“The Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2009” was passed by Gujarat Assembly on 19th December 2009. The bill proposes to make for the first time in the country, voting mandatory in local body polls. It also provides for freedom to voters to cast their vote in favour of "none of the candidates” contesting elections a sort of negative vote that was on the wish list of many civil societies. To take it to logical conclusion, the bill proposes penalities for the defaulters who fail to give a plausible reason for abstaining. Rules for penalties, however are yet to be framed.
Explaining the statement of objects and reasons of the bill, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi argued that the true spirit of the will of the people is not reflected in the electoral mandate due to of low turnout of voters. Hence this is an attempt to strengthen India's democracy by bringing the voter, rather than the political party on the centre stage.
Once in place, state of Gujarat will find itself amongst in as many as 32 nations where voting is mandatory. The bill however has drawn strong reactions both amongst the political circles as well as academia.
To understand the controversy let us understand the idea behind compulsory voting.
Wikipedia lists out some arguments.
(A) in support of compulsory voting
• By raising turnout, compulsory voting can make the governing party or coalition appear more legitimate, as its power is very likely to be based on the support of a greater proportion of the population.
• Forcing people to vote has an educative effect, along the lines of 'if you're going to do something, you might as well do it properly'. The idea is that once compelled, people will make more of an effort to cast an informed vote.
• It is everyone's duty to vote, to make sure that a government works effectively. Compulsion ensures that this responsibility isn't shirked.
• Making everyone vote reduces the effect of random factors on the result, like poor transport, poor weather.
• Compulsion leaves parties free to campaign on policies, rather than utilising resources on 'getting out the vote'. This also, to some extent, reduces the role of money in elections. It is also sometimes argued that this leads to a drop in negative campaigning, as there is little to be gained from tactics aimed purely at persuading opposition voters to stay at home.
• High levels of participation in voting may encourage higher levels of participation in other forms of political life.
• Compulsory voting can enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. This can be especially helpful in bringing new people in to community life. It also counteracts the vicious cycle of social exclusion where those that don't vote end up without any policies geared towards them, further discouraging them from getting involved.
(B) Against compulsory voting
• It is a limit on freedom. The right to vote contains the right not to vote, to be apolitical. Even the safeguard of a chance to abstain infringes on one's right to sit around doing nothing.
• A higher voter turnout cannot be said to heighten the legitimacy of a government when the voters have been forced into giving their support. If the will of the voters is, ceteris paribus, to stay at home, it has a right to be reflected.
• Compulsory voting merely hides the problem, rather than solving it. By hiding the problem, it allows parliament to ignore more important measures that would do something to tackle the root causes of voter disengagement.
• Those that don't like being told what to do will be disproportionately inclined to vote against the people making them go out to vote, i.e. the government. This isn't such a problem, however, as incumbency has enough advantages of its own.
• Compulsory voting encourages 'donkey voting', i.e. simply voting for anyone to get it out of the way. This also biases the vote in favour of the top candidate on the ballot. It is estimated that 'donkey voting' accounts for about 1 per cent of all votes cast in a compulsory system.
• By removing incentives for political parties to mobilise their support, compulsory voting favours established parties over minor parties and independents, whose supporters tend to be more inherently motivated.
Arguments in the Indian context
The opponents argue that the provision of mandatory voting is in contravention of the constitutional provisions as it would amount to compulsion on the people to vote thereby curtailing freedom to participate or abstain. They say mandatory voting is likely to cause inconvenience to poor people especially to those who migrate to other regions for work who will need to come to their native place for this mandatory obligation.
Election Commission also feels democracy and compulsion do not go hand-in-hand. Extending the idea across the country is "impracticable as it requires enforcement over 815 million-odd voters in a country. More so when the electoral rolls itself are far from firmed up across the country
Considering that 40 per cent of the 714 million voters do not vote, the proponents argue that making voting compulsory is in the larger interest of the country, democracy and parliamentary norms. When voting is mandatory, the voter will become important and political parties will have to address concerns of all and not just region-specific voters. They further argue that the country's progress can be achieved only through improvement in the quality of public governance beginning “good Leaders”. Citizen’s vote is the only instrument that can bring about a positive change and this can be achieved by exercising voting rights effectively. The option of negative vote will compel political parties to put up good candidates and do good politics.
My Take
Compulsory voting would not in itself address the underlying causes of low turnout, and in particular the apparent lack of engagement between potential voters and politics. However, there is merit in opening up the question of compulsory voting for wider debate.
To prepare the citizens towards this responsibility, the first step could in the form of making this as a “Fundamental duty” under the Indian constitution. Certain benefits could also be linked to those participating in the political process. This could be as mundane as an eligibility to seek information under "Right to information Act" (RTI), because essentially under RTI one is seeking accountability and therefore need for self discipline to begin with cannot be overemphasized. Other could be an eligibility to say own a car or likes. Further to bridge the gap between citizenship and voters the spirit of broader engagement needs to be appreciated as not all laws are created to be strictly enforced. Some laws are created to broadly impress what a citizen's responsibility should be. And voting certainly is a "civic duty", like paying taxes, and is important for the harmonious functioning of a society that appreciates democratic values.
Last but not the least it is important to understand that as a reaction to the clientilist political environment (fuelled by decreasing participation), politicians have strong incentives to shift to special interest groups and core supporters to swing votes. The end result is that our quality of life is affected as the focus shifts from winning hearts through strong public policies to working round the clock on nurturing vote banks by all feasible means possible. An informed and enlightened citizenry thus can only help itself by setting right standards if it wants good governance as it should be.
.
