NOTA, FTW !

A friend of mine recently drew my attention to a Frontline magazine article, albeit a dated one, in which Subash Kashyap, the former General Secretary of the Lok Sabha, talks about a few noted Supreme Court directives of that time. NOTA or None of the above option was one among them in which Mr. Kashyap dwells and expresses his views extensively.

NOTA, for the uninitiated, allows the disapproval of all the candidates in a voting list by the voter.

Though Mr. Kashyap has many valid points, he is not entirely convincing, at least to me. I am trying to list down the why.

NOTA helps to reduce Confirmation Bias

Confirmation Bias is the tendency to search or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. So when I vote for a particular party in an election, I would probably not critically analyze their policies for the term they are in power. Thus I fail my duty as a citizen in my democratic right to elect without bias and arrive at a rational decision in the consecutive elections.

I had written previously too on confirmation bias and how we need to get rid of the concept of party membership. Probably shows my bias in continually supporting the existence of confirmation bias.

NOTA helps in a more informed, non-acrimonious electorate

This is linked to the first point on confirmation bias. A lot of people without confirmation bias means a lot of well informed people who tend to share their knowledge through debates and editorials making the overall electorate aware of their political masters and their shortcomings. Journalists, for example, can use NOTA while voting so that they are not swayed by party loyalty while covering news.

We see a lot of personality driven leadership in parties today. And when the leadership fails in its duty it falls on its followers to defend the indefensible. NOTA would help in easing such constraints and help enjoy and involve oneself in debates based on what one believes in rather than party or personality loyalty.

NOTA helps in bypassing compulsory voting

Mr. Kashyap made an important point in the interview that NOTA was already allowed even before its introduction. The voter can reject the candidates by simply not voting. However, with recent talks of introduction of compulsory voting by governments, NOTA would probably be the only option through which the voter can reject all candidates.

Moreover, in this age when pseudo-nationalists run amok in every street corner, an unstained indelible ink fingered individual post election date is sacrilegious. NOTA could very well save the voter from the self proclaimed nationalists.

NOTA thus is uniquely placed to provide certain benefits and hence I see it go FTW!

You can't handle the truth!

Just the other day I was watching the classic military-courtroom thriller of 1992, A Few Good Men.

This courtroom scene from the movie is a favorite for many including me. "You can't handle the truth", Colonel Jessup starts and goes on to tell why he feels the death of Santiago, while tragic, saved lives.

I couldn't help but consider this an analogy to the situation the Government of India (GoI) is in today after the two high profile scams - 2G spectrum and coal blocks . Not that I blame them, for even in the movie Colonel Jessup comes across as a tough master who merely removed Santiago, the rotten apple who could have spoiled the barrel.

This is probably what the GoI would speak if not for the fear of assault by Opposition/Civil society/Media/Judiciary on it. And when I mean GoI it means any party that sits on the captain seat and steers the country. 

"Son, we live in a world that is globalized, and the companies that drives the economy need to have their raw materials (Coal.?!) and resources (2G spectrum.?!). Who's gonna give it? You? You, Mr. Anna Hazare? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for lost revenue, and you curse the Government. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That the scams, while tragic, probably saved jobs in the dire economic situation. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, drives the economy and in turn your lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on the driver seat, you need me on that seat. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very financial freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you to become a politician/bureaucrat and design policies. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

The original quote however is here.

We might hang people like Colonel Jessup for human rights violation but when in difficult situation like a war, it is people like him whom we look to. I am not justifying or defending the government, it is just that - Power corrupts, deal with it, losers (anti-corruption brigade)!

Another of my favorite quote comes to my mind, from the movie Die another day. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter! Not all of them can be satisfied and everyone has their defenses and justifications!