Political Diary

New Delhi, 22 October 2011

Right To Reject, Recall

WE, THE PEOPLE WILL DECIDE

By Poonam I Kaushish

In this Anna season of anti-corruption and cleansing up the rotten system of governance, Diwali will bring no cheers to our netagan. Our MPs should heed the writing on the wall, and hear the war cry in the sound of the fire crackers. The Gandhian has sparked off an electoral pataka – the people’s right to recall and right to reject the so-called jan sevaks. Sic! Will our leaders get singed?   

Clearly, the Government not wanting a repeat of Hazare’s street power for the Jan Lokpal Bill, has convened an all-Party meeting on electoral reforms. Namely, to discuss Hazare’s demand for the rights to reject and recall elected representatives, notwithstanding, Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi’s view that grant of these rights would de-stabilise the country.

Asserts a former Election Commissioner, “In a multi-Party democracy with a first-past-the post election system the winner doesn’t necessarily get 51% of the votes, most of the time he gets far less. An inevitable consequence of the right to recall would be for the losers to join hands and get the winner recalled so that a fresh election is called which would only create instability.”

Those opposing this assert it could undermine the democratic rights of a number of individuals and communities in a pluralist society such as ours. Can a candidate be recalled when the possibility of his/her being elected with 50 per cent plus 1 of the votes cast is so marginal? It could be misused as a tool in the hands of the dominant castes against candidates belonging to the weaker sections, and women. Even if only 10 per cent of voters can petition for the recall of their MLA or MP, verifying signatures can pose immense practical difficulties.

Further, the recall system might deter policy decisions to take harsh measures. As having the leeway of a 5-year term gives representatives the right to take a long-term view without the fear of being recalled. Given that most Governments take tough decisions in their first couple of years.

But those who plum for this argue that during elections, a candidate is elected to represent the people in his constituency. There is no system for the people to hold the representative accountable during the term of office. The recall system provides an opportunity to do so. As the voting pattern in Parliament and State Assemblies show most times it is by voice votes. There is no record of what an individual MP or MLA said and voted in crucial debates, budgetary allocations, raising constituency issues, or even whether he was present in the House at the time.

They cite the option of ‘recall' has already been tried out at the panchayat levels in Punjab in 1994, Madhya Pradesh 2000, Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra 2004and Bihar in 2010. In Chhattisgarh, the process can be initiated only after three-fourths of the panchayat members ask for a recall election. In Bihar, two-thirds of the registered voters of a constituency have to sign a petition. The recall referendum exists also in Switzerland, US, UK, Canada, Venezuela et al.

On the subject of right to reject, one can argue that the concept of negative voting undermines democracy as polls are meant to elect candidates not reject them. But, what does one do when faced with incompetent and corrupt leaders who only think of self?  Why should the aam aadmi be put through the agony of electing men of straw in the first place?

And what if the ruling Party misuses the ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) button for deliberately not allowing the Opposition candidate to win? What kind of election is it that one candidate ‘bribes more’ than his rivals? What kind of a democracy do we have which confronts the electorate with a Hobson’s choice?

Is it any wonder that voter turnout has for years been diminishing with each election? It is no secret that voters are forced to send unworthy people to Parliament because they don’t have a choice. We have 150 MPs who have criminal records. Less said the better of the criminal-politico nexus in State Assemblies. 

In fact, the Election Commission had first mooted this proposal in 2001 along-with measures to check criminalization of politics and to improve transparency in regard to the antecedents of candidates via affidavits filed by them while filing nominations and in regard to conduct of political parties

Towards that end, the Commission averred that all it needed was an amendment of Rules 22 and 49B of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and adding a proviso that in the ballot paper which lists all the names of the candidates, there should be a column after the name of the last candidate which says “None of the Above”. This would enable a voter to reject all the candidates in the constituency.

However, this was nixed by a writ petition pending before the Supreme Court since 2004. In February 2009, a three-judge Supreme Court bench referred the matter to the Constitutional bench citing that the case involves the issue of Fundamental Rights. It has been two years and the Court has yet not taken a decision.

But whether these proposals ever see the light of day is debatable against the backdrop that the  Congress has made plain that the right to recall elected representatives and reject candidates is "not practical" as "50 per cent of people do not vote" in the country while the BJP said the issue should be given serious consideration.

What, then, is the alternative? Should the voters remain resigned to those who get elected by hook or by crook (muscle and money), but remain silent in Parliament and State Assembly either because they couldn’t care less about their constituents or don’t think Parliamentary discourse is relevant in their winnability quotient.

Indeed, if voters are given the right to reject all the candidates competing for their vote, there would be no need for any provision for their recall. Right now people sell their votes to candidates who, they know, are not trustworthy, nothing but exploitation of poverty of the masses.

In sum, what do we want our politicians to be? The simple question remains core to the debate over electoral reforms. It is about expectations, and the desire for a qualitative shift from the present rot. Whereby, our netagan should not be a fait accompli for the electorate and must be made accountable.

For starters, an MP or MLA should be educated, not be a criminal and in tune with his constituents’ problems. Moreover, he should be above sectarian interests, honest and accessible. Undeniably, these would go a long way in reducing corruption.

Undoubtedly the recall idea keeps the threat dangling over our leaders head that they could lose their ‘power’ if they don’t deliver. Succinctly, they cannot take the voters for granted anymore. And, need to be squeaky clean. The time has come to clinch it. And make the aam janata the true masters of their destiny. ----- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)