Elections in India, as an essential part
of democratic process, have some unjustifiable aspects. I want the
process to be rectified and modified in the interest of people of India.
Suggestion #1
We more than often see during general elections that a person fights election from more than one constituency. Constitutionally one can do so but the practice appears unjustifiable. Generally, big names of political parties prefer this option when they smell defeat from a constituency. I believe that…
A CANDIDATE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTEST FROM THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE HIS/HER NAME HAS BEEN REGISTERED AS VOTER
If a candidate wins from, say, two constituencies, he/she has to vacate one of them in a very short period because constitutionally a person cannot represent two constituencies simultaneously in Local Municipal corporation, State Assembly, and the Parliament. We have by-election in the constituency vacated by such elected person. This lays additional burden on the Election Commission as well as the people of that constituency. The money spent on election process comes from the tax paid by the citizens of India. Thus, there is additional burden on the tax-payer as the amount spent on such useless procedures is non-productive.
I cannot understand why such useless, expensive and unjustifiable(from all angles) options have been generated. All political parties should come forward to endorse the concept that
We more than often see during general elections that a person fights election from more than one constituency. Constitutionally one can do so but the practice appears unjustifiable. Generally, big names of political parties prefer this option when they smell defeat from a constituency. I believe that…
If a candidate wins from, say, two constituencies, he/she has to vacate one of them in a very short period because constitutionally a person cannot represent two constituencies simultaneously in Local Municipal corporation, State Assembly, and the Parliament. We have by-election in the constituency vacated by such elected person. This lays additional burden on the Election Commission as well as the people of that constituency. The money spent on election process comes from the tax paid by the citizens of India. Thus, there is additional burden on the tax-payer as the amount spent on such useless procedures is non-productive.
I cannot understand why such useless, expensive and unjustifiable(from all angles) options have been generated. All political parties should come forward to endorse the concept that
‘ONE PERSON CAN CONTEST FROM ONLY ONE CONSTITUENCY AT A
TIME’ in the interest of the nation and its democracy.
Suggestion #2
We witness, rather helplessly, scores of independent candidates during each election. If one studies the statistics of all elections, I am sure, one would find that most of the independent candidates lose the election. Rarely an independent candidate can collect victorious support on his own. Majority of them not only lose the election but they also lose their deposit money.
Indian constitution gives the right to contest election to all eligible citizens without being attached to any political party. There is nothing wrong in it, but this right is misused by some individuals as well as some political parties. Since the requirements to file the nomination paper are not stringent and the deposit amount is nominal (affordable) some people use election as a means to become publicly known. Some individuals use their candidature as a means to bargain with the party candidates. This happens when the candidature of a person as an independent poses a potential threat to a party candidate by eroding a fraction of the party’s support base. The party candidate, in such circumstances, has to enter a bargain (by paying handsome amount of money to the candidate) as a result of which the independent candidate declares his support to the party candidate publicly and makes requests to vote for that candidate.
Often the political parties themselves bring such independent candidates to fight the election with a view to reducing the vote share of the candidate from the opposite party. The so called independent candidate is in reality a party-man supported from behind the curtain by the party so that he stays in the fray till end and helps the party candidate by obtaining votes from the share of the opposite party’s candidate.
All above aspects are political but I am more concerned with the problems such independent candidates give rise to. For the Election Commission, a large number of candidates makes the situation more difficult to handle. Besides administrative problems the Commission has additional burden on its electoral expenses. I remember an example in which more than 300 candidates had filed nomination in an assembly constituency in Karnataka. The ballet paper was actually a booklet which not only created problems for the Election Commission but also to the voters.
In the interest of democracy and the nation, I suggest that :
A CANDIDATE, IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS/HER PARTY AFFILIATION, SHOULD BE BARRED FROM FIGHTING ANY ELECTION FOR NEXT SIX YEARS IF HE/SHE LOSES HIS/HER DEPOSIT IN AN ELECTION.
We witness, rather helplessly, scores of independent candidates during each election. If one studies the statistics of all elections, I am sure, one would find that most of the independent candidates lose the election. Rarely an independent candidate can collect victorious support on his own. Majority of them not only lose the election but they also lose their deposit money.
Indian constitution gives the right to contest election to all eligible citizens without being attached to any political party. There is nothing wrong in it, but this right is misused by some individuals as well as some political parties. Since the requirements to file the nomination paper are not stringent and the deposit amount is nominal (affordable) some people use election as a means to become publicly known. Some individuals use their candidature as a means to bargain with the party candidates. This happens when the candidature of a person as an independent poses a potential threat to a party candidate by eroding a fraction of the party’s support base. The party candidate, in such circumstances, has to enter a bargain (by paying handsome amount of money to the candidate) as a result of which the independent candidate declares his support to the party candidate publicly and makes requests to vote for that candidate.
Often the political parties themselves bring such independent candidates to fight the election with a view to reducing the vote share of the candidate from the opposite party. The so called independent candidate is in reality a party-man supported from behind the curtain by the party so that he stays in the fray till end and helps the party candidate by obtaining votes from the share of the opposite party’s candidate.
All above aspects are political but I am more concerned with the problems such independent candidates give rise to. For the Election Commission, a large number of candidates makes the situation more difficult to handle. Besides administrative problems the Commission has additional burden on its electoral expenses. I remember an example in which more than 300 candidates had filed nomination in an assembly constituency in Karnataka. The ballet paper was actually a booklet which not only created problems for the Election Commission but also to the voters.
In the interest of democracy and the nation, I suggest that :
A CANDIDATE, IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS/HER PARTY AFFILIATION, SHOULD BE BARRED FROM FIGHTING ANY ELECTION FOR NEXT SIX YEARS IF HE/SHE LOSES HIS/HER DEPOSIT IN AN ELECTION.
Suggestion #3
Every citizen of India has the right to contest elections for Municipal Councils, State assemblies and the Parliament if he/she can fulfill legal requirements for that. At times we find persons without proper education entering the election fray only because they have backing of a particular political party. Such persons, if elected, can do little during their tenure as far as policy matters are concerned. Their only job is to raise their finger in favour of or against some point being debated in the house because they are told to do so by the party leader. They do not have even superficial knowledge of the issue being debated. Such members often do not even have proper knowledge of the geography, demography and history of the constituency they represent. This is not in the interest of the people of this country as far as progress and policy-making are concerned.
I firmly believe that :
THERE MUST BE SOME MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION MANDATORY FOR A PERSON TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR CONTESTING AN ELECTION
so that the democracy of this country is strengthened.
However, the million-dollar question is : WILL ALL POLITICAL PARTIES BE WISE ENOUGH TO REACH A CONSENSUS AS REGARDS MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION?
Suggestion #4
Every election witnesses partial voting; sometimes well below 50% voters exercising their right. During the heat of elections we all debate the question of poor voter turnout and scores of suggestions are put forward from all corners of India aiming at increasing poll percentage. Once the elections are over, we forget poor voting till next election as if it were a non-issue.
One most widely uttered suggestion is “Compulsory Voting”. Can voting be made mandatory ? Can people be forced to vote irrespective of their desire to do so ? What are the limitations of “mandatory voting”? Before we think about voting being made compulsory let us first think what the reasons for poor voter turnout can be. A person may not vote because he/she…
Some of the above are circumstantial limitations for which a person cannot be blamed if he/she does not exercise the right to vote.
I think the concept of “Compulsory Voting” is not justifiable as one may not be in a position to vote due to the reasons which are genuine and out of his/her control. There may be some alternative approach by which a strong opinion in favour of maximum possible voting be created nation-wide. All political parties and the Election Commission along with some NGOs should take an initiative right from now in this direction to work out a people-friendly policy which encourages people to vote in a positive manner rather than the so-called “Compulsory Voting”.
Every citizen of India has the right to contest elections for Municipal Councils, State assemblies and the Parliament if he/she can fulfill legal requirements for that. At times we find persons without proper education entering the election fray only because they have backing of a particular political party. Such persons, if elected, can do little during their tenure as far as policy matters are concerned. Their only job is to raise their finger in favour of or against some point being debated in the house because they are told to do so by the party leader. They do not have even superficial knowledge of the issue being debated. Such members often do not even have proper knowledge of the geography, demography and history of the constituency they represent. This is not in the interest of the people of this country as far as progress and policy-making are concerned.
I firmly believe that :
THERE MUST BE SOME MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION MANDATORY FOR A PERSON TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR CONTESTING AN ELECTION
so that the democracy of this country is strengthened.
However, the million-dollar question is : WILL ALL POLITICAL PARTIES BE WISE ENOUGH TO REACH A CONSENSUS AS REGARDS MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION?
Suggestion #4
Every election witnesses partial voting; sometimes well below 50% voters exercising their right. During the heat of elections we all debate the question of poor voter turnout and scores of suggestions are put forward from all corners of India aiming at increasing poll percentage. Once the elections are over, we forget poor voting till next election as if it were a non-issue.
One most widely uttered suggestion is “Compulsory Voting”. Can voting be made mandatory ? Can people be forced to vote irrespective of their desire to do so ? What are the limitations of “mandatory voting”? Before we think about voting being made compulsory let us first think what the reasons for poor voter turnout can be. A person may not vote because he/she…
- …is physically unfit.
- …is not in his/her constituency on the day of election.
- …is socially engaged.
- …does not find, from the list of candidates, a proper person to vote for.
- …feels that his/her vote is not going to make much difference as the constituency has been largely dominated by a person/ a political party for last several elections.
- …feels that all political parties/candidates have one common minimum programme which excludes common man’s interest once they get elected/ get power.
- …is tired of voting frequently.
Some of the above are circumstantial limitations for which a person cannot be blamed if he/she does not exercise the right to vote.
I think the concept of “Compulsory Voting” is not justifiable as one may not be in a position to vote due to the reasons which are genuine and out of his/her control. There may be some alternative approach by which a strong opinion in favour of maximum possible voting be created nation-wide. All political parties and the Election Commission along with some NGOs should take an initiative right from now in this direction to work out a people-friendly policy which encourages people to vote in a positive manner rather than the so-called “Compulsory Voting”.
No comments:
Post a Comment