Out of five States where elections were held, four voted out the incumbent government, and one returned the earlier with a larger majority completely in contrast to the predictions by the most accomplished Psephologists. Coalitions seemed the order of the day. Did coalitions really play a role in these elections? The Congress all but got a simple majority in two States and was easily the unchallenged crown prince in the third, without any conceivable coalition partner. The Telangana Rashtra Samiti had a pre poll arrangement with AIMIM and so was the Mizo National Front which is a part of NDA. However, the coalition partners were nothing more than sleeping partners of a company incorporated, at most providing some capital for the business of governance without an active part in managing it. The development is interesting, since a huge premium is being attached to coalition politics in the 2019 mega polls.
More than coalitions, “None of the above” (NOTA) seems to have played a decisive role in many constitutions across the States. Cumulatively NOTA registered around 15 lakh votes. Segregated, Rajasthan had 1.3% vote share, MP had 1.4% and Chhattisgarh polled 2.1%. Likewise, in MP, Congress and BJP had an almost equal 41% vote share, BSP was reduced to 5% with NOTA polling 5.5 lakhs. In Rajasthan, again Congress and BJP polled a similar 39%, with BSP’s share being 4%, and NOTA bagging a respectable 5 lakh votes. In fact, in Rajasthan, at least 15 constituencies polled more NOTA votes than the victory margin of the wining candidates. Its effect is even more marked with 22 constituencies felling four powerful BJP Ministers in MP.
The election results laid bare, point to some insights that cannot be wished away. The Congress got 114 seats with 40.9 per cent vote share while the BJP won 109 seats with 41 per cent vote share. The losing party got 0.1 percentage point more than the winning one. It is a matter of conjecture, if the Bahujan Samaj Party with 5% of vote share would have made a difference to the final outcome, if it had a pre-electoral alliance with either of the parties, since the vote share does not always translate into seats. In the state of Telangana, NOTA polled a little more than 2 lakh votes and finished even higher than the TJS and CPI, both members of the ‘Praja Kutami’.
The NOTA selection is gaining strength in each passing election as corroborated by the recent State elections. Its popularity is pan-India and its appeal is blind to caste, religion and gender. It has no poll manifesto, election symbol, candidate list or even a chief ministerial face. With each passing assembly election, However, it keeps getting more votes than most registered parties. Can a political party discount the NOTA effect anymore? NOTA surely seeks a larger debate.
NOTA is a ballot option to allow the voter to indicate disapproval of the candidates in a voting system. It is based on the principle that consent requires the ability to withhold consent in an election, just as they can by voting “No” on ballot preferences. P Sathasivam, the then Chief Justice of India had said, “If the right to vote is a statutory right, then the right to reject a candidate is a fundamental right of speech and expression under the Constitution”
Some interesting questions seek answers. Can NOTA be seen as a vote against the ruling party since they ran the government anyway? When the electorate has not been exposed to the others, how do they justify rejecting them? What happens when NOTA receives a majority of votes or when there are registered parties which receive lesser vote shares than NOTA and later in haste to align with the winning parties? Can we have a law to keep the office vacant in such cases? How prudent and legal it is, to have no effect whatsoever of NOTA, as is currently the case in India, where the next highest total wins regardless. If this was the correct thing to do, then why force people to exercise their franchise that manifests in NOTA? Is it not the same thing as not choosing to even visit the electoral booth to cast votes? Why not have NOTA listed first, then ask the parties to replace such candidates and continue with the election? If the same candidates stand under the same policies, is it possible that the electorate simply votes NOTA until the candidates change their policies to something that the electorate can vote for? Today, NOTA votes are not even considered for determining the forfeiture of deposits. If after all, the whole exercise is to cleanse the system, why not think out of box that may yield desired outcomes. The flip side is NOTA can even be used to massively rig elections.
An interesting case in point is that of the then Soviet Union elections of 1990 that led to its breakup. The Soviet version of NOTA, led to new elections with new candidates in 200 races of the 1,500 seat Congress of People’s Deputies, aided as it is, by massive rigging. More than 100 incumbents representing the Communist Party were defeated in the run-off, leading to Boris Yeltsin to later say, the option helped convince the people, they had real power.
Can we think of a blank ballot instead of NOTA with a rider that a party must have an amount of valid votes, above a certain threshold which every political party has to overcome to be fully considered? The parties over the threshold then get their seats, according to the highest averages method for allocating seats, and is thus a type of party-list proportional representation proposed by D’Hondt a Belgian Lawyer and a mathematician.
Not all is bad with NOTA. The political class may try bad-mouthing it. It is an investment that will yield long-term dividend. When NOTA gets more votes than any candidate, can the EC have the moral authority to announce anybody a winner? Will it not expedite electoral reforms? Though NOTA has caught the imagination of the people, the provision, as it stands today, can only bark and not bite. When I vote, I want my vote to be treated as any other. Not rejected as invalid or cast away as a cypher.