As a citizen of India, we all have a right to vote. But rather than a right, I like to see it as our duty. In last few years I have seen a change in the society, Earlier some of my fellow friends considered it cool to claim that they didn't vote. But times have changed, and for betterment, as now the ink mark on the index finger has become synonymous to trends in which youth of Delhi usually gets engulfed. People vote, and then claim that they vote and often talk about it on social media. Long gone is the time when the consensus was that people active on social media only talked and never voted. I remember how earlier it used to be the case. On the day of election, people used to express their disappointment owing to the fact that the educated section of the society seldom votes.
First I would like to attack this very statement. What is meant by educated section of society? Does having a post-graduate degree make your vote more valuable or does it comes with an assumption that an educated person would be able to judge better when it comes to choosing the right candidate. If equality is to be established we would have to realize that each and every person who votes has equal stake in the government. It might be the case that the issue one votes on is dependent on education, class, caste or any other parameter, but that doesn't mean that those parameters are not worthy enough. Every person has his own set of issues on which he would decide the candidate to vote for. Also education does not essentially mean political awareness.
Yes education is important when it comes to development of a personality, it makes one more rational, I agree but that doesn't mean it gives us clarity across all spectrums. A computer engineer is not qualified to prescribe medication for typhoid, a literature student is not qualified to design digital circuits, and a psychology student is not qualified to design bridges. (I used qualified, not capable, because people do venture into different streams out of interest, so one can always be capable enough to carry out whatever task he is assigned.) So I would like to extend it further. Like I said, education does make us more rational, it doesn't really translate into political knowledge, which we have to gain on our own. Yes, education would definitely help us understand the issues in a better way, and look at the claims of political parties with rationality, but we need to understand what exactly should be our criteria for voting. This brings me to the second part of my article.
A question usually arises, who should I vote for? Should I vote for the party or should I vote for the candidate? What should be the parameters on which I should make my decision? What all should I consider before making the final call? The answer is simple, which issues you consider to be important. Then you should consider whether those issues can be taken care of by the candidates you would be voting for or not. I have always been part of discussions where people discuss the issues which are important for them; I'm in fact involved passively most of the times. And to my surprise most of the times people come up with the issues that are beyond the scope of the position for which they have to vote.
Let's look at civic structure of the way government functions in India. I wish we all had taken social studies more seriously when we were in school. It's far too interesting than it seemed back when I was in school. Sigh, back then we looked at it only as a subject we had to study to improve our percentage.
I would be talking about parts of the Indian government which we can elect. Since bureaucracy is not something citizens have direct control on, I would be focusing on the parts which are directly related to elections.
There are elections for MPs, MLAs, local government (Mayor, ward etc.) Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly is basically responsible for formation of laws and policies concerning the nation or respective states. While local government is responsible for development and management of the area.
So what are the qualities we should be looking at while choosing our candidate for various posts? Often all we talk about is electricity, water, roads etc at time of election. The politicians when seeking votes make their claims on similar lines. Often irrespective of the post politicians are contesting on, issues discussed with the voters are same. I would not say that politicians are at fault completely. The mass is not completely are of the responsibilities that they would be assuming once elected, hence they have to advertise in the best possible way. They have two options, either they can educate the voters about what exactly they should expect the elected candidate to do, or they can mould themselves into their expectations. The first option is a herculean task, reason, because if one actually tries it, he would not be able to impress the voters, because he would not be talking about the issues they want to hear and which might eventually result in a sacrifice of a well deserved chance.
From my understanding, I would like to summarize my point of view. MPs and MLAs are essentially responsible to take our views to the parliament and legislative assembly. So while voting for an MP or MLA I would look at the ideology of the political party he is associated with, because even though we have a parliamentary form of government, it more or like functions like a presidential form. The examples are evident; the politicians who go against the party policies are criticized heavily and portrayed as back-stabbers. We have countless examples. We, the citizens, don't have a very positive image of rebels. We often see them as opportunists. What it results in is that politicians often stick to the principles laid down by the party. Call it a bitter truth, but that's how things function. I don't see anything wrong in it. Politicians can always influence the decision making of the party by raising their voices. For citizens it is fair to assume that politician would in most cases follow the party ideology, and in case of any discrepancy, would raise the voice in party meetings and would help shape up party's decision.
Now MPs and MLAs are not responsible for working of street lights in your locality and condition of roads during the rainy season directly. So if you are judging them on the work done keeping in mind infrastructure development of your locality, you are doing it the wrong way. These works come under your city's development authorities, in which MPs and MLAs have no say. If they are trying to manipulate their working using their influence, I would call it a misuse of power, irrespective of what the intention of the politician is. We can always say that if politicians really want the development of the city, they can have their say in Parliament and Assembly. Now it becomes a more difficult task if the party of the politician is not in power. So essentially all we need to judge a politician contesting for a post of MP/MLA is whether he would raise our voice in Parliament or not and what the ideology of the party is.
Coming to the criteria of voting for politicians contesting for local government, the main focus should be on the image of the politician, whether he has a clean image, whether he can promise that bureaucracy functions properly or not, whether he can ensure transparency in the working of development authorities etc.
After the term, the judgment of performance of elected members should be on the same lines. For MPs/MLAs we should look at how many times they raised the voice in Parliament/Assembly. We should look at if any critical issue related to our constituency was raised properly in the parliament or not. If the elected member’s party was in power, whether he was involved in decision making, what kind of laws the ruling party introduced and passed. The ruling of the government as a unit defines the value of your vote. If the member elected is part of the opposition, we should look at how critical he was towards the government and in what manner. While the local development works could be seen as achievement or failure of the local government body representative.
Keeping in mind the general elections our country will soon have, I want to conclude my article requesting you all to vote for formation of government. After all if you look at the larger picture, it's the government we are electing, not only the Member of Parliament. That’s why I believe, we should not get swayed by rhetoric of people and rather support a political ideology. And that’s why it’s our duty to elect a stable government.
Our duty is to become political literate. Being a literate doesn’t mean you are politically literate. How much we want to know depends on the issue we want to get addressed. What we can simply do is raise a question, whenever a politician makes a claim; our duty is ask, “How?” How will the candidate bring about that change, is he really entitled and responsible to do that? Does the position he is contesting for allows him that liberty? And the candidate does not have to answer. If we are politically literate enough, we can see through the lies and tall claims, and save ourselves from the disappointment, that we always brag about later. Our right is to vote, but our duty is to vote sensibly.
Disclaimer: The article is based on my experiences and is not a result of some study. I agree that I have very superficial view of how politics in India works and my article might have numerous errors. So I welcome suggestions from each one of you, please reply in comments section or message/mail me, so that I can include your suggestion in the article. We are part of democracy and we all have our own views and interpretations, so that's mine.
