What if you didn't want to vote? This question is on the back of my mind for the past 3 months. I actually do not want to vote in the upcoming CA election of 2070. Not because I do not qualify as a citizen of Nepal. I am eligible to vote but I just do not want to. (DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A BAIDHYA SUPPORTER!) There is couple of reason why I do not want to vote. I will explain them to in a brief moment but here is my question to you. Do you really want to vote? If it's a 'Yes' or even if it is a 'No', ask yourself at the end of the article this question again.
First of all, I want to say this. I am not a huge supporter of Democracy. I believe Voltaire was correct when he said," I would rather be ruled by a lion than hundred mice!" But I am not a supporter of monarchy. Monarchy itself in its purest form means nepotism. Family comes first in most monarch governments instead of ability. What I believe in is modified form of monarchy! It is like meritocracy but with the properties of monarchy. I don't have a name for that system but let us call it "Steve". (I didn't try to Google it!) It is better than democracy in two levels. First, people do not get to elect leaders. That eliminates the chance of someone becoming the leader of the government who is not capable to handle the responsibilities based on popular vote. Second, the leader is elected by might and capability. Who determines that? Well, if I had all the answers, wouldn't I be the one running this show!
The other reason is, frankly the system of election is flawed. Primarily it has too many seats to elect constituents. The second thing is that the seats are divided into two categories. First is the direct election and the second one is "Samanupatik". I didn't want to Google that it either so, let's call it "Ram'. So the flaw with Ram here is that, it means to give the same political parties that failed the country once, the opportunity to send their minions in the CA. That defeats the purpose and the goal of the election. Why do we have the election if we have the same people and the same system and the same chance of failure?
Any hootin, tooting nobody who hasn't passed the 5th grade will get to formulate polices? Do you agree with that? If I understand democracy correctly, a person with caliber should be selected by popular vote. (Correct me if I am wrong! I didn't Google!) So, why have this charade? This is the biggest flaw. I do not want to vote parties but good people. This should be the only option. But the government is a puppet itself from the parties (Even from those who are in opposition of the government!) that we can't throw it down the drain.
Thus, I do not want to vote. Even if I do only vote the people, not the party and disregard the "Ram", I will be succumbing to the corruption of the parties. Thus, I do not wish to enfranchise myself. That does not mean I support any political party. It also does not mean you should do the same. You should analyze facts yourself and ask yourself again. Do I really want to vote?
Bhai, excellent article and very thought provoking. My question to you: if Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom was as cynical of her political system as you seem to be in this article, then women would still not be represented in the British Parliament. There has to be a top-down approach to political change in Nepal, which is what people like Ujwal Thapa are doing - they are taking the lead and hoping to change the political system by being inside the CA. I totally believe that it is the right of every citizen to decide if they want to vote, however, if they don't vote, I don't think they have the right to complain about how the roads aren't built on time, or how the education system is in the ruins. If you raise your voice and make it count through one vote, then its fair for you to spit at our politicians, otherwise, you're not making a contribution to make this a better country either.
ReplyDeleteWith the argument of democracy, I actually agree with you. I believe meritocracy is something that Nepal needs, atleast for the long run. However, in order to instill the idea of a "meritocracy", we need people in the CA making those changes and vouching for such a system.
Once again, congratulations on a very well written article! Do reconsider your voting stance. ;)
I understand what you are saying, I agree with you on one point. If Margaret Thatcher had not participated in the election and was cycnical of the political system there, then women would not be represented in the British Parliament (as the wya she did). That's exactly the poeple we should be voting for and the people who should be participating on the election.
ReplyDeleteBut here is the kicker. Most of the changes in political systems do not occur from elections, rather from revolutions. Sure there are atypical examples all around the world but most of the major changes in politics occur from revolutions. Even the birth of modern democracy "The Magna Carta" was formulated over the grounds of a revolution or revolt. So, to believe that elections are the answer to the longstanding political instability that has been going on in our country is a misconception. Time and again, we have been proven wrong from the elections in the past and from numerous examples from other nations that democracy does not work. Whether it be USA or a war torn african nation. Democracy has failed numerous time. (Yes, democracy has failed in the USA. The amount of surveilance proves it!)
The only way to destroy this system of failure is by not voting. If no one votes, it will be the end of the system. I am fairly certain that those who do believe that roads are not made in my community, loadshedding is at it's peak and corruption is high are the ones fed up with the system. They want change and I am sure, they have more right than anyone. (Anyone meaning some one does not even obey the traffic rules!)
Regarding Ujjwal Thapa and the Bibeksheel Lot, You will soon find out where I stand!