The Morals/Ethics of Voting (Or Not Voting) In Elections

 

The Morals/Ethics of Voting (Or Not Voting) In Elections

Shrikant G. Talageri 

 

Elections (today is the 10^th of January, and the BMC, or Bombay Metropolitan Corporation, elections are in five days, on the 15^th of this month) are back in the news (at least for those in Mumbai and other cities in Maharashtra), and the usual jingoistic claim that it is the patriotic duty of every citizen to cast his/her vote is back in the air.

This brought to my mind for the umpteenth time the question of the morals/ethics of the concept that voting is a sacred, or at least a patriotic or moral, duty for every true citizen. Is that really so?

 

But first, the basic question is: when an election comes up, what are the different options open to a voter eligible to vote in the election?

The two main options of course are to either vote or not vote. Not voting is a single option, but voting can have four sub-options (from negative to positive):

1. The first sub-option is to vote for “none of the candidates”, on the ground that none of them deserves to win (an option now available due to the introduction of a “NOTA” or “None Of The Above” option in the voting slip).

2. The second sub-option is to vote against one particular candidate (“definitely not that particular candidate”), on the ground that all the candidates are (or may be) bad but that that one particular candidate is worse than the others and definitely does not deserve to win at all and in fact deserves to lose.

3. The third sub-option is to vote for a particular candidate, on the ground that he/she deserves to win in comparison with the others.

4. The fourth sub-option is to vote for a particular candidate, on the ground that he/she is the only candidate who deserves to win, irrespective of who else is in the fray.

Needless to say, the factors which can make a voter decide who deserves or does not deserve his/her vote can range from an objective consideration of the actual personal identities of the individual candidates to purely on a subjective consideration of the party affiliations of the candidates (regardless of their personal identities and attributes).

 

In the old days of the paper ballot, the first two options could be availed by a voter merely by deliberately delivering an invalid vote (which was a kind of “NOTA option” before the actual introduction of NOTA) by putting the stamp against the names of more than one candidate. And the next two could be availed by delivering a valid vote by putting the stamp against the name of the one chosen candidate.

Now, with EVMs where it would probably not be possible to deliver invalid votes, the only two options are to either vote for NOTA or to vote for the particular chosen candidate.

 

This brings us back to the question: is it the sacred, or at least a patriotic or moral, duty for every true citizen to go and cast his/her vote either for NOTA or for a particular chosen candidate?

I have always viewed this situation as being comparable to a similar “option-full” imaginary situation where one has to choose one of many different options, in the light of the cold and hard fact (obvious to anyone but the most blind, prejudiced or deluded citizen) that all politicians, to different degrees, are cynical and cold-blooded mercenaries who are there in the fray only to grab power and make money. Here is that imaginary situation: a man is going through an isolated jungle and suddenly finds himself confronted by a gang of bandits who have managed to capture a girl (who incidentally is known to the man, being a member of a family with whom he is on very friendly terms) and have decided that one of them will rape her, but cannot come to an agreement as to which of them it should be. They capture this man as well, and decide that he will choose and decide which one of them should be chosen to have the “privilege” to rape her.

What will the man do?

Like the voter in an election, he also has two main options: he can either choose one of them, or simply keep quiet and refuse to choose (knowing that he can do nothing to save the girl, but also determined to not be part of a process of deciding which of them will do the deed).

If he chooses to open his mouth and give his choice, he, again, has four sub-options:

1. He replies: “none of you should rape her”.

2. He replies (referring to one particular one of the bandits): “keep that particular man away from her”, since he has personal knowledge that that particular man is a particularly vicious, brutal and sadistic person (somewhat like the “minor” who raped “Nirbhaya” in the famous Delhi gangrape case who inserted a rod into her and pulled out her intestines).

3. He actually chooses one of the bandits whom he knows to be the least brutal and vicious among them.

4, He actually chooses one of the bandits for some personal reason or due to some personal prejudice or affiliation.

 

Of course, there is a basic difference in the situation confronting this imaginary man and the situation confronting a person who has to vote in an election: this man knows that if he refuses to reply or exercises the first two of the four above sub-options, he himself will be beaten up or tortured by the bandits, whereas the voter in an election (apart from the option to not vote) has the option to vote NOTA perhaps without having to suffer for his decision, or of course the option to exercise his vote.

This imaginary man, and the person who has to vote in an election, both have to take a decision, and while external pressures can ultimately compel this man to give his “vote”, that compulsion is not present in the case of the voter in an election: he/she still has three options, either (a) to not vote at all, or (b) to vote NOTA, or (c) to cast a valid vote in favor of any one particular candidate.

But while the two situations have the above very basic difference, they do have two things in common: (a) in both cases casting the vote is a responsibility (even though ultimately one single vote hardly ever decides the result) and (b) in both cases casting the vote is a purely personal practical choice (whether done under compulsion or of one’s own will) but under no circumstances is it a moral or ethical duty.  How can it be any kind of moral or ethical duty to give sanction or approval to a crook?

 

In my own case, since anyone acquainted with my very clearly and emphatically expressed political opinions on Indian Politics should be aware, for me the only question (for the coming election) is whether I should simply not step out of the house to cast my vote, or whether I should go and cast my vote for NOTA.

Are not voting at all and voting NOTA both exactly the same? Not exactly! From the very earliest elections in post-“Independence” India, not going to vote (before the option of NOTA was introduced in 2013) could mean, especially (but not exclusively) in mofussil rural areas, leaving the field open for fake votes to be cast by someone else in your name. That can always be a hazard even now, even if that is not by any means the only way of perpetrating electoral fraud. But ultimately, what is going to happen will happen, and it is naïve or idealistic to believe that the results are always strictly in accordance with the votes cast.

In certain areas or societies, not voting (which becomes physically apparent either from the polling-booth records or from the unmarked finger) could be a matter of some social embarrassment or worse. But my views are an open book, and I feel no shame or embarrassment whatsoever in being deemed politically incorrect. As for the claims of it being a “patriotic duty”, such views are usually from people whose jingoist ideas of “patriotism” probably consist of things like pinning tiny national flags on their shirt on Republic Day and Independence Day, painting their faces or clothes in the three colors of the Indian flag, fervently standing at attention with glowing expressions while chanting the national anthem, shouting slogans at sports and political events, etc., while at the same time (even if/when they do not have direct mercenary interests abroad which influence their decisions) having indifferent, mercenary or biased/partisan views on really important matters involving vital issues of India’s security, preservation of Indian culture, environment, democracy, equal rights for Hindus (equal to those of Christians and Muslims), and the interests of common Indians

So to my mind the only question (for the coming election) is whether I should simply not step out of the house to cast my vote, or whether I should go and cast my vote for NOTA (although on at least two occasions in the past I have been forced by my conscience to follow the allegedly Muslim tactic of voting for “anyone but the BJP” since I stronglly believe that in many ways the BJP is much more dangerous for Hindus, Hinduism and India culture than even the Breaking India Forces).

Between the two, going and voting NOTA should, on logical grounds, be the more ethical thing to do rather than simply sitting at home. But that is only in theory. As one would expect, NOTA is a toothless paper tiger or worse. It is nothing but dust thrown in the eyes of voters to make them believe it is an “option”. In reality, it is worth absolutely zero. Even if NOTA receives the highest number of votes, the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes is to be declared the winner.

So NOTA is really a purely symbolic feature. Whether I will participate in this symbolism or whether I will simply sit at home and refuse to participate in it is the only question before me, which I will decide as per my mood or whim on election day.

[Let me clarify for the record that I am not recommending NOTA to anyone. I act according to my conscience and I leave it to everyone else to act according to their conscience. When I was in the 9th standard in school, in 1973-74, I decided that killing animals for food was wrong and I decided to become a vegetarian (actually an ovo-lacto-vegetarian, since I do not believe that eating eggs is the same as eating fish, animals or birds, since it does not involve the killing of a sentient being for food. It is not strictly moral or ethical since it does involve exploiting sentient beings, but only to the same extent as milk). But (a) even after 52 years of vegetarianism, my mouth still waters at the smell or memory of “non-veg” food, and (b) I never recommend vegetarianism to anyone since I believe that, like so many other things, it is purely a matter of individual choice and individual conscience].