Right to abstain.....?

By this time tomorrow, India will have a new President. It might seem on the basis of sheer numbers that Ms. Patil will be the next occupant of Raisina Hill, but then politics and politicians revel in being as unpredictable as possible. The incumbent UPA government will gloat over how it managed to ensure that its ‘nominee’ becomes the Head of State. I used the quotation marks because no candidate in the Presidential elections is ever a representative of a particular political outfit or coalition; rather, each candidate is an Independent, whose nomination simply receives support from a cross-section of the electors.

Speaking of electors, the so-called Third Front, or as they would prefer themselves called now, the UNPA, have asked their MPs and MLAs to abstain from voting from either of the two candidates in the fray. Their reason for abstention stems from their reluctance to be seen to support either the ruling UPA’s ‘nominee’ or the opposing NDA’s ‘nominee’, for purely ‘ideological’ reasons. So rather than just allow its electors to vote as per their mind, the heads of the various outfits in the Front ordered their electors to stay away.

And in that is a distressing event. Can a political outfit be permitted to order public representatives from performing their duties? Can anyone presume so much authority as to command someone beholden to the will of the people that he/she may not exercise his mental faculties to perform responsibilities expected of him/her?

The Presidential elections may not be as important to the common people as they may be made out to be. And undoubtedly our Founding Fathers never intended to make them so either, for had so been their intention, they would have incorporated the proviso in the Constitution then itself. A popularly elected President and a popularly elected Legislative are somehow too explosive a mixture without proper safeguards.

But that’s beside the point. That some electors would not be voting in these elections doesn’t bother me as much as the fact that representatives can get away with not voting on matters of state, on important legislations affecting the people, people whose ‘will’ they claim to represent. The various state and the central legislatures are replete with examples wherein member attendance is sometimes as low as 30 percent. In recent times, important policies such as the Annual Budgets have been passed without much, or rather any, debate. Are we losing our touch at democracy?

I had written earlier this month about some electoral reforms that we should look at seriously. There is need for reforms here as well.

• Representatives incapable of maintaining an attendance record of more than 60 percent should be denied their pay, as is accorded to them.
• Walkouts being so common an occurrence nowadays, every time a representative takes part in a walkout, the pay for the said day should be denied, irrespective of when the walkout occurred in the course of the day.
• Whips issued to the effect of asking representatives to abstain from voting should be deemed as extra-constitutional and void; a representative cannot be permitted to be forced or coerced into abjuring his/her right to exercise his/her responsibilities towards his constituents in particular and the nation in general.
• The said right is not inviolable. If the said representative should be found to have violated parliamentary norms and regulations regarding conduct, both within and without the legislature, he/she may be debarred from voting.
• The period of debarment would also be applicable for the denial of pay.

As always, I would appreciate your comments on these suggestions of mine.