Opinion - Letters to the Editor

UNPA’s decision

The decision of the United National Progressive Alliance to abstain from voting in the presidential election is surprising. In a democracy, it is the duty of every citizen to cast his or her vote. How then can responsible elected members of our legislatures abstain from voting in the election to the highest constitutional office? The UNPA could have instead instructed its MLAs and MPs to vote according to their conscience. Abstaining may not be punishable by law, but it is unpardonable.

K.T. Kuppusamy,
Chennai

In the context of electoral reforms, suggestions have been made to make voting compulsory in the general elections. When such is the thinking, the UNPA’s decision to abstain is most unfortunate. It is not a question of legality but one of propriety and democratic duty.

V. Krishnamachari,
Mumbai

The UNPA’s decision is unfortunate and irresponsible. Its leaders must introspect whether they are truly representing the people who voted for them.

C. Subba Reddy,
Akepadu, A.P.

It would be better for the Third Front legislators to resign if they are reluctant to take part in the voting. What moral right will the political parties that constitute the UNPA henceforth have to expect the people to exercise their franchise during the general elections?

T.V. Unnikrishnan,
Palakkad

The UNPA has taken two crucial decisions: to abstain from voting in the presidential election and to put up its own candidate for the vice-presidential election. The reason for the second decision, taken despite knowing full well that there is no chance of the candidate winning, is to register its vote and identity.

If the UNPA feels abstaining in the presidential election is appropriate, why deviate from its stand with respect to the vice-presidential election and needlessly humiliate a candidate by nominating him for the post of Vice-President?

K.D. Viswanaathan,
Nashua, New Hampshire

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu