Elections in India are a time of celebration: with an explosion of colour, noise, arguments, passion and excitement. There are jokes galore about politics and politicians, as is apt. The critical question to reflect on is: Do we, as citizens, think, behave and act conscientiously, in a manner that democracy demands of us? Democracy can survive and thrive if all stakeholders display responsible behaviour.
How often, as electorate, have we voted based on narrow identity, money or muscle power or have just not bothered to step out of the house on the voting day to exercise our franchise?
The coming elections are likely to be a game-changer. It is imperative that all of us put on our thinking caps and dispassionately think of the kind of government we desire to have.
I have often been vocal about the policies of the current ruling dispensation. Election and voting, however, require a different way of thinking; criticism is not enough. As a voter, we need to make a choice between different political entities. I did a quick review of the past five years of this government—a kind of a balance sheet, to give me a better perspective on the issue.
Many good, positive things have happened, as expected. After the general ennui of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), especially in its last years, decision making was quickly back on the table. The government started off well using technology to resolve issues and making governance inclusive. JanDhan-Aadhaar-Mobile (JAM) and direct benefit transfer (DBT), the use of mobiles and Aadhaar to deliver government services have the potential for significant long-term benefits (although Moneylife has serious concerns about the misuse of Aadhaar data and is strongly against making it mandatory for people with multiple identitity cards). Promoting the use of cooking gas instead of the traditional wood-based chullah is exemplary.
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) as an instrument to tackle corporate bankruptcy and non-performing assets (NPAs) of banks has been one of the finest initiatives of the government. Establishment of the Monetary Policy Committee and inflation targeting as the primary objective of the Reserve Bank of India have been noteworthy structural reforms.
The debit side is, however, weighty and long too, with significant repercussions over the long term. The government has displayed poor management of the economy, resulting in a plummeting growth rate and an economy, which is punching well below its weight. Private capital investment is at its lowest in the past seven years, as are exports of goods, which have not increased in absolute terms over the past seven years. Our share in global trade has dwindled. It is difficult to visualise how the declining growth rate can be arrested and revived.
Power has been centralised in the hands of a chosen few. Deliberations over policy matters are largely absent, and it is the whims of the leader that turn into a course of action. Experts are largely conspicuous by their absence and are anyway ignored. Many are opting to leave their assignment prior to completion of their term or choosing not to seek an extension.
There has been a war on institutions of eminence, that has often turned brutal. Institutional independence has been compromised in a manner that does not bode well for the future of the country.
One of the worst moves of the current dispensation was the demonetisation of currency notes. Not only did it betray a lack of understanding of how the economy functions, but also shows the proclivity of the government to bulldoze its way through. While the surgical strike as a retaliation against terrorist activity across the border may have been justified, economic matters do not lend themselves to surgical strikes. An economy functions best when we enable, encourage and provide a stimulating environment. As I had argued in my article 10 months back, animal spirits in the economy and society have been curbed. Reviving animal spirits by creating a positive environment of hope and expectations will now be a difficult task for the forthcoming government.
Finally, the attack on the very idea of India... an India that is tolerant, inclusive and encouraging diverse viewpoints. Intense polarisation has taken place over the last five years, weakening the fundamental structural edifice of the society. Identity has become more critical than merit and capability. You can get away with anything if you belong to a certain affiliation; else living in fear is the fate you are condemned to. Society has become far more unjust than ever before. Unleashing of communal forces and division of society has caused permanent damage. Mob lynchings are inreasing and law and order questionable in many states. The defining image of the government for me is the garlanding of criminals convicted of lynching by Jayant Sinha at his own house. One would expect far more civilised behaviour from Jayant Sinha. I guess if you are a member of a political party whose credo is polarisation, you have no choice but to conform.
That is a poor report from a government that was voted in with hopes of and a mandate for structural change towards a new modern day India. At the same time, the alternative, euphemistically termed the mahagathbandhan, inspires no confidence. No one wants a tamasha for a new government, that has no capability to take India forward in the fast changing complex world of the 21st century. What are the options for an enlightened voter who wishes his vote to make a difference?
What I have realised is that positive actions of the government have limited impact but pernicious moves are permanently damaging and also difficult to undo. It is preferable to have a government that does not do anything, a somnambulistic one, if you may, rather than one that is highly damaging to the society, its culture and the economy. India can progress and grow on its own; it does not need the clutches of governmental support. We are fine with any government as long as it does not divide the country and its people or weaken its institutions.
I believe it is time to put all politicians on notice, making our dissatisfaction quite clear. The only way to do that is to vote NOTA or None Of The Above, an option the electorate has had for some years.
NOTA is a positive vote, which exhorts politicians of all hues to come up to the expectations of the voters. NOTA does not imply indecisiveness—far from it.
NOTA is a positive vote which says, I do not find any party or candidate suitable.
It gives the voters a choice, of ticking off politicians who have failed to deliver or give tickets to good candidates. Why should the voters have to make a choice from the available options only, if they do not come up to our expectations? Rejection of all candidates is a positive choice. It sends a strong message to all politicians, and we need to send the message in large numbers.
NOTA was introduced less than a decade ago. Currently, votes for NOTA are relatively small but growing. Given time and understanding of its implications, once it reaches an inflection point, its popularity will zoom. It is the best tool available for voters to express their disappointment with the political class. Only those who are happy and satisfied with the current political class will fail to use it. Which side are you on?
(Sunil Mahajan, a financial consultant and teacher, has over three decades experience in the corporate sector, consultancy and academics.)
Let's say we have 2 bad options 'A' being less bad and 'B' being more bad..... Now, let's say, out of 100 votes 20 are staunch supporters of A, 25 are staunch supporters of B due to caste, religion, freebies or bribes or any other reasons and remaining 55 votes are well meaning honest and progressive voters. If these voters decide to either abstain or vote NOTA, then B wins. This is the current reality of NOTA.
So think before you vote. I would agree with Author's advocacy of NOTA if law is amended to make election null and void if NOTA gets highest votes. Currently that is not the case.
Like it or not, we are better off in selecting what we feel is the least worst option in front of us. NOTA will only help more worst options.
Unfortunately, NOTA in its current form has no teeth, for even if the majority of the populace were to press NOTA, the shameless folks who have taken on the mantel of being politicians (the old adage, of politics being the last refuge for scoundrels, never sounded truer) would continue on their power-hungry path of exploitation.
The concise answer I offer for consideration might be to have an electoral system where if in a constituency the percentage of NOTA votes (considering the number of entire registered voters, not just who did vote, as abstainers need to be counted with the rejecters) is more than all others, the entire list of candidates either from a party or independent, besides not being elected, are debarred from being put forth as candidates for the next 10 years.
This just might prove to be a great incentive for all concerned to give the populace a choice worthy of consideration and stop wasting the nation's time and money on a circus and patting themselves as the world's largest democracy, which honestly should be called a kleptocracy.
जो तटसà¥à¤¥ हैं, समय लिखेगा उनके à¤à¥€ अपराध