[Reader-list] FW: Gujarat Governor returns bill on voting

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Bipin

My response (and it would be lengthy, please pardon me for that):

1) First of all, it's not undemocratic as you have claimed for the Gujarat
Governor to send the bill back to the Assembly. The Indian Constitution
gives a Governor the right to send any bill back to the Assembly if she/he
feel so, but they should specify their objections to the bill. The bill has
been sent back for reconsideration.

Further, the Indian Constitution stipulates that if the assembly again
passes the bill, the Governor has to sign the bill back within some time (I
am not sure but I think it's 15 days or so). Secondly, once this is done,
the bill has to go for assent to the President, where the Home Ministry
approves it and then the President notifies the bill, which is when any bill
becomes an act.

The Governor could have very well sat on the bill and done nothing. In that
case, no Chief Minister, not even Modi, could have done anything to get the
bill signed from the Governor, and that would have been undemocratic. But
this is not undemocratic. The bill has been sent for reconsideration based
on certain views of the Governor, and the Assembly can rightly reject those
views if it feels so as a whole.

2) The law which seeks compulsory voting is actually anti-democratic. It is
a right certainly for the people to vote, but their duty is not to
necessarily go out there and vote. The duty is a larger set of claims as I
see it. Firstly, the right to vote is given to people so that they can
express their views on who should rule them.

The duty which is inherent in the right to vote is not that people should
vote. It is in having a rational reason for why to vote (or why not to vote)
and vote in favor of whom. This means that if I choose not to vote, I must
have a reason as to why I have not voted. I need not mention that reason
before others (freedom of speech and expression), but I must answer myself
why I have not voted. If I have voted, I must have an answer for that too,
as also for the question that why I voted for a particular candidate, or why
did I express the option of not voting. These are questions one should
answer for oneself, and that too based on reason and rationality. If that is
lacking, that should be criticized. Instead of that it's wrong to criticize
not voting simply.

Even if I am forced to vote as per the act in question, whom should I vote
for? What do I get by not voting for any candidate as one of the rules
state? I have to mention my name and moreover, that name is public and not
secret. Moreover, if I don't believe in the Indian democratic system or feel
it has failed and failed most miserably (say I am a tribal who thinks so),
then why should I be forced to vote? When I think it's futile, and if it has
indeed proved futile inspite of my voting, what's the use of voting anyway?

3) The 40-50% voting is seen for Lok Sabha elections. Assembly elections in
India generally see a higher voter turnout of around 60-70%, while for
panchayat elections across the country, the voting percentages are quite
high, around 80-90%. Those who doubt it can check the figures on the
Election Commission site.

The question will obviously arise: why low voting for Lok Sabha election?
The answer is simple. Most of the people living in India, hardly get to see
the Lok Sabha Member of Parliament. May be in cities, but hardly in
villages. It is the panchayat, the gram sabha, and the local block officials
who are the most important, in villages, or the councillors in cities. May
be the MLA is important, but the Lok Sabha MP is hardly seen. The Indian
bureaucracy doesn't exist, and therefore it's important that for the people
to be able to secure basic services (from BPL cards to ensuring PDS shops
remaining open to getting access to govt. schemes), they should get a
favorable rule for this, a rule which can improve the functioning of the
system and ensure required goods and services for them. Since that is in the
panchayats, and the local governments, they feel they have a greater stake
in the local governments and not say the national government.

This is extremely ironic when we consider the fact that it's the central
government which has the highest power in terms of decision making and
finances, followed by the state and then the local governments. But the
people face the local government officials daily (the councillors or the
panchayat) so they feel easy officials can ensure greater development work
in their constituency.

We should be happy that for a central government, people vote in nos. of
around 40-50%, which is still quite good considering the size of our
electorate. It can be better, yes, and I believe it should be, importantly
because the central government has larger power than it should have. But
that doesn't ask for forced voting. That won't solve the problem. What will
is education and further understanding of the situation.

Therefore, for me, yes I would like the voting percentage to increase, not
because I believe voting is duty of all, but because the central government
has a larger impact on the people than they think it has, and therefore they
too should be able to influence it and get better representatives for
themselves if possible. Who knows, such education can also ensure the end of
hopeless coalition governments (like NDA and UPA), and also force political
parties to become more democratic!

Rakesh