It's election time in Karnataka on the 12th of May. It's been raining political tourists, grand speeches, grander accusations and tons of mudslinging. The atmosphere can be vitiating to a simple, sincere, honest voter's spirit (which there aren't many of these days). You usually find the ones who are annoyingly over-bearing or innocently pre-decided. They either shove their opinions down your throat or are inane about any discussion about who the best candidate is, apart from their committed usual party.
For those who are conscientious voters, it is a struggle during every election. The options they have in candidates don't help them either. It's never a complete picture with any one. What one lacks in wisdom another makes up for in opportunism. Lots of questions pop up in their minds. They don't want to waste a vote, nor do they want to compain later. When balancing these options, it helps to understand what your vote could stand for.
There are certain predominant ideas that people have about voting.
Don't vote for a party "that won't win": By this logic, what does make a party win unless you vote for it? They mean don't vote for a non-mainstream, or new, party (that probably won't win) because it will just divide the vote and make it difficult to form and run government. But is choosing a stable government over the government you want opting for the larger or lesser evil?
There's also the case of a possible reelection, in case of a hung result, being unnecessarily costing and avoidable. If that was our primary premise to vote, democratic representation should have nominal importance and zero impact on we live our lives after. If the boat was never tipped and needs to be tipped, the concept just won't float-unless the government had always been amazing.
If you do vote for a non-mainstream alternative, you are doing a number of things: providing them with initial support to keep at it (if they lose) or getting a representative that will put a check to things better (if they win).
Are you voting for a party or a candidate?: The entire system is built on the bottom up logic. You vote for the candidate first, and then the party wins added up may or may not make the party win. It isn't backwards: Vote for the party through the candidate so that the party wins.
When you vote for a party, the candidate and their work has less merit. When you vote for an individual, he needs to have merit. Candidate prominence will make him so. True, a party's view is the candidate's ideal. But if you want to see a better five years, a candidate approach is your go to.
Vote for voice, action or both?: Depending on the election your voting in, your candidate will standing to become an MP/MLA or a Councillor/Panchayat member. The former is more voice, less action. The latter is the opposite. They all have different responsibilities the way the system is constructed, but all of them can be held responsible for your constituency's plight to at least some extent each.
Outside the constituency, their voice, approval and votes design policies and laws, the understated, important benefit of voting.
Good policy can build, bad policy destroy and better policy advance a state. This where ideology kicks in. It could be that you want to vote for someone who does/had done good work but you can't trust their ideas of what economy and society should be. What will be more dangerous time will tell, and you can vote better next time.
Good policy can build, bad policy destroy and better policy advance a state. This where ideology kicks in. It could be that you want to vote for someone who does/had done good work but you can't trust their ideas of what economy and society should be. What will be more dangerous time will tell, and you can vote better next time.
Use your voice to vote now or hold your peace forever: There is some truth in this. India doesn't yet allow recalling candidates, so a mistake now will remain a mistake for five years. A "Go and vote" that's filled with concern becomes a "But you only voted" as an excuse if the candidate turns out to be bad. Democracy doesn't end at the ballot. In your own capacity, and within your own time allowances, you should speak our or act to change what your representative may not be doing. If you cannot, it's alright, but you can try to be aware of the status of action. Communication (letters, emails, social media), forums (online and offline), civic groups help you do that.
If you don't vote, you don't have the right to speak up: I'll go out on a limb and say this is half true too. The half that is that you may not have to speak up, if you did vote. The half that isn't is that it's your tax money that pays their bills through many means. You deserve to be given an answer and know. It actually costs you less than you think if you are a reluctant voter, or a non-voter.
Comments
Post a Comment