With so many hopes, so many emotions, so many uncertainties and so many opinions going into this election in India, the dust has finally settled on this leg of the election which covered most of the Maharashtra. For long their had been this talk about negative voting (which unfortunately hadn't been implemented in this election), and about the section 49-O of Conduction of Elections Rule 1961. The talk started gaining momentum especially after the mass public awaking due to the Mumbai attacks in November 2008. Those images of the majestic Taj burning helplessly, burnt many a hearts in India. People started being very vocal against the politicians. And then started many exchanges about this Section 49-O. Not many people were aware of existence of any such thing. There were many rumors as well about what exactly is this section and how one can use it. There were rumors about this being used against a candidate if the number of section 49-O votes exceeded the number of votes the winning candidate garnered.
So to get to the base of it, I went through lots of websites and links. I googled around here and there, through Indian government websites, and the likes of wikis; and finally I came to know for sure that, the section 49-O does exists, and though not as useful as has been rumored, it at least allows one to be a responsible citizen by letting him show the intention of casting his vote, but still making it possible for him to listen to his intellect and avoid committing a moral crime by voting for a criminal.
Even after all this brouhaha about this, I am sure, quite a lot people who are in the know, still doubt about existence of such a section. They confuse it with the negative-voting proposal and dismiss it saying it's still not implemented.
I had verified this section in the actual law text on an official Indian Govt website and wanted to rest all those doubts once and for all through a real voting experience. So here are the details of what happened in an election booth in Sangli, my home town, when I tried to actually use this section.
I went in the election booth, signed against my name, got my finger painted, and just before voting, I told them I wanted to speak to the election booth officer. The officer was not at his desk at that time, so they asked me exactly why I want to talk to the booth officer. I told them I wanted to use section 49-O. From their reaction, I realized I was first such 'case' there. After I explained to them what exactly it was, in as pure Marathi as much I could get out of my partially westernized tongue, few heads started turning, due to this unusual discussion in an election booth. Then once the whole thing sunk in, everybody around was on a mission to convince me that such thing just doesn't exist. I got a jolt when even the election booth officer outrightly refused knowing about any such thing as section 49-O. All this time, I was firm on my stand that there does exist this section which allows me not to vote for any of the candidates, and the booth officer/supervisor just needs to note my name down in some list. After around half an hour of discussions, and lots of rounds of convincing each other, they gave in and started going through their documents, instructions and booklets. And finally one of the smart guys there, found the section mentioned in the booklet. He was honest enough to read it aloud, even though that meant I being exactly right, and they all being totally wrong. While I don't want to blame those guys there, I really feel the need for these people being clearly briefed about existence of such a section, so that somebody who really wants to use this sections, doesnt get persuaded out of it.
Finally, there came a remark against my name on voter's list saying - 'Matadaan karanyas spashta nakaar' - 'Outright refusal to vote'!!
I was registered to have voted, my finger was painted, and still I didnt commit a moral crime by voting for a crook/a criminal.
I know people will be quick enough to dismiss this as juvenile, immature, and what not. They will be quick to tell me that this defeats the basic purpose of democracy if you refuse to vote. The wikipedia page on section 49-O mentions such criticisms by so-called 'experts' criticizing the negative voting proposal.
The first specific criticism is - "It is the duty of every citizen to educate himself/herself about the agenda of the candidates and to vote conscientiously for the candidate they think is better. The very purpose of an election is that a representative should be chosen by the people. Encouraging people not to express their preferred candidate goes against the intended purpose."
Think about it this way. In India, politics is by and large looked down upon. This is because of the presence of large number of crooks and criminals amongst the political masses. So the political spectrum remains devoid of the honests, capables and the 'good' guys. The general apathy of people towards voting speaks a lot for itself. So even in its current form, it will be very bold to say that people are 'choosing' their representatives, when the voting percentages are 40% and 50%. If negative voting is allowed, people will get a new, powerful and most importantly a >real< weapon in their hands, with which they can have a better go at having good leaders. As far as my information goes. the negative voting proposal also notes that if there happens a case where negative votes exceed the votes garnered by any of the candidates, those same candidates will not be allowed to appear for a re-election in that constituency. This makes perfect sense. This will teach the crooks a lesson and will give the deserving, well-educated leaders a new hope. So rather than going against the intended purpose, this negative voting proposal actually goes totally in line with the intended purpose.
The second criticism is that this will result in waste of public funds. How naive!!!
I mean what is costlier? Re-election? or choosing a criminal to guard and use the public fund?
They say, people get the kind of leaders they deserve. In India, getting the middle class to vote is key to 'deserving' better leaders and this radical step of allowing negative voting is a surefire way to make them feel positive about voting.
I just hope we are not kept waiting for this very important and much anticipated electoral reform, even in the next election.
So to get to the base of it, I went through lots of websites and links. I googled around here and there, through Indian government websites, and the likes of wikis; and finally I came to know for sure that, the section 49-O does exists, and though not as useful as has been rumored, it at least allows one to be a responsible citizen by letting him show the intention of casting his vote, but still making it possible for him to listen to his intellect and avoid committing a moral crime by voting for a criminal.
Even after all this brouhaha about this, I am sure, quite a lot people who are in the know, still doubt about existence of such a section. They confuse it with the negative-voting proposal and dismiss it saying it's still not implemented.
I had verified this section in the actual law text on an official Indian Govt website and wanted to rest all those doubts once and for all through a real voting experience. So here are the details of what happened in an election booth in Sangli, my home town, when I tried to actually use this section.
I went in the election booth, signed against my name, got my finger painted, and just before voting, I told them I wanted to speak to the election booth officer. The officer was not at his desk at that time, so they asked me exactly why I want to talk to the booth officer. I told them I wanted to use section 49-O. From their reaction, I realized I was first such 'case' there. After I explained to them what exactly it was, in as pure Marathi as much I could get out of my partially westernized tongue, few heads started turning, due to this unusual discussion in an election booth. Then once the whole thing sunk in, everybody around was on a mission to convince me that such thing just doesn't exist. I got a jolt when even the election booth officer outrightly refused knowing about any such thing as section 49-O. All this time, I was firm on my stand that there does exist this section which allows me not to vote for any of the candidates, and the booth officer/supervisor just needs to note my name down in some list. After around half an hour of discussions, and lots of rounds of convincing each other, they gave in and started going through their documents, instructions and booklets. And finally one of the smart guys there, found the section mentioned in the booklet. He was honest enough to read it aloud, even though that meant I being exactly right, and they all being totally wrong. While I don't want to blame those guys there, I really feel the need for these people being clearly briefed about existence of such a section, so that somebody who really wants to use this sections, doesnt get persuaded out of it.
Finally, there came a remark against my name on voter's list saying - 'Matadaan karanyas spashta nakaar' - 'Outright refusal to vote'!!
I was registered to have voted, my finger was painted, and still I didnt commit a moral crime by voting for a crook/a criminal.
I know people will be quick enough to dismiss this as juvenile, immature, and what not. They will be quick to tell me that this defeats the basic purpose of democracy if you refuse to vote. The wikipedia page on section 49-O mentions such criticisms by so-called 'experts' criticizing the negative voting proposal.
The first specific criticism is - "It is the duty of every citizen to educate himself/herself about the agenda of the candidates and to vote conscientiously for the candidate they think is better. The very purpose of an election is that a representative should be chosen by the people. Encouraging people not to express their preferred candidate goes against the intended purpose."
Think about it this way. In India, politics is by and large looked down upon. This is because of the presence of large number of crooks and criminals amongst the political masses. So the political spectrum remains devoid of the honests, capables and the 'good' guys. The general apathy of people towards voting speaks a lot for itself. So even in its current form, it will be very bold to say that people are 'choosing' their representatives, when the voting percentages are 40% and 50%. If negative voting is allowed, people will get a new, powerful and most importantly a >real< weapon in their hands, with which they can have a better go at having good leaders. As far as my information goes. the negative voting proposal also notes that if there happens a case where negative votes exceed the votes garnered by any of the candidates, those same candidates will not be allowed to appear for a re-election in that constituency. This makes perfect sense. This will teach the crooks a lesson and will give the deserving, well-educated leaders a new hope. So rather than going against the intended purpose, this negative voting proposal actually goes totally in line with the intended purpose.
The second criticism is that this will result in waste of public funds. How naive!!!
I mean what is costlier? Re-election? or choosing a criminal to guard and use the public fund?
They say, people get the kind of leaders they deserve. In India, getting the middle class to vote is key to 'deserving' better leaders and this radical step of allowing negative voting is a surefire way to make them feel positive about voting.
I just hope we are not kept waiting for this very important and much anticipated electoral reform, even in the next election.
