Why the Indian Election Commission Failed to Implement Negative Voting in 2019: An Exploration into Dangerous Promises

Following the 2019 elections in India, a question revolves around why the Election Commission did not implement negative voting to address the issue of dangerous and false promises made by political candidates. While the decision to initiate such a system was not straightforward, the commission faced numerous challenges that prevented its implementation. This article explores the reasons behind this inaction, the specific promises that were considered dangerous, and the ongoing impact on Indian voters.

Understanding the Complexity of Negative Voting

Negative voting is a practice that would allow voters to cast a vote against a specific candidate if they believe the candidate's promises are not trustworthy or harmful to the electorate. However, implementing such a system is not as simple as it may seem. It requires a well-thought-out framework to prevent abuse and ensure fairness. The Indian Election Commission (IEC) had to consider various legal, logistical, and social factors before making a decision.

Notable Dangerous Promises in 2019

One such potentially dangerous promise came from the ruling party, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The promise of "Achhe Din" (Good Days) was initially seen as an optimistic initiative to improve the quality of life for the citizens. However, it quickly became a point of contention, with many questioning its implementation and impact.

A crucial, but perhaps overlooked, promise was the assurance to farmers that they would receive a minimum price for their produce, supplemented by a 50% profit. This was later attributed to a mythical character named "Chota Modi" and was closely associated with Mehul Choksi, a fraudster with a track record of questionable financial dealings. The term "Malya," or "Maal le gaya," highlights the laxity and potential corruption within the BJP's ranks.

OROP and the Betrayal of Soldiers

Another significant promise was the_one-time settlement_ (one-time settlement or OROP) for officers and soldiers, which was supposed to provide a one-time financial settlement to recognize their service. The promise was made in 2014, and soldiers have been demanding its implementation for years. Despite this, they have faced obstructions and false promises by the current government, leaving them frustrated and disillusioned. This promise holds a special place in the hearts of many Indian citizens, as it is directly related to the security and welfare of the nation's armed forces.

The Impact on Voters

The disappointment and anger of voters, particularly those who cast their votes for the BJP, have been palpable. Many, including the author, who initially saw the government as a force for change, have now been disillusioned. They relate to the sentiment of the phrase "ke Kutte doom kabhi sidhi ho hi nahi sakti" (A dog's bark never remains constant), expressing that they no longer trust the promises made by their leaders.

These experiences have led to a growing dissatisfaction among the electorate, prompting questions about the integrity of political promises and the role of the election commission in safeguarding the interests of the voters. The failure to implement negative voting has been seen as a missed opportunity to address these concerns directly and transparently.

Conclusion

The question of why the Indian Election Commission did not implement negative voting when faced with potentially dangerous promises remains relevant. While the lack of negative voting may seem like a missed opportunity, it also highlights the complexities involved in such a decision.

Voters are now more aware of the need for better governance and transparency in politics. As the issue of political promises continues to be a critical concern, discussions about electoral reforms and the role of the election commission will likely gain more attention in the coming years.

It is hoped that future elections will see more robust mechanisms to ensure that political candidates are held accountable for their promises, and that voters have a clear and straightforward way to express their dissatisfaction.