Coercive democracy

BJP President L.K. Advani would like compulsory voting, a failure to exercise one's democratic right having to be paid for by a fine. He has...

BJP President L.K. Advani would like compulsory voting, a failure to exercise one’s democratic right having to be paid for by a fine. He has pointed to the examples of Italy and Australia, which have trod this path before. Yet, never mind that Italy has not generally been cited as an example of model democratic government, this idea is fundamentally at odds with the democratic spirit. Forget also for the moment that the BJP should stand to benefit from a large voter turnout: its adversaries are more likely to go out and vote en bloc against it than its supporters are to vote for it. This tendency is likely to be strengthened by the BJP’s apparently good prospects in the coming elections, to lull some of its potential voters into complacency and into failing to vote.

A fine idea as democracy is, too many undemocratic and illiberal acts are perpetrated in its name. Bureaucratic hurdles to voting aside, a conscious decision by many people not to vote is as much a democratic choice as a definite and positive vote. It is a vote against all available choices, against the system, against whatever voters happen to feel angry or indifferent about, and should be respected as such. Compulsory voting is undesirable for many other reasons. One is that it is liable to make political parties less diligent in working to translate a general sympathy towards themselves into an active vote. Another, by no means insignificant, consideration must be that India, for all its much-hyped democracy, has a poor record of respecting civil rights. The system may sanction fines against lazy or recalcitrant voters; a democracy-police could end up abusing their rights in grievous ways.

Those who are inclined to favour a compulsory vote would do well to ponder the reasons why people fail to vote and the section of people which fails most spectacularly to vote. While the most literate state tends to register among the largest voter turnouts, probably because of its tradition of strong grassroots political organisation, it is generally the elite that comes a cropper in voting. Perhaps they see their individual fortunes as being less directly in political hands than do the worst off. Increasing prosperity in the industrial world has been accompanied by a progressive lack of interest in politics. Neither is a bad reason. A third factor is perhaps the greater disgust educated sections feel for the way politicians have misgoverned in this country. This is not to argue for a moment that low voter turnouts are a good thing, or that it is all right for educated voters to stay away from polling booths. But India of all countries should know that many undesirable things have to be tolerated for the sake of democracy and freedom of choice, and hope that some of these things will eventually be redressed naturally. In any case, force should not be an option. Certainly it is a good idea to encourage voters to exercise their franchise, through media awareness campaigns and suchlike. But fundamentally, politicians have to accept that low turnouts imply a perception on the part of the electorate that its stake in the system is low. They should not be allowed to take the easy way out. If models are a must, let politicians strive to give Indians the pride in their democracy that Athenians had in theirs.