Having made corruption an issue of national importance and getting the political establishment to bow to his demands for a strong and effective Lokpal, it is only natural that electoral reforms would be the next on his agenda. After all having a strong anti-corruption law is one thing while quelling corruption on the ground is another challenge. And it is a fact that the huge cost of fighting an election is one of the main reasons why there is so much of corruption in the first place. And so minutes after anti-corruption activist Anna Hazare ended his 13 days long fast, he declared that electoral reforms will be on top of his agenda next so that corruption can come down. It is not that electoral reforms are not in the agenda of the government. In fact for several years now successive governments have been sitting on reform measures suggested through various committees or study groups. Even the Election Commission of India has been proposing reforms of the election system but nothing has come out from the board rooms except the usual assurances that things are being worked out or the other argument that consensus is not there. And for these reasons, the comment by Anna Hazare that his campaign will take up electoral reforms as the next agenda is welcome. All of us know how Hazare can get his message across to the government and there is hope that if he takes up this agenda of the much needed reforms of our election system, then we can expect another groundbreaking breakthrough in the fight against corruption.
While Hazare has talked about the ‘Right to Recall’ and ‘Right to Reject’ as part of electoral reforms so that corruption can be reduced, we will try and look at the latter proposal for now. According to the argument the ‘Right to Reject’ will be a column in the ballot paper which would ensure the voter has a right to say that he does not like the listed candidates. According to Anna Hazare, if the majority in a constituency says that they reject a candidate, even then the election should be cancelled. He puts forth some very interesting argument such as “how much money they (candidates) will distribute?” “Once the candidate spends Rs 10 crore for one election and if the election is cancelled, then right sense will dawn upon them,” Anna points out and trying to justify such a rejection vote to indirectly curb huge illegal spending during elections. This is indeed a weapon in the hands of the voters to punish the corrupt. Off-course it is also true that such a proposal may entail the prospect of delay and cost as it will require re-election. Whatever therefore the pros and cons could be, the reform agenda should be to curb money power during election. It is reported that the Supreme Court is yet to give its order on a PIL for enforcing the rule on “negative” voting. The EC in principle had supported the demand of “negative” voting although it has not been able to push it through. Off course our political parties and Parliament do not have the will. For this we need a Anna Hazare to shakeup the system so that the Political Parties, Election Commission, Judiciary, Parliament and Government can try and arrive at that ‘consensus’ on electoral reforms which has eluded the country for decades now.
While Hazare has talked about the ‘Right to Recall’ and ‘Right to Reject’ as part of electoral reforms so that corruption can be reduced, we will try and look at the latter proposal for now. According to the argument the ‘Right to Reject’ will be a column in the ballot paper which would ensure the voter has a right to say that he does not like the listed candidates. According to Anna Hazare, if the majority in a constituency says that they reject a candidate, even then the election should be cancelled. He puts forth some very interesting argument such as “how much money they (candidates) will distribute?” “Once the candidate spends Rs 10 crore for one election and if the election is cancelled, then right sense will dawn upon them,” Anna points out and trying to justify such a rejection vote to indirectly curb huge illegal spending during elections. This is indeed a weapon in the hands of the voters to punish the corrupt. Off-course it is also true that such a proposal may entail the prospect of delay and cost as it will require re-election. Whatever therefore the pros and cons could be, the reform agenda should be to curb money power during election. It is reported that the Supreme Court is yet to give its order on a PIL for enforcing the rule on “negative” voting. The EC in principle had supported the demand of “negative” voting although it has not been able to push it through. Off course our political parties and Parliament do not have the will. For this we need a Anna Hazare to shakeup the system so that the Political Parties, Election Commission, Judiciary, Parliament and Government can try and arrive at that ‘consensus’ on electoral reforms which has eluded the country for decades now.
