Skip to main content

Why your vote doesn't matter !

Now that most of you may have voted, I find it morally safe to express my reservations about the electoral system in India and why I think our vote doesn’t matter. Yes, despite the hype by popular campaigns insisting that you lose your right to criticize and complain if you don’t vote, I think our vote simply doesn’t matter.

Recollect the scenario from your classroom experience: most of us would have seen a class representative anointed by the teacher and irrespective of who he/she is, it hardly mattered to most of us. The situation barely changes even as you graduate to higher education. Most of the college campus leaders are chosen by consensus, a euphemism for anointment by faculty, instead of elections which are dubbed as bringing ‘dirty politics’ into campuses.

Is a person anointed by a higher authority answerable to you? That’s the crux.

But you may argue, we actually elect our leaders and we have a choice to choose from the list of candidates. Upon keener reflection, it becomes evident that we’re faced only with an illusion of choice – the elected representative, in the present setup, owes very little to the people who helped him win.

Imagine a person with political inclinations wishing to genuinely serve people – what are the options available to him? Go forward as an independent? Can such a person, assuming he hasn’t amassed wealth through prior connections, afford to bear the staggering expenses required to contest? The only other alternative happens to join an existing party – but based on what calculations would he be chosen against a group of contestants (for party ticket to a constituency)? Evidently, by showcasing his strength in terms of backing and wealth. And what about the expectations by the party, should he win? Irrespective of his personal ethics, he has no option but to join the vicious circle of opting for illegal means to support his campaign, sustain his group’s expectations while in power and source the party their cut for favouring him over others.

Once a candidate wins, he needs to do more to pacify his high-power supporters (financiers, strong-men etc.) and win the trust of the party chief more than he is required to satisfy the people of his constituency. To regain the ticket the next time, he is dependent on party chief and not his people, whom he thinks he can anyway ‘manage’ via suitable matrix of caste, regionalism, religion, groupisms and select benefits to the vulnerable sections.

There appears to be a unsaid, unstated but nonetheless binding obligation among many political circles across party affiliations to never target those in opposition ‘below the belt’. We often hear a newly formed government accusing the previous government of large-scale corruptions. But apart from the obvious gains accrued from such allegations, there is no strong vindictive drive against them, despite probable availability of adequately incriminating evidence. No politician is pursued to the finish despite evidence against them being strong (rings bells to people of AP?)

To present a hypothetical situation which is alarmingly close to reality in Indian context: What if a group of people with common agenda of self-promotion split in various parties and present before commoners a choice of choosing between them? What if a dictator to give people an illusion of choice, gives them an option to choose one from his three (or any number) yes-men, who’re ultimately answerable to him alone?

Case Study: Andhra Pradesh

Let us get to examples. In early 1980s, people of Andhra Pradesh exercised their right to choose from a list of candidates. So they had the power to choose the government of their choice? No. With no formidable force against Congress, the winnable candidates were from Congress stable and most were elected not on strength of their personal performance and capabilities, but because of their affiliation with the party. The then Prime Minister and Congress Head, Indira Gandhi, almost unilaterally (in consultation with her private team), decided whom to give the tickets and who would get which ministry and the post of Chief Minister became a joke with frequent changes in their appointment depending on the whims and fancies of higher command.

In this scenario, did it matter to people of Andhra Pradesh whom they voted, as their representatives eventually lined to fall at the feet of madam to earn her goodwill (and avoid her displeasure?).

It was in light of the above ground realities that N.T. Rama Rao captured the imagination of Telugu people in 1984 by ably showcasing the high-handedness of Congress party and launched Telugu Desam Party which stormed to power in 9 months from its inception.

Cut to present, the people of Telangana witnessed the choice of illusion with respect to their demand of separate state until the rejuvenation of the spirit in 2009, thanks to fast by KCR. All parties uniformly stated that they were not opposed to the idea of Telangana but hardly stood their ground where it mattered. The elected representatives owed their allegiance to the party and not the people. This jinx was broken only when people came out in open and only the fear of total annihilation of their political career forced many out of political loyalty.

Telangana is a first of its kind in India atleast in terms of its down-to-top power enforcement. Politicians for the first time sensed they are doomed despite benevolent party high-command if people don’t back them. And with people’s support, many are relieved to realize that they no longer needed high-command’s blessings to win.

Only when India witnesses this kind of change on a larger scale will the much advertised ‘change’ appear. With internal democracy within parties largely absent in India, only people’s en-bloc vote, much like the vote-bank politics, can force politicians to actually listen to their people.


  1. Madhav, going by your example, N.T.Rama Rao getting to power was possible only because people voted, isn't it. So, doesn't this mean that first and foremost, every citizen should vote, how they vote is going to be the second thing.


Post a Comment

All-time Hits

The Controversial Caste System of Hinduism

Imagine concepts like feudal system, slavery, capitalistic exploitation and anti-Semitism being used to define the core of Christianity! Christians will be outraged at this inappropriate mixing of the core universal values of Christians and societal & historical aspects which merely existed in a Christian world.
Now this raises the question – why is caste system defined as the core of Hinduism? Especially as “caste” itself is a western construct. Sounds irrelevant?
Okay. Now imagine concepts like slave-trade, war on infidels, brutal subjugation of masses, temple destruction, and forceful conversions marking the core of Islam.
It is considered sensible to first understand what the core scriptures speak about the religion and its universal values. The ills of the community & its societal aspects are differentiated from its core philosophy.
Now, this brings us to the most interesting question – why is Caste System (caste based on birth) propagated to be the defining feature of Hindu…

Chetan Bhagat : His Literary Style and Criticism

Chetan Bhagat’s (CB) recent column created a furore, chiefly because of his audacity to speak for Muslim community and what many people conflate with his support for Narendra Modi’s Prime Ministerial ambitions.  
But what interested me most - and what this post would focus on - is questioning of his literary merit (or lack of it). Many journalists ridicule CB’s style of writing and his oversimplistic portrayals of characters sans nuance or sophistication. But I suspect this has more to do with the fact that his readers alone far outnumber the combined readers of many journalists - a point that many don’t appear capable of digesting.
No takers for layman’s language!
When Tulsidas rewrote Ramayana in Avadhi (a local contemporary dialect then), many conservative sections of society came down heavily upon him for defiling the sanctity of a much revered epic (originally written in Sanskrit). When Quran was first translated in Urdu (by Shah Abdul Qadir in 1798), it faced intense opposition by …

The concept of Dharma in Ramayana

The concept of Dharma is not adequately understood by Hindus themselves, not to mention others. Dharma is not a set of do’s and don’t’s or a simplistic evaluation of good and bad. It requires considerable intellectual exertion to even begin understanding Dharma, let alone mastering its use.

Is Dharma Translatable?
Few words of a language cannot be faithfully translated into another without injuring its meaning, context & spirit. English translations of Dharma are blurred and yield words like religion, sense of righteousness, discrimination between good and bad, morals and ethics or that which is lawful. All these fall short of fully grasping the essence of Dharma.
Every language has an ecosystem of words, categories and grammar which allow a user to stitch words together to maximum effect such that meaning permeates the text without necessarily being explicitly explained at each point. Sanskrit words such dharma, karma, sloka, mantra, guru etc., now incorporated in English, lose thei…

Trending Now