People in a democracy are often reminded: ‘People died for your right to vote, so you have to vote!’ Should something that presupposes an exercise of choice end up being an obligation, or worse, a coercion? Democracy is championed as the cradle of cherished ideals like freedom and equality but it comes with its own set of shortcomings.
Elections, a fundamental means to establish democratic government, often end up creating win-win scenarios for politicians. If an individual does not get to choose his/her representative as freely as democracy promises, all is definitely not well with it.
In times of “post-truth”, politicians are increasingly using manipulative methods to “persuade” people into voting. Populist rhetoric, assisted by technology, has emerged as a powerful weapon for politicians.
One might ask: why do you want people to vote when they don’t want to? What if they don’t find someone worth voting for? Does a refusal to vote rob them of their worth as good citizens? On the contrary. Democracy cannot be the process of choosing a politician who is ‘the best among the worst’. It cannot be a Hobson’s choice.
Surely, those who vote on the basis of taking the lesser of the two evils on board are in fact undermining the very principle of democracy. It belittles and weakens the power and the worth of people in becoming a part of the political process.
Ultimately, it tends to be an act of self-censorship, making democracy vulnerable to unexpected instabilities. You can’t have democracy and a censorship on freedom together; it would be an oxymoron.
One can have numerous opinions in favour of not voting. I would modestly begin with the ‘abuse of freedom’. Compulsion, even in the name of democracy, remains compulsion, a violation of individual freedom and of democracy itself.
The right of not to vote may be as important as the right to vote. Abstaining from voting may, therefore, be a conscientious act, a resultant of rational and considered reflection, an attempt to draw attention to, say, the lack of choice among mainstream political parties.
Or, perhaps, to express a principled rejection of the political system per se. However, do read it in conjunction with the ‘democratic fatigue syndrome’ which is not caused by the people, the politicians, or the parties; it is caused by the procedure. Democracy may not be the problem; voting may be.
The second issue would be the cosmetic democracy. Obligatoryvoting addresses the symptoms of the problem but not the source. Making votingcompulsory would indisputably increase the electoral turnout, However, it wouldnot address the deeper complications that account for deterioration in civicengagement. Higher turnout levels brought about through compulsion maytherefore simply mask some deeper problems.
Third, ‘worthless’ votes. Generally, those who do not voteare either least interested in politics or have little understanding of it.’Forcing’ would-be non-voters to vote would therefore simply increase thenumber of random and unthinking votes that are cast. This is an especiallyworrying prospect since such ‘worthless’ votes may in some cases determine theoutcome of an election.
Another problem with compulsory voting is its potentialdistortion of the manifestoes adopted by political parties. Instead of focusingon the interests of the electorate, parties may get encouraged to framepolicies designed to attract more volatile ‘marginal’ voters, thereby leadingto a decline in coherence and an increase in polarization.
Political Theorists have come up with four perceptiblemodels of voting which ‘democracies’ have employed throughout the world: (a)The sociological model (b) The party identification model (c) The dominantideology model (d) The rational choice model.
(a) Sociological model links voting behavior to groupmembership, suggesting that an electorate tends to adopt a voting pattern thatreflects the economic and social position of the group which they belong to.
(b) The party identification model is based on a sense ofpsychological attachment that people have to parties. People begin to identifythemselves with a party for no reason other than that their ancestors ralliedbehind that particular party.
(c) The dominant ideology model is purely driven by theideologies that people adhere to.
Of all the models,
(d) the rational choice model would fetch the prefectrations for a democracy. However, taking the voting behavior of people in Indiaas a frame of reference, one would feel convinced that it has rarely beenpractised in the recent past, the first three models being almost alwayspredominant. The concretization of the Hindutva ideology and its politicalpersonification in the BJP are the most recent examples of (b) and (c).
The idea of NOTA is being increasingly floated by politicalpundits as a means of registering dissent. However, what it fails to do is toidentify a perfect representative who echoes the understanding of theelectorate choosing this option.
The questions that should be asked about the current stateof democracy are numerous but answers few. However, not only has it beenreduced to the process of voting but the use of populist rhetoric has becomeinstrument of eroding the kernel of democracy. There are different places in ademocracy that help citizens in shaping the fate of the nation. Should thatreally be that bizarre, isolated place called the voting booth?
Peerzada Mahboob Ul Haq is student of sPolitical Science, Aligarh Muslim University.