Response to Comments: It is Okay to Not Vote

on April 3, 2009

Kartikey Sehgal

response

(Secularism implies no religious prejudice) 

A short introduction about the condition of secularism–no party is ‘secular’–followed by responses to comments on the story It is Okay to Not Vote. 

Introduction: The Present

In 1984, Congress was involved in the murder of Sikhs after the killing of Indira Gandhi.
More than twenty years later, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh from the Congress party apologised to the Sikhs and the nation for the acts of the Congress.

In 2002, BJP was involved in the murder of Muslims. BJP’s Atal Behari Vajpayee and L K Advani apologised for the “blot” on the nation.

Quite clearly, if the next Prime Minister happens to be from the BJP and like Manmohan he/she apologises for his party’s acts then the account is settled.

No political party is secular and secularism is not the ideal on which you must cast your vote. If BJP and its allies are accused of communalism then the Congress is no less. The difference lies in projection and intelligence. The Congress is subtle in its actions; they are smarter than the BJP, which appears brash and unnecessarily provocative. Congress can hide its actions from the people unlike the BJP.

For instance, the Jammu and Kashmir land problem was the creation of Congress. BJP foolishly involved itself in the problem after taking a lead from Congress’s vote bank politics. Somehow, Congress’s role in the problem was not brought out among the people by the media.

On the day Varun Gandhi was arrested for speeches against a community, Jagdish Tytler was given a ‘clean chit’ by the CBI for his involvement in the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. Once again the status-quo is maintained.

It is not prudent to vote on secularism.

Responses to Comments

However, I feel that every individual has at least some reason why he/she is voting.
I came across someone who said he is voting simply because he doesn’t want the other oppressive party to win

Response: Never said do-not-vote. But it is fine if you do not want to vote.
 Unfortunately the party you may vote for could turn out to be more oppressive than the one you didn’t vote for. At present it is not possible to make out which party is better. As mentioned in the introduction, no party is secular. 


It is important and absolutely essential to vote, irrespective of irritating ads. When you say “People have realised that they have been voting because they were lied to about policies”, I think we have let it become that way. The educated middle and upper classes just don’t care these days, that is what the line hides I think.

Response: If governance is good, then you would want to vote out of desire.
Perhaps the rich class doesn’t care. In any case they are mush lesser in number than the uneducated and lower income-group masses. The poor strive for the basics and not for the nation. It’s just that the rich have got the basics. One day, the poor may become like the rich and then everybody would vote for the nation. Precisely; instead of asking people to vote or be ashamed before election dates, the ‘NGOs and friends’ should ask the government (any) to work towards decreasing economic disparity in the five years given to them.

 

1) let us say a party ‘abcd’…bad politics, bad politicians. This party has its voting pools in places and its chauvinists will vote in huge numbers. When we don’t vote against this party, we simply ALLOW it to get an easy majority. Bad democracy, bad policies.

Response: So do vote for the good party. But people who do not find goodness in any party may not vote. There shouldn’t be any compulsion or a sense of patriotism in voting.
In addition: By chauvinists you probably mean supporters. Considering that the party is ‘bad’, the supporters would want to vote for it because they identify with its policies and they would not need any TV ads to inspire them. To counter that you have to find a good party and identify with its policies so that you too vote out of your own will. Now it is tough to find that good party. In your opinion, one party may be slightly better than other parties but they all have corrupt politicians and murder cases against them.

 

2) the poor in India will vote for the party offering them the smallest improvement, the slightest hope. 3 kgs of rice. 1 television. For them survival is important, but hardly do they realise that they need bigger and better things. They must be educated and it is the educated groups’ responsibility to make sure a party that has thorough policies for betterment of the poor be chosen.

Response: For 60 plus years no political party educated them. It is their job to do so.
The party with better policies is better for the people. If people find such a party then they may vote for it. If they don’t then they may not. Some political party may be better than the others but not brilliant enough to inspire confidence in people. These uninspired people may not vote and this is their prerogative.

 

We are complacent and we can make the difference by voting. Or by CHOOSING not to vote by dropping not the elections, but by using the “no-vote” option AT THE ELECTIONS.

Response: Last heard, the following stood true: If out of 100 people, 80 choose ‘no-vote’, and 15 choose Party A, then Party A forms the government. No-vote does not stop politicians from coming to power.
Without the ‘no-vote’ option, most of the 80 people could have wrongly chosen Party B and the good party A would have suffered. So the ‘no-vote’ option is useful only when any one party is brilliant. Tough chance.

 

The manifestos of various parties are available online. Their are websites which help you to be aware of the contesting people.

Response: No political party promises the worst.

 

It is implied that by voting, you are a citizen aware of issues and are prepared to do something about it.

Response: It may be so. Or this could be like showing-off. I may know nothing and yet vote because advertisements tell me it is ‘cool’ to do so. 

 

I’m also sceptical however, as to how much does my vote account for. None of the possible candidates in my area are up to the mark (not even close). So according to the ad, if I don’t vote, I’m supposed to feel all guilty. But what if I vote for the wrong candidate. A moron who’ll do more harm than good for my community? Am I supposed to feel guilty then too?

Response: You may vote if you want to. It is fine if you don’t vote. Voting should be an act of self-will.

Quoting from “It is Okay to Not Vote”
“It is nobody’s duty to vote. If at all there is any iota of responsibility, it is to vote correctly. Correctly. Let the politicians come to the people and tell them to regain trust in the electoral process. Le them reach out to the villagers and promise them no more lies but a better life. And people should vote only when they feel convinced. When they feel like entering the polling station despite the heat and ill-health. And not because of any obligation.”


Selected stories from outside YI
*Don’t read this if you don’t like pathos
*So What…?   

Share This Story
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Email] More »
All Rights Reserved With Website Owner