Empowering the voter

A step forward, but with some downsides

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. However, it is not as major as the decision to immediately disqualify a legislator on being criminally convicted. And it could have major downsides as well. Several constitutional experts have argued against it. Subhash C Kashyap, former secretary general of the Lok Sabha, has expressed the fear that it would make the electoral process "dysfunctional" and "defeat the purpose of holding elections". 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 Kisan Baburao Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal.

The Supreme Court's primary objective appeared to be to address a small inconsistency in the previous set-up. For a voter, the secrecy of her action is guaranteed by the Constitution - as long as the voter actually votes. If, instead, the voter wishes to come and vote - say, to ensure that impersonation does not fill the gap the absence would have caused - but also wishes to reject all the candidates, then she is required to ask for a form and fill it up. This, thus, constrains the right to a secret ballot. However, there is an instrumental desire at work behind this procedural change, too. The hope is that a high share of NOTA votes will signal the political parties to choose better candidates for fear of being exposed as irrelevant. Whether or not parties will do this - or even if there will ever be an embarrassingly high share of NOTA votes - is open to question. And what would happen if over 50 per cent of votes polled are accounted for by NOTA? Some argue that it would represent a clear rejection of the entire panel of candidates and so a fresh election, with fresh candidates, should be held. However, this is practically difficult - and perhaps it represents a misunderstanding of the Westminster system, in which local pluralities, not local majorities, matter.

The main objection to NOTA is that it is a negative act that is being imbued with unnecessary virtue. Normally, citizens are expected to vote and choose from among the candidates available under the given system. Nothing prevents an activist group - there are many today - from fielding a "good" candidate when in the run-up to the polls it sees a terrible slate emerging. If there is no level playing field between the "good and "bad" candidates, thanks to the latter's ability to spend more in violation of spending caps, then that is another direction for reform. Correcting election finance is a large enterprise, in which several players - the auditor, taxman and election commission observers - will have to play a more active role, which will require co-ordination among multiple authorities.