The results of the recently concluded Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu are out and it has thrown up a result which may look to the average voter out there surprising yet not so surprising. Surprising, since it is the first time in as many decades that an incumbent government, successfully fought and prevailed over a perceived anti-incumbency wave. Not so surprising because it is again one of those Dravidian majors that has retained power alternatively for close to half century. I thought I will post my musings as an open letter to the Election Commission of India.
Dear Election Commission,
You went on a campaign to educate and create an awareness to get citizens to vote. The slated aim was to ensure one hundred percent turnout on election date at the polling booths. The campaign at times exceeded other political parties campaigns both in grandiose and reach though it failed to achieve the desired results. But I feel the whole campaign was an exercise in absurdity. Before you throw the brick bats let me explain why I feel so.
A very popular industrialist, marketeer, pioneer and messiah, also known as Steve Jobs, who managed the company called Apple, which for many years remained and still counted as the greatest company by market capitalization and brand, once famously quipped, "people don't know what they want until you show it to them". Though it might seem rude and offensive it is a true fact which no one can deny. The sheer number of sales records, devices from Apple still breaks, stand testimony to this fact.
Forget Jobs, even the 'permanent' Chief Minister, Ms. Jayalalitha, who is popularly called Amma (mother), keeps telling, "A mother knows what her children needs" likening the electorate to children, possibly stupid, unruly, tantrum throwing ones. And the election result kinda proves that she might be right. The hard fact is - People don't know what they want, period. Not everyone out there is a political analyst who spends hours reading newspapers and analyzing news, decoding business and policy decisions and making informed opinions all the time keeping their own prejudices and biases at bay. So stop treating them as one and stop begging them to vote. Mere participation will not change things, meaningful participation of informed, literate electorate would make the difference. An informed, literate electorate doesn't need the campaign, they vote on their own will.
Please concentrate on quality and not quantity.
The next big useless effort seems to be preventing cash for votes. While it was a noble effort it was clearly failing. It is and was an open secret that cash or gifts or both were given in exchange for votes and you, the commission, couldn't prevent it. When you can't regulate it, open it up to the market. The market has its own unique way to bring about an equilibrium between the demand and supply. Afterall that's the cornerstone of Capitalism and being the largest capitalist democracy we must embrace the free markets. Auction and bidding of votes over an ecommerce platform would have ensured both the seller and the buyer got maximum value out of the transaction. It also helps in the price discovery for whoever is curious and helps in transparency. How? Well those bidders who are desperate outbid others and those constituencies with exploitable resources - land, water, flora and fauna including humans usually command a premium.
How about spending the money you did on '100% vote' on rewarding cash to those who would turn in people who try to bribe voters? Just keep their identity anonymous and gift them more than political parties offer them.
Politicians are by far the most efficient and possibly pioneers in the field of data sciences all without having very good understanding of mathematics or statistics. They know numbers that allow a government to stand and the numbers that they need to win. They know the numbers that are to be given a good governance and the number that needs to be bribed. They calculate the cost to deliver good governance and the cost to bribe and can choose the efficient amongst the two, which always seems to be the latter. They know the numbers of vote banks and how effectively to consolidate them.
While big data can open up new avenues in industries, help in social programs such as preventive medicine and healthcare, in politics it could open a can of worms. The very fact that there are Naxals and Terrorists in a democracy proves that a significant population has no trust in the democratic system. And this deficit of trust is because of the lack of concern for the marginalized in the society. A politician can get away by just serving the interest of a community - religious, caste, gender or anything under which a group of people can identify themselves - and still win every time. All he or she has to do is deliver goodies to the community, consolidate their votes, buy some for a price and make sure the rest of the vote share is fragmented enough to not pose a significant threat and voila, we have what is come to be known as the vote bank.
Can you prevent the formation of such vote banks? You can possibly follow your sibling, Competition Commission of India's ideas in preventing such cartelizations.
And finally, some old ideas of mine. Why don't you ban parties and party memberships? Parties and membership affect rational decision making and bias free opinion making. Instead people can form issue based groupings. These kind of groups would be better placed to address challenges and would work more transparently. With parties these days, even honest leaders and members are forced to toe the party line even in issues they have deeply divergent views.
Thanks for NOTA,
A Voter.
Dear Election Commission,
You went on a campaign to educate and create an awareness to get citizens to vote. The slated aim was to ensure one hundred percent turnout on election date at the polling booths. The campaign at times exceeded other political parties campaigns both in grandiose and reach though it failed to achieve the desired results. But I feel the whole campaign was an exercise in absurdity. Before you throw the brick bats let me explain why I feel so.
A very popular industrialist, marketeer, pioneer and messiah, also known as Steve Jobs, who managed the company called Apple, which for many years remained and still counted as the greatest company by market capitalization and brand, once famously quipped, "people don't know what they want until you show it to them". Though it might seem rude and offensive it is a true fact which no one can deny. The sheer number of sales records, devices from Apple still breaks, stand testimony to this fact.
Forget Jobs, even the 'permanent' Chief Minister, Ms. Jayalalitha, who is popularly called Amma (mother), keeps telling, "A mother knows what her children needs" likening the electorate to children, possibly stupid, unruly, tantrum throwing ones. And the election result kinda proves that she might be right. The hard fact is - People don't know what they want, period. Not everyone out there is a political analyst who spends hours reading newspapers and analyzing news, decoding business and policy decisions and making informed opinions all the time keeping their own prejudices and biases at bay. So stop treating them as one and stop begging them to vote. Mere participation will not change things, meaningful participation of informed, literate electorate would make the difference. An informed, literate electorate doesn't need the campaign, they vote on their own will.
Please concentrate on quality and not quantity.
The next big useless effort seems to be preventing cash for votes. While it was a noble effort it was clearly failing. It is and was an open secret that cash or gifts or both were given in exchange for votes and you, the commission, couldn't prevent it. When you can't regulate it, open it up to the market. The market has its own unique way to bring about an equilibrium between the demand and supply. Afterall that's the cornerstone of Capitalism and being the largest capitalist democracy we must embrace the free markets. Auction and bidding of votes over an ecommerce platform would have ensured both the seller and the buyer got maximum value out of the transaction. It also helps in the price discovery for whoever is curious and helps in transparency. How? Well those bidders who are desperate outbid others and those constituencies with exploitable resources - land, water, flora and fauna including humans usually command a premium.
How about spending the money you did on '100% vote' on rewarding cash to those who would turn in people who try to bribe voters? Just keep their identity anonymous and gift them more than political parties offer them.
Politicians are by far the most efficient and possibly pioneers in the field of data sciences all without having very good understanding of mathematics or statistics. They know numbers that allow a government to stand and the numbers that they need to win. They know the numbers that are to be given a good governance and the number that needs to be bribed. They calculate the cost to deliver good governance and the cost to bribe and can choose the efficient amongst the two, which always seems to be the latter. They know the numbers of vote banks and how effectively to consolidate them.
While big data can open up new avenues in industries, help in social programs such as preventive medicine and healthcare, in politics it could open a can of worms. The very fact that there are Naxals and Terrorists in a democracy proves that a significant population has no trust in the democratic system. And this deficit of trust is because of the lack of concern for the marginalized in the society. A politician can get away by just serving the interest of a community - religious, caste, gender or anything under which a group of people can identify themselves - and still win every time. All he or she has to do is deliver goodies to the community, consolidate their votes, buy some for a price and make sure the rest of the vote share is fragmented enough to not pose a significant threat and voila, we have what is come to be known as the vote bank.
Can you prevent the formation of such vote banks? You can possibly follow your sibling, Competition Commission of India's ideas in preventing such cartelizations.
And finally, some old ideas of mine. Why don't you ban parties and party memberships? Parties and membership affect rational decision making and bias free opinion making. Instead people can form issue based groupings. These kind of groups would be better placed to address challenges and would work more transparently. With parties these days, even honest leaders and members are forced to toe the party line even in issues they have deeply divergent views.
Thanks for NOTA,
A Voter.
No comments:
Post a Comment