The Election Commission (EC) of India says no to a minister’s blog and before bloggers cry “freedom of speech”, this was a great decision by the EC. [TOI]
The minister was reportedly (mis)using the state’s resources, his blog was on the police department’s website, and the minister was reportedly using his blog for advertising himself for the upcoming elections. Any private citizen using his/her employer’s resources would probably meet a similar fate at the hands of the employer. You are free to blog about yourself or any other topic under the sun, so long as you are not misusing someone else’, in this case the employer’s resources.
Here’s another controversial issue from that article:
EC has received intelligence inputs suggesting “saree distribution is going to start shortly in a big way. Some people are active (to entice voters) in the elections” in and around Bangalore
This is a big issue in the world’s most populous democracy where political parties directly bribe voters into voting for them by providing them with clothing, food and alcohol close to election day.
There is a huge public outcry and then everyone collectively shrugs their shoulders and moves on to the next media controversy. But no one really looks at the basic issues of this transaction. Even though trading money for votes has an unethical vibe to it, it’s a brilliant tactical move both by the voters and vote-getters. The voters, because they are unlikely to see or receive anything else, for the next 5 years or so. The vote-getters (politicians), because it’s relatively cheaper to bribe the voters making their path to power much easier and once they are in power, they get access to much greater monetary resources.
Keeping in mind, that most voters see little differences between their choice of political parties, the voters decide it’s easier to receive goodies instead of receiving nothing at all. This currently only works for the poorer sections of society because it’s harder to tempt the middle class with clothing, food and alcohol. They could possibly be tempted with goodies like, cars and flats. But the middle class voters are lesser in number and the gifts more expensive, hence the non-existence of this transaction.
Turning back to the original issue, what does one do about this blatant bribery for votes scheme? Sure it can be made illegal, which it already is and, guess what? That ain’t working. Improving the economic situation of the voter would help. But if it were that easy, I suspect we would not be having this conversation in the first place. Classic chicken-egg conundrum. Also, the reason socialism still exists.
Maybe it should be legalized, instead. Think about it. Politicians compete with and outspend each other to offer gifts to voters before elections. Trucks show up bearing party symbols and gifts for all. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be after elections anyway?
Ultimately the vote-for-gifts market becomes so saturated and overcrowded, politicians start offering gifts to niche markets like, the middle class, and higher, whose few thousand votes could make the difference in this overcrowded market.
Also the advantage of over saturation, when people receive compensation from all parties, ultimately, they are bound to go by their hearts and pick the party which matters the most to them. This is also called democracy.
Besides the obvious brickbats, if you have a better idea lets hear it.
Looks like you are one of our regular visitors. Here is our RSS feed, just another way to keep up with the new posts.
Loading ...