NOTA in the Indian Elections
NOTA - 'None Of The Above' option in the election process, introduced upon the intervention of the Supreme Court in 2013, has demonstrably proven to be ineffective in achieving the ultimate objective of providing clean candidates to the voters to choose from. Thus, it is contrary to the concept, that the best available men should be chosen as people's representatives, for the proper governance of the country. The present form of NOTA in India, considers the vote cast as NOTA, to be invalid votes, except for the purpose that they be categorised as a separate entity. They are not taken into cognizance for calculating the total valid votes, nor are they considered for determining the forfeiture of deposits of the losing candidates.
The essence and spirit of NOTA also entails the right to reject, according to the learned judges of the Supreme Court. But the existing provision in Indian elections, does not accord weightage to that right of rejection. Presently, in case of NOTA getting the majority vote, the candidate polling the next highest votes is elected. Where then is the rejection ? It is like bestowing the oxymoron 'cruel kindness'. When a choice of “none of the above” has been exercised, it follows from logical deduction, that it is an "against all" vote. That is to say, that all those who participated as candidates, do not enjoy the confidence of the voter. So, if NOTA is in majority, all others should be set aside as not fit to provide clean and efficient governance, and ideally, a second round of elections to be held.
The above lacunae calls for a case being made for NOTA, with enough teeth to achieve the desired objective, by putting a proviso of automatic by-election, if NOTA is in majority. This would be in alignment with the democratic tenet, that the majority has given a vote of no-confidence in the candidates. The preamble to the constitution of India states democracy to be the platform for governance, it is only fair for the citizens to expect a robust election system without an Achilles Heel. The chink in the armour, in the present form of NOTA, perpetuates the negativities of a democratic system, without palliating measures to improve the system. Extending the NOTA logic, ad nauseam, it means that if 99 voters out 100 opt for NOTA, (and NOTA being invalid), then the first past the post principle declares the candidate with only one vote to be the winner and set to rule over the others. (And this single vote, would in all probability, be his own vote)
NOTA then becomes "NO OPTION TO AVAIL". It is like two wolves and a sheep, voting democratically, and deciding by majority, on what to have for dinner. The rightful citizen is led, like a lamb to the slaughter. In this scenario of Hobson's choice, the voters are impelled to desist from casting their vote, setting up an atmosphere of alienation. In the absence of a credible NOTA, it is like being asked if you'd like a slap on the cheek or the bottoms. Since the voters don't like to be slapped, they see no reason to participate in the farcical election.
And then democracy becomes, in the words of Thomas Carlyle, "a palpable incredibility and a delirious absurdity".
Abraham Lincoln, considered to be the father of democracy, called it a government of the people, by the people, for the people. But he also said, "Elections belong the the people. It is their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters".
So, LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. Who would clean the Augean Stables?
Footnote: Latest decision by Supreme Court on 25-09-18 leaves the decision to clean the cesspool of corrupt and charged politicians to the Parliament, where 33% of the representatives are tainted.
Dr. D.P. Singh
Ex.Addl.Director, Higher Education, MP &
Narendra Varma
Ex. AGM, BHEL