'No vote'
The freedom of choice is a beauty of democracy. This freedom reflects two alternatives. Firstly, given a desirable option against an undesirable one, it is the authority to choose the former and reject the latter. Secondly, if undesirable options are forced upon, it is then the capacity to react.
Now, let's weigh how much freedom of choice we enjoy while selecting our political representatives. With the present electoral mechanism, that is, the Representation of the People's Order 1972, we have the authority to select and elect our desirable candidates. But we are totally helpless when placed in a situation where we have to choose from among candidates who are equally undesirable. Often, casting no vote at all has been a form of resistance for many against this sticky situation --an undemocratic practice. Some wouldn't waste their valuable vote, however, and not thinking much about candidates, they would cast it, as the less wary usually did, for a party seemed worthy, which would build up the culture of party-based politics.
We have faced this for long. During the terms of the previous elected governments people asked for electoral reforms in this regard, one much sought-after reform being the provision of 'no' vote in the ballot. Yet, the political parties didn't consider the appeal. Contrary to their assumptions, this provision wouldn't spoil their image; rather this would enable them to self-censor themselves. The practice of politics as a public service characterized by austerity, efficiency, honesty, and transparency would have been possible to cultivate.
On July 13, the council of advisers approved in principle the Representation of the People's Order (RPO) Ordinance 2008, bringing about electoral reforms that include mandatory registration of political parties and an option for casting 'no' vote. As an avenue for creating democratic capacity, this move is welcome.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments