News Analysis: Saying 'No' is a right too

The issue of having the option of “No” vote in the election has come up again for discussion in the ongoing electoral talks being organised by the Election Commission.

The fundamental question is why a voter's choice should be confined only to candidates nominated by political parties. It is quite possible, the argument goes, that a voter may not like any candidates on the ballot, and that he should have the option of expression his rejection of all the candidates by casting a "No" vote.

Political analysts say, "No" vote provision puts pressure on political parties to some extent to field clean candidates to contest the parliamentary election.    

Two main reasons drive the political parties to be suspicious of the “No” vote provision. One, they consider it a threat to their freedom to nominate anybody in the election and second, that it wastes vote by not being counted for any of the candidate on the ballot.

It may be recalled nine years ago Bangladesh had given its citizens the right to cast the “no” vote.

Bangladeshis voters could vote “No” in the December 2008 parliamentary election. But the right was scrapped right next year, in February of 2009.

We were first among the citizens of the Saarc countries to exercise the right of “No” voting and 13th in the world.

Currently, India, France, Belgium, Brazil, Greece, Ukraine, Chile, Finland, Colombia, Spain and Sweden are among countries having the “No” vote in their electoral system.

Demand for restoration of the provision for “No” vote has been raised during the on going electoral talks by the Election Commission. The EC will decide on it after wrapping up talks with all political parties.  

If we look back, we can see that it was not an easy task for the EC to make a difference through introduction of the “No” vote in 2008.

Major political parties had strongly opposed the EC's proposal for introduction of the “No” vote provision. Participating in the talks with the EC in 2007, and also in 2008, political parties had urged the EC to ignore the proposal.

But the EC-led by ATM Shamsul Huda stuck to its gun. In defence, it had argued that casting “No” vote is one of the democratic rights. It gives voters an additional "choice" of rejecting the choice of the political parties.

The then caretaker government led by Fakhruddin Ahmed did not oppose the EC's proposal. Finally, the provision was introduced in August 2008, empowering the EC to hold re-election in a constituency where more than 50% of the voters rejected all candidates. They chose to vote “No”.

However, the “No” vote provision did not have much effect in the December 29, 2008 parliamentary polls. Only around four lakh people voted “No” then.

But the Awami League, which assumed office through the December 29 election, did not like the provision. It abolished the “No” vote provision in February 2009.

It is a matter of interest to see what Bangladesh did in 2008, India, the world's largest democracy, has done in its 2014 election. 

But it was not easy sailing for the Indian EC.

The Indian EC had also moved to introduce “No” vote in 2009. But it could not proceed with the idea due to the political parties' opposition.

It was the Indian Supreme Court that came up with a landmark verdict in September 2013 asking the EC to introduce the “No” vote provision.

The Indian SC was of the opinion negative voting would foster honesty and vibrancy in elections.

It added that democracy was all about choice and the right of citizens to cast negative vote was of utmost significance. The apex court said the right to vote and the right to say “No” are both part of basic right of voters.

“For democracy to survive, it is essential that the best available men should be chosen … for proper governance of the country. This can be best achieved through men of high moral and ethical values who win the elections on a positive vote,” said the Indian SC. 

Thus the “No” vote option would indeed compel political parties to nominate sound candidates, it said.

The apex court further said giving right to a voter not to vote for any candidate while protecting his right of secrecy is extremely important in a democracy. "Such an option gives the voter the right to express his disapproval of the kind of candidates being put up by the parties."

"Gradually, there will be a systemic change and the parties will be forced to accept the will of the people and field candidates who are known for their integrity.”

Not allowing a person to cast a negative vote would defeat the very freedom of expression and the right to liberty, said the court.

Following the court's order, the Indian EC introduced the “No” vote provision in the 2014 parliamentary election. More than 60 lakh voters chose to vote “No” that year. 

India also introduced the “no vote” provision in state assembly elections in 2016. The 2016 Assembly elections saw some active canvassing for “no vote”, which allows voters to express their disapproval of all contestants.

In Kerala, a group of women activists hit the road urging people not to elect any candidate if no woman was present in the fray. In Tamil Nadu, a youth group campaigned for “no vote” as a protest vote against corruption, according to a report in the Hindu on February 28 this year.

Pakistan has been facing an uphill battle to introduce the provision since 2012. Its Supreme Court in 2012 in a verdict asked the EC to allow people to cast “No” vote.

The Pak EC had decided to introduce “No” vote in the 2013 election. But it had to back off from the decision in face of criticism by political parties.   

In Bangladesh, there is still a debate over reintroduction of the provision for “No” vote.

The “No” vote can play a significant role to bring qualitative change in elections. If voters do not find any candidate in a constituency fit to vote for, they will not abstain from polling. They can exercise their right to franchise by casting “No” vote against all the candidates.

This will encourage people to get more involved in the electoral process. This practice, if introduced, will force political parties to nominate clean candidates in the elections.

Therefore, the provision of “No” vote can bring honest and competent people in elections who can improve quality of the parliament.  And this will ultimately contribute to strengthen our democracy.