Voted yesterday.
There were 3 EVMs with nearly 3 dozen candidates for Bangalore Central, the constituency for which I was supposed to pick a candidate to vote for. I was familiar with a couple of the candidates, and knew a lot more about the parties themselves.
For a while I was unsure of what to do. Picked the least uncertain choice, and felt extremely illiterate about the entire exercise.
Here's a bunch of questions I have about the whole setup of State Assembly vs Lok Sabha candidates and elections:
There were 3 EVMs with nearly 3 dozen candidates for Bangalore Central, the constituency for which I was supposed to pick a candidate to vote for. I was familiar with a couple of the candidates, and knew a lot more about the parties themselves.
For a while I was unsure of what to do. Picked the least uncertain choice, and felt extremely illiterate about the entire exercise.
Here's a bunch of questions I have about the whole setup of State Assembly vs Lok Sabha candidates and elections:
- Whats the "impact" of choosing candidate X to the Lok Sabha. To the State Assembly ?
- What are the candidates rights, duties and scope of influence ? What issues can they raise/influence ?
- Is the specific candidate even relevant for the Lok Sabha polls ? Why ?
- Do candidates even have a voice within their parties during the functioning of the Assemblies ? Why is the concept of a "whip" permitted in a democracy ?
- What mechanisms/ground realities exist for these elected representatives to engage with their constituency before they participate in debates and vote on issues in the Assembly ? Does the concept of the "whip" render this idea impotent ?
- Should not candidates clearly pick and spell out specific agendas and causes they intend to pursue - obviously from those that are within their spehere of influence depending on whether they are representing the constituency at the centre or in the state ? Should they also not be working for these issues "off duty" - i.e. even when they are not members of the Assembly etc ?
- If the possible local impact of a Lok Sabha candidate is low, whats the big deal about a candidate "from my constituency" ? I'd rather pick someone - irrespective of where they are standing for election from - based on the attractiveness of their thoughts and leadership qualities on issues that impact the nation or policy making, as a whole.
I am totally confused about the candidate vs party, and a little cynical about the inner party democracy in all outfits - if all decision making is decided centrally, with little consultation at the constituency level, its hardly important who the candidate it. In fact, you don't really need "people" representing you if there's little dialogue or impact possible - you can vote for the symbol/party directly.
Perhaps I've got a lot wrong - perhaps there's just a lot of information gap. But to me, right now, it does look like the the mere exercise of franchise does not make for a healthy, functioning democracy on its own. There's definitely much more to it, and I cannot imagine too much of it happening around me as it exists today.
Anyhow - good first step - maybe the next set of changes will start to happen soon. Staying positive.
Perhaps I've got a lot wrong - perhaps there's just a lot of information gap. But to me, right now, it does look like the the mere exercise of franchise does not make for a healthy, functioning democracy on its own. There's definitely much more to it, and I cannot imagine too much of it happening around me as it exists today.
Anyhow - good first step - maybe the next set of changes will start to happen soon. Staying positive.
.jpg)
4 comments:
Have answered some questions.
# Whats the "impact" of choosing candidate X to the Lok Sabha. To the State Assembly ?
# What are the candidates rights, duties and scope of influence ? What issues can they raise/influence ?
Discretion in spending MPLADS money, question hour, voting on bills (restricted by party mostly), raising issues of importance
# Is the specific candidate even relevant for the Lok Sabha polls ? Why ?
They're not relevant when nationwide issues are concerned. But, these people have a huge sum allocated to spend on projects in their respective constituencies. It also matters if they're persuasive (not with speeches in the Parliament, when it comes to constituency projects, but with closeness to ministers etc.,)
# Do candidates even have a voice within their parties during the functioning of the Assemblies ? Why is the concept of a "whip" permitted in a democracy ?
A whip is not issued in all cases. In any case, a whip won't have any impact on bringing issues to the fore by posing questions in the assembly/parliament to the ministers.
# What mechanisms/ground realities exist for these elected representatives to engage with their constituency before they participate in debates and vote on issues in the Assembly ? Does the concept of the "whip" render this idea impotent ?
No, for the whip thing. However, no mechanism exists to directly talk to people as well. This is where a multi-tiered Panchayati Raj system help. People catch the collars of the ward councillors, at least in rural wards. :)
# Should not candidates clearly pick and spell out specific agendas and causes they intend to pursue - obviously from those that are within their spehere of influence depending on whether they are representing the constituency at the centre or in the state ? Should they also not be working for these issues "off duty" - i.e. even when they are not members of the Assembly etc ?
# If the possible local impact of a Lok Sabha candidate is low, whats the big deal about a candidate "from my constituency" ? I'd rather pick someone - irrespective of where they are standing for election from - based on the attractiveness of their thoughts and leadership qualities on issues that impact the nation or policy making, as a whole.
Your delima is the exact same as in the corporate world. The analogous questions there would be.
1. Do I even matter to the company?
2. Do my ideas have any impact on the company itself and how it does business?
3. Do I even control what I want to do? Do I have a choice?
4. Is there a way to engage with the senior managemnt to further your ideas where the only decision that matter is that of the CEOs?
5. What can a mortal engineer do to change things around him?
I think we have a fairly good feeling of the answers to these questions, although we may not be able to express them.
The helplessness in election is coming from the fact that you have to choose someone else instead of yourself and that takes the control from you. Also there is a loss in your personal agenda by virtue of aggregation (49% does not mean you are wrong but just that more people think otherwise). But this is the reality of democracy. If we keep fixing the top issue as an aggregate, the lower than top will start showing up on the top. But have we been doing that is a different question.
As for choosing the right candidate, you have to see who will further your ideas and who is closer to what you believe in. There is also a choice you make on whether you want to bet on a winning horse who might just fulfil 10% of your agenda rather than a guy who supports 100% of your agenda but has very little chances of winning.
For the research, there is fair amount of information available now with Election Watch and other NGOs coming into the picture. The candidates from the urban constituencies are a lot more open to coming to your apartment and talking about the agenda (30min will cover at least 200 to 500 voters), but we are usually not ready to engage and turn up to listen to him/her and ask him questions, exactly like we do for open forums in corporations.
I think choosing a representative is a huge deal and we ought to research at least as much as we do before buying a big screen TV, which includes at least a couple of visits to the store and listen to whatever the marketing guy has to say :-). Believe me he will give some interesting parameters to evaluate on but finally you got to choose only from whatever is available.
Sorry about the Ram Katha
I think the negative sides of a Democracy is being exposed by an illiterate populace and it is being exploited by the politicians that are out to make a business out of it. IMO, the country can be an effective democracy only when the majority of the population are not so gullible as they are now. The basic metrics of literacy and infant mortality does indeed show what's wrong. I don't think anyone cares about these at all.
http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20090504&fname=Report+card&sid=1 gives a good idea about the parameters on which an MP's contributions are studied and how our MPs have fared.
Post a Comment