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

[Kshmendra Kaul]

Dear Rakesh
 
Your PT 1 is on Governor's Assent for a Bill. Some errors in details but the principle is generally correct.
 
There is one glaring error though. The Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent. He/She can only return the Bill for reconsideration on suggested amendments. If still passed by the Houses, the Governor has no option but to sign.
 
Where Powers of the High Court are affected, the Governor can send it to the President etc etc
 
Your PT 3 has interesting opinions on the reasons for varying poll percentages in Lok Sabha, Assembly and Panchayat Elections.
 
It is your PT 2 that intrigues me. I find your arguments against making voting compulsory as somewhat misplaced and misdirected.
 
If derivation of Laws from the Constitution and application through the Executive is of critical importance to every citizen (and it surely is) and if the Political-Processes are essential for that, then it would only be sensible and progressive to encourage and in fact secure the participation of every citizen in that process. Citizens must be pro-actively and fully involved in having their say, in who it is going to be, that will be entrusted with Governance.
 
That making voting compulsory will be an infringement of Rights or is "Anti-Democratic" would be a strange statement to make. 
 
Your stated reasons for why a person would not want to vote are defeatist. 
 
If the 'system' is not delivering for me then is it better for me to continue to get screwed by the 'system' by my non-participation and ceding controls to others or is it better for me to get involved in the 'system' and try and send as representatives in the Legislatures such people who will address my critical needs.
 
I am ignoring here the Anarchist attitude of seeking to destroy everything and presuming some good will come out of that. Though, even in such attitudes (as also in Maoism/Naxalism) there is no getting away from Governance, howsoever varied might be the nature of proposed system of peoples' representation.
 
Of course if you think that the Anarchist route is the only one left for people (whether in the current Maoist/Naxal influence areas or elsewhere) then I would be wasting your and my time in speaking to you. 
 
You have already referred to the 49-O Rule (not vote in favour of any candidate). If the proposed Electoral Reform in this connection goes through, it would be excellent. That is amending 49-O to NEGATIVE VOTE. If the "Negative Votes" are in majority then the Election is to be re-held. 
 
With "Compulsory Voting" and "Negative Voting" together, it would be an excellent way of getting (to some extent) such people into the Legislatures who have the Trust & Confidence of the people reposed in them.
 
(I am ignoring here the impediments caused by the current idiotic First-Past-The-Post system. That is another story)
 
There could be no disagreement that whatever option is used by a citizen, it should remain confidential and connecting an option to an individual should be indecipherable .
 
Please understand that Democracy in India is in it's infancy. It would be unreasonable to expect that 63 years would put firmly in place a fully credible and functional Peoples' Representation System especially with India's background of (reduced but continuing) feudal structures and barriers-to-mobility because of (since-long) entrenched prejudices/discriminations/disinterests.
 
I do not want to argue over this but wanted to state my opinion just as you did. But I shall read your comments (if any) with great interest
 
Kshmendra


--- On Thu, 4/22/10, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] FW: Gujarat Governor returns bill on voting
To: "Bipin Trivedi" <aliens at dataone.in>
Cc: "sarai-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Thursday, April 22, 2010, 6:06 PM


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
_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>