Dr. Ranjit Singh: Election or Rejection

Dr. Ranjit Singh: Election or Rejection: Last week in an old news paper, I was just glancing. Suddenly, my eyes stuck on the election results. The party which came to the power hav...

Right to Reject: A Constitutional Problem

Although in my last posting I have advocated for the right to reject. But now I would like to deviate from my earlier stand. I am worried that if this right is given to the Indian citizens then in one way it is beneficial to reject the candidates who are not suitable for the post.  There are several forces and some sections in the country those who are not willing to be the part of Indian Union. Now whenever, government have to prove the unity of the nation and it has to present a picture at the international front that all its member states and citizens are willing to be the part of Indian Union, it shows the polling rate in the country or in a particular region. This is regularly done in the context of Jammu and Kashmir or Some North Eastern states. Very often this became the headlines of the news that prime minister has said that people of a region have shown their faith in the Indian Constitution by casting their vote in the recent election.

But If this right to reject is given with a provision of “None of the Above” button in the voting machine, then can we imagine a scenario if the people of a region have rejected all of them and this rejection may not be to choose a better candidate but to show their disagreement towards the Indian Constitution and democracy. It will create a constitutional problem and then it will be threat to the country using the constitutional weapon of right to reject.

But if against each candidate instead of one button to select there are two button; one to select and one to reject just like ‘like’ and ‘unlike’ buttons in the facebook, the voters have the option to either elect one person by casting his/her vote in favour of one candidate or the same vote he/she can use to reject some candidate. If this is done then the aforementioned constitutional problem can be avoided and the problems of the current system will also be solved.

In this system, the candidate who will receive maximum number of votes to be selected will be declared as winner provided the number of votes rejecting him/her is lesser then the previous one. But in case a candidate who has received highest votes in his/her favour but the number of votes casted in his rejection is even more then that then the entire election should be cancelled and there will be the need for the fresh election.

This can be started on a trial basis at the Panchayat and municipality level elections and later on with certain modifications it should be implemented at all level. 

Election or Rejection

Last week in an old news paper, I was just glancing. Suddenly, my eyes stuck on the election results. The party which came to the power have successful in getting 34% of the casted votes, the 2^nd largest party was successful in getting 30% of the votes and 24% of the votes were begged by the third largest party. In one way, it is inferred that the party which has got highest votes should be declared winner. But if we look at the other side of the story, it is also inferred that the person getting 34% of the votes is rejected by the 66% of the people, it means 66% of the people dislike him/her. Similarly, the second party/person is being disliked by the 70% of the people and the third is being disliked by 76% of the voters. If we go for more in depth analysis, it is found that many numbers of voters, who either do not vote or vote to a candidate who is least disliked by him.

                These figures gives some indication to call our election process as not as a election process but a rejection process in the Indian democracy. And the candidate rejected by the least number of voters is declared as the winner and representative of the people. Although he/she is representing about one-third of the total voters. At the same time special mention is required for those voters who do not turns up for the voting and their number is quiet significant. It is almost half of the registered voters. In fact many of them do not vote because they dislike all the candidates. In this situation the number of people disliking the candidate further increases.

                In this context, if along with the name of all the candidates, the option ‘none of the above’ is given it is expected to reflect more clear public opinion. There will be many advantages. One is those who are wasting their votes by casting it in favour of a candidate who is least likely to win the election. These people are knowingly doing this because they are not getting any suitable candidate to vote. The ‘None of the above’ button in the EVM is most likely to attract these people. Secondly, those people who do not vote because they dislike all the candidates will most likely to be converted into the voters.

                Initially, it is expected that more unexpected things will happen like all the candidates may be rejected. But in the long run, it will bring more transparency and accountability in the system.

                Indian constitution has given us right to elect, but this right must be accompanied with the right to reject. If this happens then definitely India will be the biggest democracy of the world in the real sense.

                 

Why Government is not serious about Stopping corroption?

Today is the 11th day of ANNA's fast. Government is saying that they are worried about the ANNA's health. If it is so then why it has taken 11 day to pass the JANLOKPAL BILL proposed by team Anna. The matter is very simple. Government and all the political parties wants a LOKPAL who do not have any power. In fact, Government is trying to make a JOKEPAL and not LOKPAL.
These are the politicians only who are the most benefited by the corruption. And as usual nobody wants to make a law which is detrimental to themselves.

Regarding the inclusion of lower burocrecy within the perview of JANLOKPAL it is very simple that 90% of the bribes are taken at the lower levels and gradually pass on to the higher levels. Any person of ordinary intelligence could find that in maximum number of bribery cases the higher level officers do not directly deal with the MAYA rather ask their juniors to negotiate and after the job is done their share is given to them. If this level is included it will have substantial impact on the income levels of higher officers and politicians.

That is why, in the interest of all the politicians government is not willing to pass the JANLOKPAL BILL