© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
In the second phase of voting for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections on Friday (April 26), there was a small dip in voter turnout at 66.7%, around 3% less than in the 2019 elections.
While the first phase also saw a small dip compared to 2019, India’s state and national elections have historically seen relatively high voter turnouts – seen as one of the signs of a healthy democracy.
A relevant quote here is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States. It says: “We do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate”. While not directly linked to Jefferson, its association with him likely comes from his views on the importance of an engaged citizenry in a democracy, even though the right to vote was extremely limited during his time.
We explain the quote’s significance and why voting is seen as a key pillar of civic engagement. Such quotes are also relevant from the perspective of the UPSC CSE.
In democracies, voting is seen as a basic exercise that shows people’s faith in the political process. The right to vote, after all, has also been secured by various disadvantaged groups – colonised people, women, racial and ethnic minorities – after long struggles.
Voting gives each person a say in deciding who will hold positions of power in their society and is a crucial part of exercising one’s citizenship.
Having the right to vote also makes one feel part of a larger community where their voice matters. Emmeline Pankhurst, a British suffragette, argued before women had the right to vote: “Men make the moral code and they expect women to accept it. They have decided that it is entirely right and proper for men to fight for their liberties and their rights, but that it is not right and proper for women to fight for theirs”.
In that sense, the representation voting gives plays a role in people feeling like stakeholders in a system.
What the quote says
The quote talks about one of the fundamental contradictions associated with democracy. It is supposed to be a rule of the people, by the people, for the people. But if most people are not part of the process, then it cannot be any of those things. In modern times, this is not because of structural barriers to voting, often, but due to voter apathy.
Democracy is often criticised as a rule of the majority over the minority, too, if enough safeguards are not instituted to keep autocracy at bay. However, in case of voter apathy or barriers to voting, the majority is not even registering its voice at all.
This could be dangerous for the overall health of existing political mechanisms, since only a few people are picking the popular representatives. It could allow for the small voting population which votes to be identified, manipulated and polarised in favour of certain parties or candidates.
Moreover, it implies that vast sections of people feel detached from the systems holding the power to impact their lives. The system includes lawmakers who can legislate on everything from taxes to building more educational institutions to civil rights, or local political leaders who play a role in directing public works, road repair and construction, maintaining public parks, etc.
Voter apathy is also often seen in mature democracies, which might hint at a sense of disillusionment with the process among a population over time, or a view that voting does not help change things. Many are also put off by the invisible levers that move politics, like behind-the-scenes lobbying and electoral funding by vested interests. Therefore, a lower voter turnout may imply the need for making the system more accountable to citizens.
An analysis in The Economist a few years ago noted that young people in Britain and the US were less likely to vote when compared to older age groups. It argued that one reason could be that people do not see their representatives reflecting themselves. “Young people—who tend to be more cosmopolitan, liberal and hopeful than their elders—tend to be switched off by the negativity and cynicism of election campaigns targeting the unhappy old. Sadly, cynicism then breeds cynicism,” it said.
In 2013, the Indian Supreme Court allowed for the option ‘None of the Above’ to be introduced in Lok Sabha and state Legislative Assembly elections to allow such views to be expressed.
“Not allowing a person to cast vote negatively defeats the very freedom of expression and the right ensured in Article 21,i.e. the right to liberty… a provision of negative voting would be in the interest of promoting democracy as it would send clear signals to political parties and their candidates as to what the electorate think about them. The mechanism of negative voting, thus, serves a very fundamental and essential part of a vibrant democracy,” the court said at the time.
