Adult franchise is an essential civil and political right for a country that practices democracy. In many electoral systems, voters’ choice is constrained to select from the list of candidates nominated by the political parties. As Nepal struggles with the problem of political instability, recurring leadership and increasing apathy, the right to reject—practicalised by including the option of ‘none of the above’ (NOTA) in the ballot—allows citizens to formally express dissatisfaction with the nominated candidates.

The Constitution, in its preamble, mentions, “Being committed to socialism based on democratic norms and values, including the people’s competitive multiparty democratic system of governance, civil liberties, fundamental rights, human rights, adult franchise, periodic elections…” The foundation of our constitution promotes adult franchise and periodic elections as a fundamental democratic value. The core value of adult franchise is free and fair elections, where there is no undue influence.

We need to understand that while we cast a vote for a candidate, we are giving our consent to that person to represent us, but what if we do not like any of the nominated candidates? Should we not have the option of not choosing anyone? Should we not claim for free consent, which also includes ‘none of the above’ as an option? Unless we do not have the option not to choose if not satisfied, can an election be considered free and fair at all? When one cannot reject the nominated members, there is undue influence to choose one.

The right to vote encompasses several key principles. First, there is the right to equal suffrage, meaning each person’s vote carries the same weight and one person’s vote is equal to one vote. Next is the right to access information, which requires that all voters have adequate information about the candidates running for office. Another important principle is the right to a secret ballot, which allows individuals to vote for anyone they find suitable without fear of being questioned. This is closely related to the right to choose representatives, which inherently includes the option not to choose any representatives at all. While citizens have the freedom to vote, they also have the right not to vote.

It is the legitimate expectation of citizens to get a capable leader, someone who truly represents them. Having a limited choice becomes an obstruction to choosing freely. The right to reject candidates, or the option of NOTA, not only allows us to choose the right representatives but also compels the nomination of qualified and visionary candidates. As citizens, we have the power to deny candidates who do not align with our values and visions. When public trust in the government erodes, especially after seeing the same faces in leadership for 20 to 30 years without any significant change, the right to reject becomes one of the best options for seeking a fresh perspective.

Over the years, we have often encountered the same individuals in government, yet meaningful change has been elusive. These leaders seem to consider themselves unreachable, forgetting that they should be serving the citizens. The behaviour of those in higher authority has created a culture among other government officials that lacks loyalty to the people they are meant to serve.

In the case of Bikas Lakai Khadka V. Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers and others, the court has beautifully addressed the issue of the right to reject. It justifies, just as the right to speak is included under the freedom of expression, the right to remain silent is affixed conventionally. Similarly, the right to vote includes the right not to vote. The case also explains that, until and unless the citizens can exercise the right to reject the nominated candidates, the government cannot be considered as representatives of the citizens, and such a government cannot be considered legitimate. While citizens have the right to select the candidates by political parties, they also have the right to reject them.

The positions of head of the government, prime ministers and council of ministers, head of the state, and president are all political appointments. According to Article 245 (2) of the Constitution, the appointment of the chief election commissioner and commissioners is to be done by the President on the recommendation of the constitutional council. The constitutional council consists of the prime minister as the chairperson, mandated by Article 284 of the constitution. All the decision-making power is, therefore, vested in the government.

Article 55 of the Constitution prohibits raising any question in court regarding Part 4 ‘Directive Principles, Policies and Obligations of the State’. This part of the Constitution remains as the tastiest chocolate inside a wrapper that cannot be touched or opened. It directly prohibits the accountability of the existing government, which promotes rule by law instead of the rule of law. This also limits the checks and balances mechanism, giving absolute power to the government.

Remembering the first and only referendum, which was held in 1980 to know the people’s will on whether they wanted a multi-party or Panchayat system. This referendum is an example of the exercise of people’s will or people’s participation, which is the core of democracy. At present, Article 275 enables the provision of a referendum, but the decision of a referendum must be made through a two-thirds majority of the total number of members of the federal parliament. Referendum exclusively addresses the needs of citizens; therefore, a referendum can be held on whether citizens want to exercise NOTA or not.

Since we practice democracy, we cannot deny anyone’s nomination for the election. NOTA or right to reject gives the voters who have reservations about the listed candidates an alternative to participate in the election. And when a significant number of the voters select NOTA, it becomes clear that candidates must address the concerns and expectations of voters to gain their trust.

Democracy sustains where the law is supreme, government is accountable towards its citizens, and citizens have full access to choose their representatives. There are numerous examples of other countries incorporating NOTA in one or another. The US state of Nevada has added the NOTA option since 1976. Other countries such as Colombia, India and Ukraine have an explicit ‘blank vote’ option on the ballot. Nepal can also be another example in the global scenario. The public’s frustration with corruption, unstable government, lack of governance and recurring political leaders has increased significantly. It is time that we fight for all of our voting rights, including the right to reject.