right gets reduced to an unwanted burden.
Then there is the most widespread reason,
probably the one cutting across geographical, caste and other conceivable
boundaries- the disillusionment resulting from a non-responsive system. A
desperate conviction that nothing will ever change for better. When our votes
do not hold any tangible value, people do not just bother to take the trouble
to go to the polling station. Again, a vote given to a losing candidate is
perceived as a vote wasted in our first-pass-the-post system. When none of the
candidates fall within the consideration zone of the voter, the decision might
be to just abstain.
A perusal of the
voting percentage in various states in previous elections shows an interesting
result where the more developed states have shown an above average voting
turnout when compared to those states that are not known for development.
Though there is no concrete evidence on vulnerability factors in the less
developed regions, anecdotal instances do indicate a lack of social independence
equivalent to political independence there. In the chicken and egg puzzle of if
development leads to more voting or vice versa, one is free to take sides.
The issue of
political independence brings us to the question as to why we should vote. The
first reason of course being our duty towards the democratic ethos. While
exercising this duty , we are in fact exercising the right to be heard. This
very right to speak out is one of the fundamental tenets of democracy. A right
not just to be heard; but to decide as to who will rule us goes down the drain
when we do not vote. So does the right to life (with dignity)!
What if my vote
goes to the losing candidate? Even if
our vote falls into the share of the losing candidate, we are defining our
character as a voting population. Any leader representing a 'voting- population’
is probable to be more responsive than the one representing a mute
population. An electorate will be identified by its habit of voting, no matter
to whom they cast their votes. That is to suggest that, apart from the duty and
right to vote, there is a clear profit angle for the need to vote. We stand to
benefit from registering our participation in the electoral process. This
conveys to the representative the need to take us all seriously.
Once this habit
is established, those hedge sitters who do not vote out of sheer apathy at
present, may start casting their votes. And when they do vote, since they tend
to be more neutral to the pseudo-divisive-factors, they tend to favour the
better candidate. When the politician recognises that the electorate is in the
habit of high electoral participation, he would be more responsive to the needs
of the population as a whole. He cannot overlook any one, as all of them are
voters - and not just mute spectators. Whenever there is a higher voting
percentage, the better candidates would sense a better opportunity to win - as
there would surely be more neutral voters who would have cast their votes. A
habit demonstrated by the electorate that "it votes" would help keep
the elected representative in check during his five year tenure as there is
always a possibility that when "it votes" again, it votes against the
incumbent. That is, a higher voting percentage can give a better chance to a
better candidate; and it also has a chance to make a candidate turned
representative better!
What if I want
to boycott the election? A boycott might be a result of insurgency or even
disillusionment. It might even be publicity mongering. It might be a pressure
tactic. The interesting point is that a boycott is a perfectly legal way of
participating in the election process, but it is often mixed up with apathy
when the boycott is not registered as a boycott. It is in this context that the
section 49-O of Conduct of election rules,1961 comes into picture. The provision of 49-O is recognised as a
matter of procedural detail by some. Most people fail to appreciate the
philosophical backdrop of the provision which includes the right to register a refusal
to vote in the electoral process. It is an opportunity to record your dissent
by refusing to vote. That is also voting, albeit voting against all the
available candidates.
For the time
being we do not have a system where elections need to be repeated if those
registering dissent under 49-O is more than the votes polled by the majority
candidate. But democracy is an evolutionary process and this can weighed upon
and considered in the next round of electoral reforms.
One may again
argue that if it is about registering your dissent, why take all the trouble to
go to the polling booth - a normal 'don't go to the polling station' would also
convey the same message! The main reason behind registering your dissent is
that this leads to a feeling in the representatives that people are in the habit
of voting (independently) or at least going into the polling booth to register
electoral intention; and there-by has a high probability of voting for a good
candidate when the opportunity comes. Voters boycott the election process in
the hope of influencing the thought
process of the powers that be whereas the reality is that in the case of a
boycott it is an equal negative to all the participating candidates; and
thereby it is of no consequence whatsoever to the candidates. It is also
possible that the so called boycott is understated - as people feel that some
of it might be result of apathy to the election process rather than any sincere
subscription to the boycott agenda.
In a scenario
where the option of 49-O is given proper advertisement, the insurgent elements
who call for a boycott would have to really exert themselves in getting the
boycott registered in the election process. The key point is that election
process involves a right to refuse to vote apart from the right to vote.
Education of voters on this point can increase the participation in the
election process especially by those abstaining from the process due to youth
disconnect, urban apathy and a general frustration towards the system.
Only a vigilant
master can cultivate the habit of vigilance in their servants. To be a vigilant
master, not only should one develop the habit of voting, but also learn to vote
objectively. There is in fact a need to demonstrate the objectivity in voting
habit. When voting is done on the basis of liquor supply on the eve of
elections or on the basis of the farman of the village head, we have the
next five years giving concreted roads leading to even the fields of the head
man and the others waiting in slush for their elusive rations to arrive. The
corruption that netas 'have to do' to stay in power is mostly a result
of the proclivity of voters to base themselves on unethical and illogical
considerations. This creates a need for candidates to leverage those who can
mobilise political support for no ethical rhyme or reason - god-men and
hit-men. A good way to fight corruption is to ask people to vote and vote
ethically - without being swayed by such cronies, who would have to be
subsequently fed by the netas - to stay in power! Again, when one votes
at the instance of another, the second individual is voting twice; and the
first one is not voting at all!
By casting votes in a neutral manner the voter
would prompt the public representative to view a citizen approaching him as an
individual - with a secular liberal first-name-based identity than try and
manipulate responses according to the convenience associated with the colour
shade of the second names. It will also
incentivise the actions of representatives, which are in favour of all and one.
The behaviour of the neta in power and the character and efficiency of
the administration under him, is more a function of the percentage of ethical
and logical voting than that of any inherent quality in the individuals
concerned.
Voting for
electing our representatives is almost similar to what you would do if you had
to elect a pilot just before a flight. Would you base your decision on
nepotism, caste-ism, money, muscle or muskan power? Would you allow
others to do so without a murmur? Or would you go for the most competent hand
in an objective informed manner. Would you have your vote- Volition Objectively
and Totally Expressed! Why not VOTE?
Mangala
Raghuraj.
The author can
be contacted on gowri.raghu@gmail.com