I wonder what went through Arvind Kejriwal’s mind when he was recalled from the airport to cast his vote in the ongoing assembly elections to UP. Alas, even that was to no avail because his name was not on the electoral rolls and he did not check that despite enough “public service messages”.
No, I am not going to take him to task for talking big and walking small; talking about people’s power but putting himself above them – “Trivial things like voting in an election is beneath me!” Many people seem to have done that and I am not into beating a dead snake, even if it be in the grass.
But, I must point out that the right to recall an elected official is a demand of the leading lights of Team Anna, and leading that team is, drum rolls please, not Anna but Kejriwal! With this in mind, I have a convoluted argument for not giving to Kejriwal the right to recall.
As he had not voted in the elections, Kejriwal cannot claim to have participated in the electoral process at all. This is the starting point. And, it is very close to the ending point too.
Because he did not vote in the elections, there is no contract – implied, within and without his constituency, governance, political, legal, or whatever – between Kejriwal and the successful candidate, indeed any of the candidates. Therefore, the right to recall – by implication, breaking of a contract – the successful candidate on charges of non-performance cannot exist.
If there is any contract at all, it can only be between the elected and those who voted in the elections, no matter the candidate for whom a voter had cast his vote, because the process of election is representative. The right to recall can be exercised, in this case, only through a procedure that is as elaborate as the election process itself, indeed more stringent. It can be exercised only by those who belong to the constituency of the elected representative and have voted.
When I have participated in the process, exercised my right and has accepted the results of the elections, it is not natural justice for that right to be effectively nullified by this catchall “right of recall”. The right to vote-in someone may be representative but the right to recall cannot be.
It is on this score, I would deny the right to recall to Kejriwal in this particular instance. But, extend this matter further and you would see what the right to recall truly means.
Arvind Kejriwal may have been recalled to vote, but because he did not vote, for whatever reasons, he cannot recall the elected official from his constituency! More pertinently, he cannot be recalled to vote for a recall of an elected official!
Raghuram Ekambaram
No, I am not going to take him to task for talking big and walking small; talking about people’s power but putting himself above them – “Trivial things like voting in an election is beneath me!” Many people seem to have done that and I am not into beating a dead snake, even if it be in the grass.
But, I must point out that the right to recall an elected official is a demand of the leading lights of Team Anna, and leading that team is, drum rolls please, not Anna but Kejriwal! With this in mind, I have a convoluted argument for not giving to Kejriwal the right to recall.
As he had not voted in the elections, Kejriwal cannot claim to have participated in the electoral process at all. This is the starting point. And, it is very close to the ending point too.
Because he did not vote in the elections, there is no contract – implied, within and without his constituency, governance, political, legal, or whatever – between Kejriwal and the successful candidate, indeed any of the candidates. Therefore, the right to recall – by implication, breaking of a contract – the successful candidate on charges of non-performance cannot exist.
If there is any contract at all, it can only be between the elected and those who voted in the elections, no matter the candidate for whom a voter had cast his vote, because the process of election is representative. The right to recall can be exercised, in this case, only through a procedure that is as elaborate as the election process itself, indeed more stringent. It can be exercised only by those who belong to the constituency of the elected representative and have voted.
When I have participated in the process, exercised my right and has accepted the results of the elections, it is not natural justice for that right to be effectively nullified by this catchall “right of recall”. The right to vote-in someone may be representative but the right to recall cannot be.
It is on this score, I would deny the right to recall to Kejriwal in this particular instance. But, extend this matter further and you would see what the right to recall truly means.
Arvind Kejriwal may have been recalled to vote, but because he did not vote, for whatever reasons, he cannot recall the elected official from his constituency! More pertinently, he cannot be recalled to vote for a recall of an elected official!
Raghuram Ekambaram
4 comments:
i guess I am naive. i did think of him as one who could probably make the difference. I dont mind my disillusionment but what of the many young people who lloked upon him as a apossible saviour . I know you neer had any faith in any of these people
Pala,
It is not true I had no faith in him ever, after all his work has been acknowledged internationally. Yet, even at the first stirrings of Team Anna gelling I felt a little queasy because he had already started hogging the limelight. He must never have been a foot soldier, I decided, probably wrongly and that was the starting point of my disillusionment with him.
RE
He does not vote, does not fast, does not pay his dues yet is considered upright, funny idols middle class does have
Because he says so, Balu! :))))
RE
Post a Comment