The Supreme Court of India has held that henceforth citizens should be offered a "Right to Reject" in elections, whereby a person can choose to cast his vote in favour of rejecting all candidates contesting that election.
While I have already heard a lot of people welcoming the move, does it really represent an improvement in the electoral process or is that just wishful thinking largely brought about by frustration with the present system, wherein any change is welcomed without really analyzing its implications?
How the Right to Reject is going to be implemented is not yet clear, but essentially there are 2 variants. In the first version, if more than 50 per cent of voters choose the "none of the above" option, the election will have to be held again with a new roster of candidates. In the second version, the election will be re-held if the number choosing the "none of the above" option exceeds the number of votes gathered by the leading candidate.
What problem are we attempting to solve by this? The most common response is that it absolves the voter from choosing between equally bad or maybe bad and worse candidates. I'm not entirely sure. Just because voters reject a set of candidates does not automatically mean that a second set has enhanced their choice or produced something closer to the idea of their real preferences, since even though the second set of candidates is distinct from the first, the eligibility for being able to contest remains the same. Moreover, in Indian democracy political parties have much more importance than individual MPs. Most voters have a political party rather than a specific candidate in mind while casting their vote. So, no matter how good a candidate fielded by a certain party may be, one may not vote for him or her because one doesn't like the party or agree with its ideology.
Therefore, I believe while reforms to the electoral process are needed, the focus needs to be on party systems and election finance. Eligibility should also be looked at, and candidates who have been convicted by a court of law should not be allowed to contest. Simultaneous reforms to the criminal justice system wherein convictions are secured in a reasonable amount of time will go a long way in making this effective. On the other hand, the right to reject, to me, appears to be wishful thinking with an elitist angle, which potentially creates the burden of significant additional expenditure on the election process in an essentially poor country, without adding any tangible value to the process.
While I have already heard a lot of people welcoming the move, does it really represent an improvement in the electoral process or is that just wishful thinking largely brought about by frustration with the present system, wherein any change is welcomed without really analyzing its implications?
How the Right to Reject is going to be implemented is not yet clear, but essentially there are 2 variants. In the first version, if more than 50 per cent of voters choose the "none of the above" option, the election will have to be held again with a new roster of candidates. In the second version, the election will be re-held if the number choosing the "none of the above" option exceeds the number of votes gathered by the leading candidate.
What problem are we attempting to solve by this? The most common response is that it absolves the voter from choosing between equally bad or maybe bad and worse candidates. I'm not entirely sure. Just because voters reject a set of candidates does not automatically mean that a second set has enhanced their choice or produced something closer to the idea of their real preferences, since even though the second set of candidates is distinct from the first, the eligibility for being able to contest remains the same. Moreover, in Indian democracy political parties have much more importance than individual MPs. Most voters have a political party rather than a specific candidate in mind while casting their vote. So, no matter how good a candidate fielded by a certain party may be, one may not vote for him or her because one doesn't like the party or agree with its ideology.
Therefore, I believe while reforms to the electoral process are needed, the focus needs to be on party systems and election finance. Eligibility should also be looked at, and candidates who have been convicted by a court of law should not be allowed to contest. Simultaneous reforms to the criminal justice system wherein convictions are secured in a reasonable amount of time will go a long way in making this effective. On the other hand, the right to reject, to me, appears to be wishful thinking with an elitist angle, which potentially creates the burden of significant additional expenditure on the election process in an essentially poor country, without adding any tangible value to the process.
