I know, I know. It is supposed to be every citizen's fundamental duty to vote during elections. Time and again we are reminded of the importance of our votes, how our votes count, how we can make a difference to the system by voting correctly and how we deserve the people who come to power, if we don't exercise our franchise.

What drivel!

In a democracy, voting and "not voting" are both rights. "Not voting" is as much a choice as is the right to choose among different candidates standing for elections. And this right can be exercised without feeling guilty. Jug Suraiya had it right sometime during the last election when he wrote a piece about this in the Times of India. That by "not voting", we are still exercising our franchise. It is a positive action that announces our displeasure with the candidates and parties standing for election.

Why do we vote? To choose among different people who stand for certain ideologies and issues. What does one do, when no party or person is worth it? When, each one is a bigger crook or non-achiever than the other? Choose the best among the worst? You must be kidding! To exercise a choice among candidates and parties, there must first be a choice. But when each one is as bad as the other, the only real choice then is between "not voting" and voting.

Where are the parties or politicians who are not two-timing hypocrites?
BJP: A far-right party which is now trying to give itself a moderate, secular look with Vajpayee at the fore-front. But is public memory so short that it forgets the inherent rabid nature of the core of the party which is the basic reason for its existence? The reason why Babri Masjid occurred ? The riots that ensued ? Advani's rath yatra ? The RSS? The Bajrang Dal?
Shiv Sena: A "goonda" party. Led by a man who has no conscience, compunctions or morals. Whose goons extort money left, right and centre and hold the city to ransom. A party which has done more to tear the social fabric of Mumbai than any other party.
Congress: A party which has no base, no ideology and is nothing but a gathering of sycophants. A party which if given the choice would install a Nehru-Gandhi monarchy. A party which has ruled India the longest and screwed it the most. And to have an Italian woman as the PM? God....
Nationalist Party: A hotch-potch of Congress rebels led by Sharad Pawar, whose regime in Maharashtra has always been marked by controversies and corruption. Bereft of any ideology or mission.
Janata Dal: Are you kidding?
Regional Parties: On a regional level, aren't they all the same, with different degrees and levels of incompetence?
Would you really want to vote for any of the above?

The unfortunate problem is that dishonesty for politicians begins with the election campaign process itself. The election commission has placed a cap on election expenses, which is a ridiculously small amount. This means that almost all candidates will fudge their post-election financial statements, because the amount of money spent on an election campaign is always more. This money itself creates a problem, because it will have come from a combination of personal funds, well-wishers and donations. Donations from individuals, groups and companies imply a quid pro quo sometime in the future. Somewhere, sometime, the politicians will have to return the favor.

Let us for a moment assume, that since most politicians the world over are similar, this level of dishonesty and corruption is acceptable. A popular argument is, "so what if he is corrupt (which everyone is anyway), at least he is efficient and the work gets done". But, even that does not happen. There is a marked lack of accountability and transparency in the functioning of our politicians and they rarely if ever show any kind of positive performance. If politicians had to be assessed the way managers in private companies are, or were under peer pressure, the way doctors and lawyers are, chances are the majority would be fired or ousted immediately.

Would you really want to vote for them?

People say you must vote to choose a party that will keep up the pace of the so-called "reforms" that are ostensibly liberalizing India from the earlier "dark ages". Does it really matter who comes to power, for this to happen? Many of the reform processes have been thrust upon us by world bodies and organizations as part of the price we have to pay for joining the rest of the world, economically. Not much that the politicians can do there! The rest of the internal reforms will occur or not occur, depending on which lobbyists and industrial houses have more clout. Most industrial houses donate equally to all major parties ensuring that whoever comes to power, their interests will be served. The politicians will concentrate however on what they are best at. Inciting passions and irrational fervour over religion, language and territory, creating divides and riots throughout the country.

Do you really want to vote for them?

Don't we exercise are right to "not choose" among available options, if they don't come up to our standards, when it comes to clothes, spouses, cars, houses and careers, hoping for something better? In the same vein, do we really have to vote when there is no choice?

Is there a good reason for voting?