NOTA may yet haunt the politician on the ballot

The question may yet come to haunt the politician in the region: If one chooses to abstain from casting a vote because they do not like any particular candidate in the running, could we have a place to mark “None of the above (NOTA)” on the ballot allowing one not to vote for any one of the candidates? As happened in the US State of Nevada, a voter in Kenya might just go to court and demand NOTA on the ballot. There are those of the opinion that “Kenyans” have become willfully litigious in asserting their rights with the new Constitution. So let’s take the example of Kenya. It was with keen interest that Kenyans everywhere, including those in Rwanda, watched the outcome of the by-elections in the country this week. This is no surprise, as the excitement of an election only a local, even one removed in the Diaspora, would know. An election is different for every nation, and the experience of it plays to the dynamic of the local circumstance. In Kenya, they were literally testing a slew of new political parties, foremost among which was The National Alliance (TNA), led by Mr. Uhuru Kenyatta, its presidential candidate. Mr. Raila Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) seems to be one of the few “old” parties that have remained standing, only by dint of its considerable muscle.ODM did well taking one seat in the by-elections, while TNA was emphatic stamping its new presence on the political scene by winning two of the three parliamentary seats.The by-elections were well organised and peaceful, to everyone’s relief. The only disappointment appears to have been the low turnout in the by-elections. The largest and most cosmopolitan of the three constituencies in the by-elections, Kajiado North, had a 40 per cent turnout. This means that six people out of ten did not vote in the constituency.One may only speculate as to why. Was it that they could not vote because of some unavoidable circumstances – say, a sick child or a business that could not be left unattended? Or, could it be that it was a conscious decision to abstain from voting because one did not like any of the candidates?Abstention is a conceivable option, as many Kenyans are unhappy with the current crop of politicians who seem “too keen to hike their salaries and not pay taxes” once in parliament. Many are not expected to be re-elected come the general elections in March next year.Imagine, therefore, that NOTA was on the ballot and received more disgruntled ticks than the votes of a winning candidate. Would it mean that the majority of the voters have no confidence in the candidates offered? What particularly would be the implications? A legal suit in the US State of Nevada tested the constitutionality of the NOTA option in court recently. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found NOTA a viable, though symbolic, option for Nevada voters. It may remain on the ballot, but “toothless”. That is, a NOTA win would not nullify an election on what would amount to a no confidence vote on the candidates. Therefore, there has to be a politician to be voted for, however vile.NOTA needs not be toothless, however. As observed by the National Review, which describes the case, a candidate who receives the second most votes to NOTA would most likely feel humiliated and would work to deliver to his constituents.“NOTA might even discourage highly negative campaigning, because candidates would be running for the approval of voters – not just to offend fewer people than their opponents do.”Perhaps NOTA may not be a bad thing for us to contemplate.Twitter: @gitura