NOTA- is it time to write obituary!

NOTA- is it time to write obituary

NOTA (None Of The Above- option), which created lot of fuss and anxiety during assembly elections, few months back in the fag end of 2013, has become a lackluster entity in the current parliamentary election, 2014. Much acclaimed and proclaimed carte blanche to the voters, as a right to deny support to all candidates by voting NOTA, if necessary, became a non-entity in no time. What contributed to its early death is a million dollar question. Can this be attributed to deluge of promising candidates in the fray or something missing in conception and implementation of NOTA?

I am strong supported of the latter idea. Last time when NOTA was being popularized and publicized as a healthy alternative choice to the voters, it was hard for me to keep my optimism alive. Somehow, I had strong feeling that it was wrongly constructed and designed to ensure its untimely demise. I did not mind thinking loud in whatever possible forum. I argued vehemently with NOTA protagonists that they must question its effectiveness before engaging in popularizing it or else they will land up frustrated. There was still chance to raise voice calling for some amendment. However, they argued that it was beginning and not the end, and onset obviously is fraught with challenges- to perceive the concept and comprehend its utility. But, I begged to differ posing them unequivocal questions, asking them to convince me the validity of NOTA.

NOTA was no better than invalid votes, which are mercilessly rejected due to foolishness of a voter to fail in the process of casting it properly, by following the most simple voting procedure. It was no better than stamping the archaic ballot paper and throwing it in a dustbin, which would be documented as used paper but without relevance. Only difference to this analogy of brute unconstitutional act was that NOTA was relieved of any legal hassles. NOTA was no threat to any candidate, whatsoever, to prove impeccably that they honestly meant business. ‘Mind your business’ mockery shifted from candidates to voters, due to improper application of such a powerful tool in a vibrant democracy in India. What could have been an enviable mechanism to compel parties to pick upright and trustworthy candidates went regrettably waste. Philosophically, even if all but one voter in a constituency voted for NOTA, the candidate with that ‘one vote’ would be adjudged as winning candidate. What else could be more mockery of the voters’ power to select and elect in electoral system. The significance of NOTA remained confined to numbers, as an experiment to evaluate the disenchantment of voters in the contesting candidates. The numbers were to be used for further research to bring change in future.

Globally, dragging the voters to polling booths is a compelling challenge. In India it has cost public exchequer huge amount in advertisement to woo.  In such dry situation it was mistakenly presumed that people would be self-motivated to drag their feet to booths to press EVM button on NOTA option to stamp their discontent. I always wondered the optimism entrenched in the decision makers, in either of the pillars of democracy, who over-ambitiously banked on enthusiasm of group who cried aloud for additional option of NOTA, and overrated its spillover to all sections of voting community. Unless, a voter believes that his participation is meaningful and contributes for change for better, personal or national, they would no way like to engage. And, rightly they proved their point, by debating vociferously on the importance of choice on streets and forums, but abstaining from taking pains to vote for irrelevant experimental option. And sadly, this parliamentary election had no NOTA option enlisted for debate. It will lie low and vanish as irrelevant if no thought is given to its utility. The bus is not yet missed, and we need not write obituary and lay it to rest, but instead amend folly and reconstitute its importance to be tested in assembly elections coming in near future.

Well! I can be blamed here for spreading cynicism by whole-heartedly promoting NOTA, which  some consider to be negativism. However, in reality I am inviting people to participate, but with a call to provide level playing ground. My above critical discussion is to depict that the choice given to voters is not equal, which is unethical, illegal and unconstitutional. I believe that the percentage of voting will swell once the voters are convinced that their choice, irrespective of what, in favor of a candidate or totally rejecting all, is valued in this democracy. Let absenteeism be not a substitute to denial of acceptance of a candidate, as NOTA clearly mentions- Choice for None Of The Above.