Why the right to reject will be the gamechanger in Indian politics

For once, the television news channels had the first opportunity in a while to flash breaking news, use adjectives, and great ready for some heady debates during prime time: voters can now cast a negative vote. However the bad behaviour of a single person, Rahul Gandhi which reiterated that Congress was no democratic outfit – recall spokesperson Ajay Makan sheepishly saying “What Rahul Gandhi says is Congress policy, as simple as that” – and his rubbishing of the ordinance to protect criminal politicians took the limelight away from a far-reaching order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been quite clear. The Election Commission of India should henceforth make provisions for an additional button on the electronic voting machines, which the voter can press and say, ‘none of the above’ – NOTA. It also said the right to reject was a fundamental right. Hitherto, one had to tell the polling officer he was voting NOTA. So calling this judgement ‘historical,’ ‘landmark’, ‘a game changer’, and even a major ‘cleanser’ of the political machinery in the country is quite in place. A voter, who so far complained that he did not have a good candidate to vote for, stayed away from polling. [caption id=“attachment_1139335” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Representational image. AFP[/caption] It had gone to such an extent that voters, especially urban ones, resisted from even voting for the ‘better among the worst’. The footfalls at the booths could now increase. This comes close on the heels of the reluctance of the President, Pranab Mukherjee to sign the ordinance neutralising the apex court’s order saying that those convicted of a crime cannot remain a member of the legislative bodies. Though it is hard to expect political leaders being sensitive to public opinion, it is quite likely that the President slowed down while determining whether the matter was as urgent as the government claimed. The coincidence of Rahul Gandhi’s announcement of what he thought of the paper pending with the President cannot be lost sight of. It came minutes as it were after the Supreme Court made its mind clear, and said that rejecting any or all candidates was the true essence of democracy. The apex court said Indian elections would gain “vibrancy”, it said, and it is right. It can activate the reluctant registered voters who were forced to choose between the rock and a hard place so far. Do you recall how people sat in persistent candlelight vigils near the Hotel Taj Mahal after the 26/11 terror attacks that targeted the iconic hotel, the Oberoi and the Chhatrapati Shivaji train terminal? However, the parliamentary elections soon thereafter which propelled the United Progressive Alliance back into power for the second term. Because people said, “Who do I vote for? Do I have a choice?” Now that excuse will no longer exist. Voting NOTA using Rule 49 O meant going to the polling booth, informing the poling officials the intent to do so, register it and then make your displeasure with all the candidates on the ballot. It meant such voters were deviants or brave for such a choice did not remain secret. Putting the extra button, NOTA, to push now becomes mandatory. Also, it becomes a great facilitator to keep the baddies out of the political system. So far reaching is the implication of this order by the apex court, that the good boys have started asking for more, and rightly so. Jagdeep Chhoker, founder of the Association for Democratic reforms has said something interesting. “Any candidate, to be elected, should get at least 51 per cent of the votes. In the event of a majority of voters using the NOTA (on) the EVM, there is a need to call for a fresh election,” he said. “I hope, as a result of this verdict, another aspect about the right to negative vote changes. Today, if 999 voters out of 1,000 opt for 49 O and only one person votes in favour of one candidate, then that person is declared elected.” Aam Aadmi Party’s Arvind Kejirwal said. While BJP’s Ravi Shankar Pratap wanted to study the order, the CPM’s Sitaram Yechury “sees no purpose in it” but it was alright as if it would make no difference. It would seem that at this point of time, everything is in place that requires making the citizen count, not the politician, against whom disgust is mounting and is getting more vocal. Imagine what happens when a person who wins in multi-cornered contest with a low percentage of vote share is rejected? Would the political party have the courage to field him again? Losing to a rival is one thing; losing face altogether is entirely different. Henceforth, therefore, there can be no wasted vote. If this were to be introduced in the soon to be held Assembly elections in four states, it could be a trial for voters, at least in urban areas where they complained of futility of walking to the polling booths for elections. The changes, as you would notice, are a happening! It is now up to the voters because this is a major empowerment, likening right to reject to a fundamental right.