The right to say "no"

There is a fallacy and great irony in Indian polity. While the Karnataka voter is returning the Congress with renewed zeal, unsettling the ruling BJP, virtually decimating it, the Congress was reeling in agony and shame in Delhi when the highest court of the land cornered its government for making the CBI "a caged parrot". The party dismissed two of its ministers for blatant misuse of office and brazen nepotism. This is the party's most embarrassing hour. Can the success of the party reflect the fact that the voter is running out of options and he is also a caged bird of a different kind? Let us see the facts. Since 1985 Karnataka had never returned the incumbent party to power. Having tasted its mindless corruption and misrule each time, it had to wait painfully for five years before the voter could have his say.

This is exactly the same story in Tamil Nadu as well. If it is DMK now, it is AIDMK next. Mayawati was shown the door in preference to Mulayam Singh's party; not that voters like it any better. Obviously the voter was left with no choice except to elect the better of the two available bad alternatives. Is this the limitation of democracy? Can there be a choice? Somebody thought of it as early as 2001. (Anna Hazare is crying from rooftops for yet another option, the right to recall.) What was mooted in 2001 was the right to reject.

In 2004, T S Krishnamoorthy, the then Chief Election Commissioner, suggested to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about accommodating the option of negative voting in the ballot. In fact, the commission received a number of options from several individuals and organisations to make a provision for the voter if he intends to totally reject all the candidates. The existing ballot paper does not provide for the voter to express his total dissent.

The rule '49-O' allows the voter to express his dissent, but it does not protect the secrecy of his option, which is his prime right. Hence, the commission recommended a provision to provide for negative, neutral vote. Russia has this provision. While Australia felt that encouraging people not to express their preferred candidate goes against the intended purpose. For this reason, voting is compulsory by law in Australia. Also, annulling an election would result in much waste of public funds spent to conduct polls.

This is a sane logic. But let us prepare the balance sheet to assess the loss of the voter. It costs Rs.10, 000 crore to conduct a general election in this country, a little more than the cost of President Obama's election in the United States. We reject the entire band of candidates at this cost. But what is the price we pay for keeping these corrupt leaders in power for five years? A bad government can create havoc in no time.

Here are the 10 scams, a record of sorts, in the UPA-2. A spectrum scam alone cost the exchequer 1, 76,379 crores. Coal scam cost 1855.91 billions! And then we have Commonwealth sports scam, Telgi scam, Bofors scam, helicopter scam, Adarsh scam, Fodder scam, Satyam scam, Hawala scam (18,000 crores changed hands!), IPL scam, Harshad Mehta, Ketan Parikh scam.

It is yet to be decided what the extent of money involved in the Jagan scam was; as of now the Supreme Court is convinced about the shady, murky affair. The loss of 10,000 crores to the exchequer is nothing when compared to this mind-boggling plunder to restore the dignity of saying "NO" to these leaders and keep them permanently out of power. With recurrent debility in social health and redundant abuse of democratic norms, money and muscle power pushing criminals into the body-politic, leadership today is brazenly trading power with numbers and the majority is put to sale by vested interests with uninterrupted frequency.

No wonder the voter is vexed with the shameless bullying of the parties in power, but helplessly cornered in accepting one or the other. But he is unambiguous and merciless in expressing his dissent each time.A While "right to recall'' is the ultimate option as campaigned by Anna Hazare, application of rule 49-O validates the need for such a measure. It highlights the growing disturbance of the voter. But how the negative vote can help the system, unless the mandate is given teeth, is the moot question.

There was a hoax at that time which claimed that if the '49-O' votes more than those of the winning candidate, then that poll would be canceled and reordered. Furthermore, it claimed that the contestants would be banned for life. However, the Election Commission hastened to clarify that it was only a hoax and not true.

If, however, the hoax, which, after all, reflects the thinking of the right-minded voter, comes true, the polity will be cleansed of all shady leadership. Nine years after the proposal was made by Krishnamurthy, it has become much more relevant and necessary today as the disillusionment of the voter is focused in every election.

Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and any recent election in any State (except, of course in Gujarat), reflects the seething anger of the common man. The thousand dollar question, however, is who will bell the cat?

([email protected])