Is it democratic to compel people to vote?
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PEOPLE LINED up before polling booths is a customary media visual at election time in India. It evokes little less than passing interest in most people.
But if we step back and take a sweeping look, the visual is exhilarating. People in nearby China don’t get a similar opportunity. People in Pakistan do get it occasionally, but don’t know when they would get the next chance.
This visual, we may say, is not commonplace at all. Regular polls, the freedom to vote, and the acceptance of the people’s verdict by all parties, is something the country has cherished for the last six decades.
But there is only scope for mild self-congratulation. India has the largest number of voters in the world but only just over half of them go out and vote.
In 2009, only about 59 per cent of the 71 crore voters took the pains to walk to the polling booth and cast their vote for the Lok Sabha election.
This means that a considerable chunk of people don’t (want to) have any say in the political process.
This has puzzled political scientists for years. Various reasons — from disillusionment to apathy — are ascribed to it and sundry solutions are suggested.
The most drastic solution prescribed has been to make voting compulsory and to punish voters who don’t exercise this right. And true to his style, the irrepressible Gujarat chief minister, Narendra Modi, has already implemented it for the local bodies poll through the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Bill. The bill warns of ‘punishment’ to defaulters but does not specify what it would be.
The crucial question is whether it is democratic to compel people to vote, though it will ‘formally’ strengthen the democratic structure.
"I am all for such a measure," said Dr G. Gopakumar, author and head of the political science department in Kerala University. "Countries like Australia already have such a law in place. It will enable parties to mobilise more voters and ensure involvement of the majority in the electoral process. Even if a fine of Rs 50 is imposed, people will go out and vote."
However, many voters don’t agree.
"I have been voting regularly for several decades but I don’t think it is a good measure," said Mr K.
Narayanan, 62, a retired government employee.
Younger citizens are angrier. "The spread in the ballot paper is not exciting," said Mr V.G. Muralikrishnan, 36, cine actor and writer. "We can choose between Amar Singh and Jawaharlal Nehru, but there is no choice between Amar Singh and Shibu Soren. In such a situation, the voter has the right to withhold his approval. Compelling him is an autocratic measure."
Truly, only a trite definition of democracy can limit it to elections and voting. Dissent is a major facet of democracy. For the powerless voter, the weapon for dissent is the vote. By withholding it, he sends a powerful message.
Ironically enough, the freedom ‘not to vote’ is also something to be cherished and fought for in the 60th year of the Republic.
K. Venugopal
Post new comment