As I discuss with friends and talk about voting for the best candidate available, say Captain Gopinath who is contesting as an independent, the common refrain is "but then he is not going to win". I ask myself, if I vote for someone, he doesn't win, is it going to be a personal loss? On the contrary, if I vote for Mr. X and he does win, he is definitely not going to come and personally thank me or do me a personal favor. In the ideal sense, when you vote, the democracy/system has already won. Anyway, there should be no personal gain/loss when the candidate you vote wins or loses. Yes, in practice, personal favors like booze, money, clothes form an essential part of electioneering strategy - but if you agree with that strategy, you wouldn't be reading this blog, I wouldn't be writing it.
So either way, how does it matter? Or even if I don't vote, does it matter?
Following are my thoughts in exercising one's choice. The last option being the best in my opinion.
- Worst thing to do is not to vote. Whether I like it or not, I'm part of this system and this is my only chance to make a difference, in whatever insignificant manner - to elect those representatives who are part of the leadership team. If I don't vote, it is like not being part of the HR review, when asked to fill the annual feedback form, in a big IT company and deciding to keep quiet and not fill the form at all, because it is just a statistical survey and nothing significant will happen just because of an individual response. In both cases, doing nothing is probably the worst thing, more so in terms of the elections.
- Once you have a voter ID and are part of the electoral rolls - it would have taken some effort on your part to come to this stage in this process, it is probably better to complete the process by exercising your fundamental right. But then, there is the much talked individual right to exercise the rule 49-0 on election day. Briefly speaking, on election day, you walk to the assigned election booth, identify yourself on the list with the election officer, ask him to give a form where you would indicate that you prefer to vote for none of the candidates. Since you have been identified, by the election officer and your name has been marked, no one else can vote instead of you and misuse your right. That, you have decided not to vote for anyone ("No one deserves my vote"), is probably a big ego kick for yourself. If and when people do this in significant numbers, in multiple cities, there is probably an impact in the distant future. I consider this more of a negative tactic, but at least it is within the purview of the system/process. There are some blogs/opinion that this tactic if employed by majority (over 50% of the electorate), there will be a re-election and the candidates will be disqualified in the next re-election. I haven't found a reliable constitution source to confirm that - so it is probably just a "theory". Yes, if this tactic is employed by a community as a form of protest, it could have some impact. As compared to yester years when 500, 1000 citizens used to stand for elections to make a point/protest, resulting a ballot paper the size of a news paper, this idea of 49-0 is a much more sensible, less expensive option to voice protests.
- Next comes the option of voting for a party. One could think of who could make the best PM, which party/coalition could give the most stable government and vote for that candidate representing that party/coalition. Every party has its own hidden agenda. There is definitely money and muscle power with every party appointed nominee. Though it is not a wrong thing to vote for a party candidate, think the alternative. Irrespective of the candidate's credentials whether he/she has a criminal background, has a fair bit of education or not, without checking his antecedents, would you blindly vote for him/her just because of the party? Probably not. What if you have a situation where you want a party you desperately want to win has nominated a candidate in your constituency who has a reprehensible character? Would you still vote for him/her. It used to be said some years back "Even a donkey standing for an election in this City from Congress party will win". I think the Indian population has matured much beyond that kind of thinking and as an individual, we need to grow beyond voting for a party be it Congress/BJP or third or fourth fronts, without considering the candidate. On the contrary, if there was an extremly qualified candidate, extremly likable candidate with exactly the kind of values you represent being put up by a political party you abhor. Would you vote for him? Probably this is more palatable, but you would think lot harder than the other alternative (Great party, lousy candidate).
- So, the final option is "Vote for the best candidate". Again, should one vote for the best candidate from amongst national/local parties or should one consider independents as well? I think the best option is to Vote for the best candidate including independents. In my ideal system, there would be different sets of people, each set of people belonging to a party or independents with their idealogy, values, principles - there would be internal selection process (like the primaries in the United States) and most likely winnable candidate from these sets would contest the elections. Unfortunately our system does not run like that. People muscle their way to the top either through money or defection or just using there geneology or parentage and some how seek party nominations. It is high time, parties themselves thought about internal 'democracy' before being part of a democratic setup as a government. The only way for me as a citizen to force parties to think in this manner is to "Vote for the best candidate", even if he/she happens to be a losing one. These days the margins of winning are so low that eventually parties will wake up to this reality that when they lose elections, it is because they didn't have the right candidate in the first place. The criteria for the "best candidate" is your own - for example, education, history, social committment, oratory skills, economic background, economic status, political leanings etc. You be the judge of definining those metric standards, you be the judge of scoring all available candidates against those common metrics and as per your judgement/criteria/evaluation, select your best candidate.
In many consitutencies, the choice of available "good" candidates is so poor that one probably could use the elimination rule to discount candidates you would NOT want to vote and narrow it down to very few. Occasionally, there happens to be a constitutency, like this election of 2009 for Bangalore South, where there are "fairly" good number of candidates. BJP's Ananth Kumar, Congress Krishna Byre gowda, JD(S) - Prof Radhakrishna, Independent Capt. Gopinath. There are few more, but the above is my personal favorites, "my short list". Guess, if during every election, if every constituency had a relatively "good but tough" list of candidates to pick from, like the present Bangalore South, our country would have a much better leadership team and that would be true victory for Democracy. To sort and pick from such a tough list(or a constrained list), we could use a Candidate evaluation matrix to select the best candidate based on our individual values and corresponding candidate scores.
By the way, have you checked and compared, what exactly is the function of a state representing MLA or your representative MP at the national level? How would you measure his/her performance in that function? You will be surprized to know that their primary function is not to do mundane things like building roads, inaugurating fly overs or dispersing loans. It is the ability to think and contribute at a macro level. A national MP should have a more macro level thinking and execution capabilities as compared to a state level MLA compared to a corporator. I got the above 'gyan' when I interacted with Krishna Byregowda, the present Bangalore South Congress candidate, when I got an opportunity to meet and discuss with him in my friend's house while in Minnesota in a very private setting. He also shared his helplessness while dealing with his constituents when they rush to him asking favors and explained the impracticality of sticking to principles in politics. So, do consider the previous performances, current qualifications and your metric standards for a given role and other relevant factors(including the party they come from), while deciding the best candidate. If he/she happens to be from a political party, so be it. By the way, my current evaluation for Bangalore south based on the evaluation matrix gave some results that surprized even myself. Although Krishna Byregowda is the only candidate I know at close quarters, Capt. Gopinath seems to pip him at the post (as per my criteria and current evaluation). But then, I could still go and vote for Mr. Vatal Nagaraj of Kannada Paksha on election day - couldn't I?
After all, our democracy is "by the people, for the people, from the people". It is definitely not "by the party, for the party, from the party". Happy voting !
