By Shubhangi Roy
The most recent Supreme Court judgment directing the Election Commission of India to include a none of the above option to the voting ballot is being hailed by many as the harbinger of a revolution that will finally put the people back in the centre of democracy. Kiran Bedi has referred to it as a tsunami to wash off the dead and decaying Indian politics while Anupam Kher reminded us to thank Anna Hazare who started this entire process for a more democratic, transparent Indian society.
The Election Commission has promptly agreed to the change and will be incorporating the same without much ado. But here is the catch. This new addition will do little in providing the people with better choices. The Supreme Court has drawn a parallel between the options that the MPs, MLAs have to abstain in the Parliament with this new feature added to Indian elections.
An abstention has little consequence on the result of voting in the Parliament and neither will the right to not vote. The Apex court was clear on the matter. Perhaps this NOTA (none of the above) option merely removes the idiosyncrasy of any political party ever really winning the elections in the present Indian political system. For us educated interested voters, it was always about voting for the lesser of the two evil.
Now that the voters have the right to reject, will we use the same to reject all? Not necessarily. A right is redundant if it does not have a consequential duty arising out of it that another needs to perform each time the right is exercised. The right to reject is merely a theatrical tool that will enable the voters to express their dismay and not necessarily a factor that will allow them to improve or change the destiny of Indian politics.
Additionally, one of the reasons that the Court cited for introducing the NOTA option was increasing transparency in the election system as the flexibility to reject even without abstaining from voting will ensure that many of those planning to abstain would at least visit the poll booths. This, the Supreme Court suggests, would reduce the rampant proxy vote schemes that plague the Indian elections.
But the Supreme Court errs in believing that the only reason holding back voters is their disenchantment with the system. In fact, in the opinion of the author, the ones who are interested enough in the political system of India to be disenchanted by the same are the ones who realise the importance of voting; even if it is merely voting in favour of a thief instead of the murderer. The disenchanted believe there might be one marginally better than the other; even if this perception is through a subjective prism of their ideology.
It is the disinterested that refuse to vote or the busy or the lazy or perhaps the ones who struggle through life hungry and toiling endlessly while the country, its politicians, courts and media raise a hoopla over the election of another party to form another government that will never pass a law that will end their struggle or feed their family. The majority are disinterested and disappointed. The raison-dêtre of Indian voters mind-set is that governments might change, but their lives or living conditions will not.
None of these issues can be addressed merely by a NOTA option, but instilling confidence in the government was never a task entrusted to the judiciary. It is merely a step towards a right to greater expression. Our lesser than the two evils vote would no longer be shrouded in the garb of immense public support by political parties.
Through this additional option on the ballot paper, the hypocrisy is gone while the status quo is maintained the least rejected, not the most respected, will rule India.
She is a third year student pursuing B.A. LLB. (Hons) at Gujarat National Law University. She is presently on the editorial board of two books and a few of her research papers are in the process of being published. She can be reached at shubhi.law@gmail.com