Rewiring Democracy: The Vote that failed.

An Old piece written for elections post NOTA.

For anyone who is concerned about the quality of governance in India, the recent Supreme Court judgement on “none of the above” (NOTA) option on the ballot paper is largely perceived as a game changer. The first reactions then were an immense sense of déjàvua watershed moment. The future of how we govern ourselves appears redefined or so that we expect. A huge optimism is building up in that the coming general elections will be far promising than the previous once as political parties are likely to act responsibly realising the consequences and embarrassment in the wake of significant use of this option. Some even argue that unprecedented voting in just concluded 5 assembly elections was because of this new button on the ballots. The provision did attract voters in all the states that went to votes. Possibly these were those who otherwise never stepped out to vote. The percentage of voters who chose this option in four states are Chhattisgarh (3 percent), Rajasthan (2 percent) and Delhi, Madhya Pradesh (1 percent) each.

The important question, though, is not if NOTA is a game changer but what kind of democratic values the biggest democracy wants to showcase and what role will we citizens play in shaping that identity. Seen from that perspective, there’s only one relevant question: Are we citizens content at politician bashing at every available opportunity renewed through the new weapon of NOTA or do we aspire to find some solution?

The Supreme Court in enforcing NOTA though was not intending to inject anything more dramatic than what is already contained in Rule 49(0) of the Election Rules. Through its pronouncement, it just conferred the right to vote in “secrecy” interpreting the right to expression as the fundamental right of speech and expression under the Constitution. Seen on the world map, NOTA on the ballots is not a new concept in democratic countries. At least 13 other nations follow the practice of "electronic abstention". Notable amongst them are France, Brazil, Greece, Ukraine, Spain, Chile and Colombia. Russia had such an option on its ballots but was abolished in 2006. Bangladesh introduced this option in 2008. Pakistan introduced this for the 2013 elections but later the Election Commission of Pakistan rejected this.

As the euphoria continues, 2014 election armed with NOTA is expected to be lot more interesting. So much so that it will throw open both our maturity as well as our deep rooted helplessness. Time only will tell the worth of the words of the ruling:  "When the political parties will realise that a large number of people are expressing their disapproval with the candidates being put up by them, gradually there will be a systemic change and the parties will be forced to accept the will of the people." The core idea or the philosophy behind the judgement thus appears to be an attempt to prevent further de-legitimisation of the Indian democracy. And NOTA is expected to give it the right push.

NOTA’s promise to clean the system or its absence, it will not be an exaggeration to conclude that India’s future is at stake. Trust deficit looms large with few days passing by without some protest. Somewhere the institutions have been dented. And hence there is a larger question that haunts our present day democracy that has seemingly reached an abyss. Do we intend to be “just counted” or will the system of democracy “count on us” to clean the mess we perceive and sometimes believe to be in.

Those who care about democracy and good governance should not find solace in NOTA. Instead they should resolve to Promise to Vote to marginalise the non-worthy sending the same message to the Politicians in a positive constructive way. The mind-set that is Voting is a right should graduate to a mind-set of Voting is a privilege that is to be used carefully and judiciously as a state of an ideal setup is nothing more than an idealism. Let us not cheer about our newly acquired power to show our no confidence much, because the kind of laziness we show while going to vote if is any indicator and if we continue the lethargy all neutral votes will go for the “none of the above” and the remaining would be divided into party cadets defeating the very purpose. The greater good is the idea of voting in large numbers to the best possible rather than pursuing a negative vengeance. The eagerness to vote would be the game changer and not the feeling of vengeance to an institution that is passing through a phase of a huge trust deficits. Elections are meant to elect and not reject. In a democracy each one of us counts and must stand up to be counted. To give up is to accept defeat of the good over evil, disdain over hope.

M V Rajeev Gowda, in a recent article “Don’t cripple clean politicians” convincingly argues “As more sections of society actively contribute and participate, the political system will undergo a transformation. Then, the much-celebrated NOTA and 'right to reject' will become mere footnotes in history. We will see inclusive, empowered parties, citizen candidates and positive politics”. Those who win the elections on such a positive vote will dispel the negativity that brings undue cheers to NOTA. The politicians are intelligent and would eventually serve what we demand and this is the essence of democracy. Till then it’s only the elite who will rule in the name of the people through various hues of vote banks.  It is time to check mate political shortfalls like trust deficits, democracy deficits and governance deficits, through citizenship engagement and not otherwise. Let the expression “clean Politician” become a reality and not an oxymoron.

Of the various academic researches on waning political participation, the Michigan model (1960) emphasizes the importance of partisanship or enduring party loyalties in voting behaviour. According to this model, strong partisan feelings contribute to electoral participation. Voters go to the polling booth to express their preferences towards parties and make their favoured parties win. Therefore, the more intense electoral competition between rival parties is, the more people go to vote.  We can make this competition more meaningful when our enthusiasm is not drained by the feeling of helplessness that we feel about the control we have over our political masters.

Public engagement can begin with staying informed about what is going around in our neighbourhoods and the policies that are important for personal benefits. In the information age, not being aware has consequences. The politicians to be fair enough do not deserve our revile when we compare the efforts they take in galvanising groups in contrast to the laziness we show in stepping out to vote. They in fact work harder than we do in expressing solidarity when it means business. It is high time we stop make a farce of our democracy. We shouldn't wait for some magical power to end all our miseries. We are the ones who have the power to bring about a change. Democracy in other words is vox populi, or the voice of the people. Let silence, callousness or helplessness not snatch the power that lies in the hands of this one-billion-plus country. “Clean Politicians" The words no more will be an oxymoron, if we Promise to Vote for self as well as our children’s future.

The Three Questions

Published: Daily Outlook Afghanistan 20.01.2014
http://outlookafghanistan.net/topics.php?post_id=9160

One day it occurred to a King that if he only knew the answers to three questions, he would never fail in any matter. The questions were: What is the best time to do something? Who are the most important people to work with? What is the most important thing to do at any given time?

The Emperor issued a decree throughout his kingdom announcing that whoever could answer these questions would receive a great reward. Many made their way to the palace at once, each person with a different answer. The Emperor however, was not pleased with any of the answers, and no reward was given.

After several nights, the Emperor decided to visit a hermit who lived up on the mountain and was said to be an enlightened man. Once before him he pleaded for answer to three questions that none could give a satisfying reply. With folded hands he begged to know: the best time to do something, the most important people to work with and the most important job at any times?

The present moment is the only time over which any one has control. The most important person is always the person with whom you are, who is right before you. The most important pursuit is making that person, the one standing by your side, happy, for that alone is the pursuit of life. That was Leo Tolstoy telling us eternal wisdom in most simple words.

Let us ask three similar questions a nation or a country faces?

What do citizens expect from the Government? What does the Government expect from the citizens? Between these expectations how can one marry the possibility where each side comes out a winner?

A very simple answer from the view of citizens is good governance. From the government’s perspective it is continuous support from the citizens so that the government of the day remains in power almost for indefinite period. Both sides are demanding something which is rational and possibly definitely achievable. None of the side seemingly is asking for the moon. The product being demanded is good governance and the price is patronage. Where is the problem then?

Seen from the “Government of the day” perspective, simple as it may appear the idea of “good governance” in itself throws immense challenges. It has different meanings for different segments of the society. While the rural areas crave for basic infrastructure, on the urban areas wish list is up gradation of existing infrastructure that can shoulder the increasing pressure of continuous invasion of migrating population that strain its infrastructure. Rural areas would be probably contended with decent employment opportunities, basic health, sanitation and access to primary education and controlled inflation on the whole. The urban centres on the other hand are more concerned about law and order, access to economic opportunities through expanding industries, trade, commerce and a quality of life that would enable them to become national assets and engines of economic growth. They are also concerned about environmental degradation, clean water and air, social security and the likes.

The challenges before the Government are numerous. For instances they come in the hues of integration of the poor and marginalized, equitable distribution of National wealth, transparency and civic engagement, and capacity building to say the least. On the social and political fronts Governments face groups who are proponents of transfer of certain powers and responsibilities and decision-making close to the scene of action and their devolution, arguing merits of larger and more meaningful participation by citizens in the development process.

There is something about the human personality that craves freedom, creativity, autonomy and human dignity. Governments are tempted to have everything controlled and dictated and to have a system where people do not challenge their leaders and express their minds at the drop of hat. Here lies the contradiction between those who govern and those who are governed. Sometimes even if the Governments wish to be inclusive, interest groups blind their ways. This leads to dissent often culminating into different shades of violence. Somewhere down the line the Government’s communication fails. Further, Governments rarely have sufficient resources and technology to collect desegregated local level data and maintain a database. Hence, data on various aspects and performance parameters is difficult to collect. In the absence of such dynamic data they lose the feel of the changing ground realities.

The challenge of the “Government of the day” therefore, is to respond to sentiments in the markets, in living rooms, near tea stalls, on the roads, in the restaurants and all the places where people converse. Challenge is to create space and voice to all its stakeholders through inclusive decision-making, since such decision-making is at the heart of good governance and brings governments close to its innate wish of remaining in power. The policy making in a country committed to the rule of law and democratic principles therefore faces the challenge of involving a large number of people who represent the entire population, and hence, making all of the voices heard and assimilated.

Democracy in some way helps solve this dilemma. However, the tendency is to equate democracy with one day affair of elections - this is not so. Voters go to the polls to express their preferences towards parties and make their favoured parties and individual candidates win once in five years or whatever period of time for term of office a Government follows. This should not end here. Citizens should make this more meaningful by participating in day today affairs. Public engagement can begin with staying informed about what is going around in our neighbourhoods and the policies that are important at household level. In the information age, not being aware has consequences.

The politicians on the other hand being intelligent learners should keep their ears tuned. In doing so, they can shape the agenda with their immense power of galvanising masses. Once this is done a two-way communication system is established. The strength of this two way communication system is the secret behind staying in power by the governments of the day and ensuring “good governance” for the good of citizens.

Sadly, everybody wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die. But this has to change because if we continue waiting for some magical power to end our miseries, that will never happen -in any case magic gives temporary elation. We ourselves must change, and see the sense in doing so. Voting wholeheartedly in elections is one such beginning towards owning a system that shapes our present as well as the future. Next in line is the internalization of the virtue of tolerance to divergent views among groups that appreciate the trade-offs towards a goal of common good. This applies to both the Politicians as well as Citizens. In nutshell, making Politics as representative as possible is the job of the Politician while making governance as participative as possible is the duty of the citizens.

Here lie the answers to our questions that promise a perfect happy marriage between citizens and the government.