Why NOTA is Not an Option

Over the next couple of months, India is going to witness the largest democratic exercise ever carried out in the world. Thanks to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India, the voters will get a unique option to vote saying that there is no option. There is a marginal excitement among voters about this no-option option, and, if the last round of assembly elections is an indicator, a small chunk of voters is likely to go out and exercise this option.  The significance of the NOTA vote is symbolic. It is an indication that the voters who chose this option are not lethargic or uninterested, they are listening to the political discourse around them and want to be an active participant, even though they don’t (or, can’t) approve of any of it. Therefore, they exercise their right to reject. Fair enough.

Having said that, let us now look beyond the obvious and try to understand the possible impact of NOTA on the outcome of the polls. Let’s not forget that this is perhaps the most keenly fought election in recent memory where the stakes are very high for the politicians as well as the voters. Since the recently concluded ad-hoc voter registration exercise generated rousing response, indications are that the voter turnout is likely to touch a new high. After all, these many people did not line up just to get the EPIC (Election Photo Identity Card) - a handy ID and address proof for random applications. In spite of the probable high turnout, due to multi-cornered contests in most constituencies, the winning margins are likely to be thin. And it is likely that the number of NOTA votes may be more that the winning margins in some constituencies.

So, it would be safe to say that NOTA may, in fact, impact the election results. This would certainly bring some cheers to the NOTA enthusiasts, who have till now been sold the story that NOTA votes do not matter. But the vital question is whether this possibility of impacting result is a reason enough to cast a NOTA vote. In my opinion, the answer is no.

We live in a country of various shortcomings. Roads are bad, hospitals and schools worse. Even the national capital region does not have 24*7 power and water. And the list continues. We are a part of the problem and perhaps a reflection of it too. So, in all walks of life, we have less than perfect options. For example, almost all the parents that I know have one or the other issue with the schools that they send their children to. Still, they have chosen to send their children to these schools. They wouldn’t (couldn’t?) wait till the time we had the best schools to send their wards for basic education. So, how can we decide to wait till the time we have the best politicians before we choose one? Would it not mean that we are less serious about our nation’s governance than, say, about our child’s education?

So, what do we do when we choose the school for our kid? Since there is no ‘best’ option around, we choose the ‘next best’. To say that the next best is not an option is, well, not an option. Our kids need education after all. Similarly, our nation needs a democratically elected government. But just like choosing the next best school, choosing the next best candidate is not an easy task as well. We will have to sift through the manifestos of political parties, their background and candidates’ affidavits, ask difficult questions, swallow some pride, and then admit that there is, in fact, an option! After all, these elections have offered the most options ever.

When we do not vote for the next best, we run the risk of letting that next best lose. So, we have allowed an otherwise good candidate to lose, because we didn’t like, say, his (or his party’s) views on saving tigers. Yes, tigers are important, but so are roads, power, education, health and foreign policy. A choice can never be a Pareto optimal. But a choice will always be better than a lack thereof.

An angst ridden rejection of all candidates in the elections may be an easy option, but it is certainly not the best option. Till the time we do not have a law which calls for  re-election if NOTA votes are the highest, NOTA votes will continue to be a mere ‘statement’. When the chosen ones falter on an issue or two (which all of them will), a NOTA voter will certainly have the satisfaction that he didn’t vote for that candidate. But is his satisfaction not akin to the satisfaction of a totally apathetic non-voter? After all, the only difference between the non-voter and the NOTA voter is the lazy walk to the polling booth that the NOTA voter chose to take on a bright sunny holiday. He might have fulfilled the Election Commission’s agenda to push the voting percentage up, but he failed to fulfil the nation’s agenda to choose a government.