“None of the above” option for voters is a significant electoral reform

“None of the above” option for voters is a significant electoral reform

FOR

The decision by the Supreme Court to allow voters the option to indicate a preference for none of the candidates featuring on a ballot paper by clicking on a “none of the above” (NOTA) button can be seen as a step forward towards an ever more legitimate and accountable electoral system.

In a vibrant democracy, the voter must be given an opportunity to choose ‘none of the above’ (NOTA) button, which will indeed compel the political parties to nominate a sound candidate. According to the Supreme Court “Such an option gives the voter the right to express his disapproval with the kind of candidates that are being put up by the political parties. When 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 political parties will be forced to accept the will of the people and field candidates who are known for their integrity.”

No candidate should be declared elected if ‘NOTA’ gets most votes and a fresh election should be organised.

The “right to reject” political candidates has long been a desired objective of elements in civil society, and was a major secondary ambition of the anti-corruption agitation led by Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal.

The ‘NOTA’ verdict also addresses an inconsistency in the previous set-up. For a voter, the secrecy of her action is guaranteed by the Constitution. Currently, if a voter wishes to reject all the candidates, then she is required to ask for a form and fill it up. This is not only cumbersome but also constrains the right to a secret ballot. In urban areas, secrecy doesn’t matter but in rural areas it does.

NOTA is surely a better option than the more stringent ‘right to recall’ practiced in a few small countries such as Switzerland where citizens can force a parliamentarian to face recall vote if a minimum percentage of voters’ support is obtained in a signature campaign. In India, the right to recall could prove even more counter-productive. Mustering the minimum support in a signature campaign to trigger the referendum would not be difficult. But then, the election calendar which is already fairly packed would become a day-to-day event: A signature campaign in some constituency or the other, on top of by-elections on the death or resignation of candidates, would always be going on, keeping the Election Commission more than busy.

AGAINST

The The ‘NOTA’ judgment is not going to result in any substantial electoral reform. Also, it will not affect the selection of candidates by political parties. It is nothing more than a fashionable suggestion emanating from armchair intellectuals.

Elections are held to elect the representatives of the people. The process of NOTA goes contrary to the electoral process of the country. In the current climate, where people say all the candidates are tainted, if the suggestion of NOTA is accepted by all the voters all over the country, then the result will be that no one will get elected. It defeats the purpose of holding elections. It may make democracy impossible to function and we may face a situation of anarchy.

‘NOTA’ does not serve any purpose but needlessly complicates the task of Election Commission. Those not wanting to vote for any candidate are unlikely to visiting a polling booth, stand in a queue and then vote NOTA. They would rather stay at home. Also, even in the current system, a form can be filled with the returning officer if a voter wants to put on record that he wishes to vote for no one. Why then ‘NOTA’?

The Court believes that the right to vote is meaningless unless voters are allowed to say they aren’t enamoured of any of the candidates in the fray. As a result, their selection of candidates will reflect more seriousness. This is because voters who do not bestir themselves to vote would now exercise their franchise, albeit negative. Impressive though this logic may be, it is not as if we are going to see a sudden surge of voters coming out in droves and thronging the voting booths, enamoured by the new power in their hands. The current voter apathy is not necessarily out of disillusionment with candidates; it is also born of laziness. Compulsory voting could be a better way of improving voter participation in the polling process.

At present, under the Representation of the People Act, the returning officer is duty-bound to declare the candidate who secures the maximum number of votes as the winner. ‘NOTA’ is not a candidate. Under the present law there can be no re-poll. This issue would have to go back to Parliament.

There are other difficulties that might also arise. For instance, in Naxalite-dominated areas people could be forced to exercise the NOTA option. They could be coerced into pressing the NOTA button by those who are ideologically opposed to democracy. This is an issue that needs to be carefully debated and discussed.

There are other complex issues generated by ‘NOTA’. How many times will elections be held if NOTA is always more than the dominant candidate? How long will the Election Commission keep the model code of conduct (MCC) in operation? If a candidate is defeated by NOTA, can he or she contest again?

Studies have shown that voters are paid money before the election, the sale of liquor increases, etc. Then, in spite of the election laws, voters are ferried to the polling booth by political parties. Most often, voters end up voting for caste or community vote banks. Under such circumstances, it is naive to believe that voting is based on ideology, principles or merit of the candidate. ‘NOTA’ is unlikely to make any difference to the current state of elections in this country.

A recent study of poll results of Parliament and state Assemblies found that on an average, 70 per cent of all those elected had more votes cast against them, than for them. NOTA will further worsen voter cynicism about elections.

‘NOTA’ is another instance of the judiciary trespassing into the domain of the executive. Parliament makes laws and courts to examine them for their constitutional validity. Both have to remain within their jurisdictional limit, otherwise, a conflict arises. If the court starts taking over legislative work then, it is overreaching its powers.

GD: The third front is a viable alternative to Congress & BJP

While those in favour say the coalitions led by the two national parties as a failure; those against say the idea of third front is nothing but an opportunistic alliance that has never done the country any good in the past

FOR

A viable third alternative seems more and more feasible today as the people have realised that the Congress and the BJP are at best a substitute for one another.

The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA)-2 government has exhausted its mandate without living up to it. Its previous term (2004-09) and that of BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in 1999-2003 was no better. There is unprecedented political, economic and moral crisis in the country. The value of Indian rupee has declined to its lowest level ever. The prices of essential commodities are spiralling and we have near doubledigit inflation. The government makes no effort to contain it.

On the other hand, the government is brazenly in favour of multinational companies and has no compunction about subjecting the aam aadmi to suffering, and burdening the people through indirect taxes of different kinds. Tax exemptions are doled out to corporate houses.

While the country’s economy has clocked impressive growth rates in recent years, the condition of the poor and the underprivileged has worsened. Corruption has grown by leaps and bounds. The common man has seen through the game. The government is suffering from a loss of credibility and moral authority. It has failed to deliver and is in power by default.

The BJP-led NDA is little different from the UPA. Both are two faces of the same coin. Their economic policy, outlook on fiscal and monetary matters, and leanings on foreign policy are near-identical. Moreover, the BJP is in complete disarray. If the Congress is in power today, it is because the BJP is at sixes and sevens.

In the emerging situation, we do not visualise either the Congress-led UPA or the BJP-led NDA coming to power in the next general election. There is strong likelihood of a realignment of political forces which can lead to change in the balance of forces in the country.

The CPI and other Left parties are striving to project a viable third alternative. Such an alternative seems more and more real as it is being realised that the Congress and the BJP are at best a substitute for one another. The policies they pursue are the same. They cannot offer change that would better the lives of ordinary people.

There is definitely a possibility of a third alternative emerging in 2014 as an alternative to both the Congress and the BJP. It is evident that the days of one-party rule have ended. Today no political party can win the election on its own or form a government on its own.

The Left and regional forces have a role to play here and do have space in such a scenario. Regional parties have become a force to reckon with because of the failure of both BJP and Congress led coalitions. They understand the aspirations and concerns of people better than national ones.

People have already seen governments led by the Congress as well as the BJP, and know from experience that such governments do not work in their interest. What people want to see now is a government with an alternative outlook which is not led by the Congress or the BJP. Such a coalition is on the cards.

AGAINST

The idea of the so-called third front as a vaible alternative is not new and keeps up propping from time to time especially by parties such as the Left that can’t cohabit with both the Congress and the BJP. The futility of this idea has been amply demonstrated by their failure in the past.

One only needs to go into their history to look at their future. They have come together before and even formed governments, but the personal ambitions of their leaders have let them down. The country has been denied stability under their rule. Their governments have crashed within months of their formation. The first third front experiment in recent times started when Janata Dal leader and former Congressman Vishwanath Pratap Singh became the Prime Minister in December 1989. Internal bickering between collation leaders saw the fall of his government in November 1990. The second third front government led by HD Deve Gowda lasted from June 1996 to April 1997. The third and the last third front government led by Inder Kumar Gujral (April 1997 – March 1998) again fell before completing one year in office.

Reasons for their failure are not difficult to find. These parties are diverse and do not share a national perspective.

If regional parties come together, it will be for the sake of power alone. These parties are diverse and do not share a common ideology or grand perspective which is important in pursuing a goal. The regional parties have failed to serve the people when given a chance. The so-called ‘third front’ which has regional parties and the leftists as its constituents, has no agenda other than opposition to the Congress and the BJP. They lack a national perspective and are led by leaders whose provincial mindset hinders them from looking beyond the needs of their respective states. The prime objective is to grab as much of central funds as possible for wasteful expenditure in the name of development. The present situation is even more precarious for the regional forces and the state parties lack a leader who enjoys national acceptability and can knit them together. Even if they get the numbers after 2014 Lok Sabha elections, the regional satraps will fight one another for leadership. Any compromise is likely to be short-lived as shown by the tenures of V. P Singh, H. D. Deve Gowda and I. K. Gujral. In contrast, coalitions led by national parties have given stability at the centre. The BJP-led NDA completed its full term in 2003 followed by another two full terms by Congress-led UPA (2004-2014).

Government should increase tax rate on the ‘super-rich’

FOR	AGAINTS
·         The case for increasing the tax on the super-rich has to be seen in the context of the potential fiscal crisis the country finds itself in. At a time when the need to reduce the fiscal deficit is widely acknowledged, the issue is one of how much each section of society will contribute to this task. The official effort to improve targeting of subsidies, including food subsidies, makes it clear that even those who are only marginally above the poverty line should be asked to pay more for their food. ·         When the poorest of the middle classes are contributing tothe task of reducing the fiscal deficit, it is difficult not to ask the super-rich to do their bit. If the definition of super-rich and the rate of surcharge are done with care some of those paying the surcharge may not even notice the extra burden. ·         We need to note that the relatively modest rates of taxation of the rich over the last decade and a half have not really led to a massive increase in tax payers. Income tax payers account for just about 3 per cent of India’s population. If lower tax rates have not attracted too many additional tax payers why should we assume that higher rates would drive the existing ones away? It may well be that those who pay taxes today have no way of evading it, and a surcharge on the super-rich is not going to change that.	·         The Chairman of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, C. Rangarajan’s recent remarks suggesting imposition of a surcharge, if not creating a separate higher marginal income tax slab, on the ‘superrich’ seems to have been intended to test the waters more than anything else. ·         If taxes on the super-rich are raised wouldn’t it encourage them to simply evade them? The higher rates could then be more than offset by the increased evasion, leading to lower collections. ·         The proposal, in any case, makes no sense at this stage. It only disturbs a successful model of stable and moderate tax rates adopted in India, going back to the 1997-98 Budget of somebody, who also happens to be the Finance Minister today. It was P.Chidambaram’s ‘Dream Budget’ that lowered the personal income tax rates from 15, 30 and 40 per cent to the current slabs of 10, 20 and 30 per cent. Moreover, it slashed the corporate tax rate for domestic companies from 40 to 35 per . The direction was clearly towards a regime of moderate and stable rates.That approach has paid rich dividends. From a level of Rs 31,500 crore in 1996-97, the Centre’s direct taxes revenues have almost touched Rs 5 lakh crore in 2011-12. A 17 times jump in 15 years, with corporate tax collections growing 20 times (from Rs 16,250 crore to Rs 3,27,000 crore) and personal income tax by over 11 times (from Rs 15,000 crore to Rs 1,72,000 crore)!
	·         A new tax for the ‘super-rich’ is unlikely to garner anything substantial in terms of revenues. But it will unnecessarily restore an element of unpredictability and arbitrariness that was the hallmark of the old preliberalisation era.