Need To Know- 'NOTA': Effective democratic weapon or political juggle?

Image Source: Google

This year, Indian politics has been highly motivated by the newer tricks. Three historic decisions were led towards the extinction of politics which have restored the trust of the average Indian. The failure of the executive in the direction of issuing an Ordinance to get punishment for criminal politicians can be said nothing less than 'interference in the use of judicial powers'. It also helps to bring collective reluctance into politics in politics. But, which is attracting the debate on a large scale, it is the 'Right to Reject'. The matter is in two aspects. One, the right to political empowerment and expression of all. Two, an important analysis of how this new option will serve democracy.

It is difficult to deny the fact that this introduction will attract new voters. The total voter percentages in the next voters will definitely improve. This step puts the common man on top and will give rise to consciousness to examine the candidates not to nominate honest candidates among political parties. The main purpose of the extinction of politics will be to some extent. Although beneficial, there is a need to start an important analysis.

Does 'NOTA' actually serve democracy? Is it really like a powerful tool? Are political parties really worried about new options?

When the court ordered to provide alternatives here, it did not give any solution for the results which would go ahead. When the percentage of the vote is more than 50%, the election will be canceled and a re-election will be organized with a new list of candidates. Although the court has not mentioned how long the dismissed participants will be disqualified. And are they eligible to contest elections from other constituencies? When elections are canceled due to the large number of voters, none of the above says, is it not an unfair one when an honest candidate is dismissed? This is obviously possible because the negative vote is the vote against all the participants.

Political parties can not be so worried about the new provision because the number of negative votes can not exceed the number of votes won by the candidate. More than 50% of the voters can use their votes to choose a member instead of voting for someone. The irony of the nota will be indicated. The court wanted to honor our authority to express dissatisfaction with the candidates, but it can not encourage us to use the voting rights. What does it mean to go to the booth, stand in line and do not vote for someone at the end of the day? It should not be a way to serve democracy. Elections in a democracy mean that both the participants and the voters, both the country's participation to work,

Speaking again, it has its own expense. For the second time the voter participation percentage can not be the same as before. New candidates can be nominated freshly, which can win a small number of votes compared to the previous ones. Again, this is a mistake. By spending twice in organizing elections, we choose politicians with whom we are not happy and do not trust them. The period between elections and re-election will also cause confusion and political instability. Major issues can be neglected with the leader participating in the people and development can be stopped due to policy paralysis. All these will be kept in mind.

Imagine an approximate position of re-election. We will not be less than the participants, but how about us? Are we interested in elections and voting? Those voters who actually choose one or the other candidate, they will be most disappointed with the development. Until the election is over, the police must be deployed in the vigilance and security of the leaders. Distribution of paid news events, freebies, etc. will be more prevalent than before. Dismissed candidates will become the subject of news for the media. The cost of resources needed to organize elections will be mainly to increase the number of employees and schools such as schools and colleges. Generally, teachers and government employees are appointed in the polling stations. Their working life will be affected and the educational institutions will be forced to call the classes affecting the educationists of the students. Instead of strengthening it all, democracy is weakened.

Thus, the right to reject can not serve democracy in practice but in theory, yes! The provision of casting a negative vote will actually be only a powerful tool if it can be competent against each individual candidate. In this way, criminals who want to extend their influence in politics can be overthrown. Also, politicians who do not serve well, who is corrupt and underdeveloped will be made responsible for the public on Decision (Election) Day.

Thanks for reading! 

Please let us know how you think about this issue? 

We will be emphasised by knowing your views, this will also help us improve ourselves.

Please Like, Comment and Share.