Why can't I say I won't vote for anyone?

 

American writer Franklin Adams said, "Whoever wins an election wins not because he voted for him, but because he voted against someone else."

Voting is said to be the best form of donation, but in the absence of good people to donate to, voters vote against the wrong ones, resulting in someone winning. However, those who win proudly say - I won. The situation of saying 'I won' will only come when voters are given the right to reject the candidates standing in the election.

The House of Representatives election to be held on the upcoming 5th March, will be recorded as an election where you can't say you won't vote for anyone. This article will discuss the right to say you won't vote for anyone in the election.

Voting is the process of people who are eligible to run for office and indicating their vote that they will not vote for anyone or that they will vote for so-and-so among those who have registered. The result of voting is victory or defeat. This democratic process of elections has been adopted by countries that adopt modern democracies. When there is no option to indicate that one will not vote for anyone, it leads to a situation where one boycotts, disrupts the election process, or questions the legitimacy of the election through a low turnout process.

Despite the Supreme Court order, in the context of Nepal, there is no option to say that one will not vote for anyone. This means that the right to refuse is not guaranteed. Whether one likes it or not, one is compelled to vote for one or the other of the candidates standing. If one does not accept this compulsion, there is another compulsion to adopt the path of active boycott that disrupts the election process. Due to this compulsion to become a member of a class organization, the Congress Communists did not participate in the elections during the Panchayat period, while even after the multi-party system, some 'revolutionary communists' adopted the policy of boycotting the elections because the rights of the people were not protected through elections.

After the Mahakali Treaty, which is considered one of the unequal treaties, the Nepali people widely understood that elections were not a means of exercising democratic rights but a license to sell the country. For this reason, election slogans were also made saying that my one vote and your one vote should not become a license to sell the country. Despite all this, the practice of the None of the Above (NOTA) system could not be implemented.

Despite the Supreme Court's order issued several years ago regarding the NOTA system in Nepal, it could not be implemented in practice. In fact, the right to vote in elections is not only a right, but also the right to reject a candidate or party through voting. On this basis, the belief has developed that one should be able to express through the ballot paper that the parties or candidates who have entered the electoral fray or that one should not vote for any of the candidates.

This system, which is prevalent in many countries of the world, has been issued a mandate in the name of the government to make similar arrangements in our country. The Supreme Court has deemed it necessary to guarantee the use of more democracy through elections and to make arrangements to allow candidates standing in the elections to say that they will not vote for any of them. What arrangements can be made for this? It is necessary to discuss how to make arrangements for groups outside the mainstream of the state to express their disagreement by participating in the elections by boycotting the elections, but this issue has not been given priority at the political level.

International Practice on the ‘Right to Reject’

In the 1990 elections of the then Soviet Union, which led to the dissolution of the Russian Federation, the Communist Party led by Boris Yeltsin had to suffer defeat in this election due to this provision. This situation arose because people voted for the option of not voting for any of the above on the ballot paper. This practice has been abolished in the Russian Federation, which was formed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, since 2006. In Ukraine, a country currently in the throes of war, there is a system in place on the ballot that allows voters to vote against everyone.

Greece has a system of compulsory voting. Since voting is mandatory, the option to leave the ballot blank, cancel the ballot, or vote for no one is available.

Across the United States, there is a campaign to vote with the option of "no to no one" in various states, and this type of ballot is being used effectively in states such as California and Nevada. It has been used in the US state of Nevada. Bangladesh brought this system into discussion in 2008.

Bulgaria used it in the 2016 presidential election. If this type of system, which says "no to everyone" or "no to no one" above, gains a majority, there is a risk that the validity of the election will be terminated. In this case, since the public's trust is expressed through votes, political parties and candidates are forced to maintain the public's trust at all times. It is believed that this helps strengthen democracy.

In neighboring India, the Supreme Court in 2013 issued a directive order. In the writ petition, the court ordered that no one should be allowed to vote. The Election Commission of India also placed a cross mark on the electronic voting machine used by it. This has been used because the Indian government and the Election Commission suggested the option of voting for none of the above. It does not seem to have had much effect on the overall vote result. However, Indian activists maintain that this type of option protects the right of voters to vote.

On the other hand, Pakistan had started this practice in 2013. Then, due to the fear of being rejected through the election itself, due to the dominance of military rule, the Election Commission of Pakistan rejected this system.

In Bangladesh, among the SAARC countries, this system was proposed to be included in the law by the government since 2008, considering it necessary. Although a law with a provision for the right to reject, i.e. not voting for anyone, was presented in the draft law, that provision was removed through amendments. Currently, this system is not in use in Bangladesh.

In Spain, three types of ballot papers are counted: valid votes, blank votes and invalid votes. Among them, there is a campaign to vote by leaving the ballot paper blank, that is, to make the candidate blank. The process of voting by leaving the ballot paper blank is classified as voting for no one. An example of this was seen in the 2011 elections in Spain, when the campaign to vote for no one was carried out, in Barcelona and its surrounding areas, about two percent of the vote was recorded.

This system is also practiced in Colombia. Because this system of voting by leaving the ballot paper blank is accepted, if the number of blank ballot papers is greater than the votes received by the candidates running in the election, a new vote is held. The previously running candidates are considered rejected and the election is held only among the new candidates.

Chile had a law that required voting. This law was repealed in 2012. Both votes marked in a place where there is no candidate and votes for two or more candidates are counted as invalid votes. However, voting in a place where there is no candidate is considered as a no vote. The candidate who receives the majority of the valid votes is declared the winner. No votes are also counted as invalid votes.

Indonesia has also used the NOTA (None of the Above) ballot. This system does not allow for unopposed elections even if only one candidate is nominated. Even if only one candidate is nominated, he or she is not considered elected unless he or she participates in the voting and obtains a majority. Due to this system, many candidates could not be elected due to this option.

In Britain, which is considered the mother of democracy, a request was made to the Parliamentary Politics and Constitutional Reform Committee (PCRC) of the Parliament for such a legal system, and the committee recommended holding a public consultation on the matter before the next election.

Parties and candidates, including the NOTA party (None of the Above Party or the party that says no one is capable of getting my vote) in Britain, are active in pressuring the implementation of this suggestion.

Although this system has not been formally implemented in Canada, the practice of forming a Zero None of the Above party and participating in the election, similar to that in the UK, is widespread. In the state of Ontario, the Zero None of the Above party is registered with the Election Commission and is used to field candidates in the election.

In Norway, a country considered to be excellent in the Prosperity and Happiness Index, this system has also been adopted by making rules. There is a provision for voters to be present and cast blank ballots. In the 2017 election, it was found that about one percent of such votes were received.

In Brazil, there is a system of compulsory voting. Therefore, it was customary to leave the ballot paper blank and such ballots were also counted. But since such a vote does not make a difference to the election result today or tomorrow, the ballot paper is considered invalid and is not counted.

In Belgium, the option of voiding the ballot paper or leaving the ballot paper blank is used to say that one will not vote for anyone. In the 2010 parliamentary election, the percentage of such votes was 5.8. This number of votes is considered the largest to date.

After the introduction of the electronic voting system in France, the option to vote in a place where there is no candidate was provided, but the option of "I will not vote" was not provided.

In conclusion

The above international practice establishes that the minimum right of the voter to vote or not to vote is a right. It also helps to promote the belief that democracy will be implemented only when this right can be implemented. It can also be said that commitment to democracy will be expressed.

The examples of democratic countries adopting it with priority and undemocratic countries rejecting it also show that the right to reject has become a new standard of democracy. Due to the guarantee of the right to vote or not to vote, in such countries, at least there is no need to listen to issues such as boycotting the vote and loss of property and life during the boycott movement. It has established the belief that one can use one's opinion in a civilized manner. In addition, for the protection and development of democracy, i.e. more people