Open Forum

New Delhi, 10 December 2014

Compulsory Voting

TRANSFORMING RIGHT AS DUTY

By Dr S Saraswathi

(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)

The idea of making voting in public elections compulsory has become a subject of debate following the adoption of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act a few weeks back. It introduces “obligation to vote” at the municipal corporation, municipality, and panchayat level elections in the State.  

A seemingly harmless legislation, it is one with immense political implications requiring enormous administrative arrangements. In fact, Gujarat Assembly had twice earlier passed the bill making voting compulsory. But these failed to get the Governor’s assent and were returned. It seems to be a pet idea of some politicians.

Two separate bills to make voting compulsory have since been introduced in the Lok Sabha as Private Members’ Business by two BJP members – Varun Gandhi and Janardhan Singh Sigriwal.

This is not the first time that Parliament is seized with this subject. In 2004 and 2009, similar Private Member’s Bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha. These faced several objections and couldn’t be passed. The then Law Minister held that voting for political institutions should be voluntary.

There are many people who frown at the idea as something fanciful and not worthy of consideration. Perhaps they are unaware that compulsory voting is not any innovative idea of Indian politicians or political pundits, but a practice in vogue in some countries across continents. The question before us is to examine the necessity, constitutionality, meaning, and practicability of making voting compulsory in India.    

Presently, 22 countries have adopted laws making voting compulsory. Of these, 11 are enforcing the law which also contains penal provisions for non-voting without valid reasons. These 11 include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Cyprus, Ecuador, Luxembourg, Nauru, Peru, Singapore, Uruguay, and Schaffhausen canton in Switzerland. Population-wise and size-wise (except Australia), all of them are small. This is not a coincidence, but a lesson that smaller size of the area makes the law workable.

Some countries that passed laws introducing compulsory voting have later abolished it or do not enforce it. Chile, Fiji, Italy, the Netherlands, and Venezuela enacted the law but later abolished it.

The concept of compulsory voting is normally suggested as a remedy to correct low voter turn out in elections confronted by many democracies. It may be unbelievable to many to learn that the US and the UK are two established democracies that face low voting syndrome.

In India, voter turn out varies widely between the States, but has improved on the whole. In 2014 Parliament elections, the votes polled were 66.40% of the total. Union territories have performed better than bigger States. Nagaland, Lakshadweep, Dadra Nagar Haveli, and Puducherry recorded over 80% voting. On the contrary, votes polled were 49.52 in Jammu and Kashmir, 56.28% in Bihar, and 58.36% in Uttar Pradesh. The case of the last two needs special mention as these are political hotbeds of active political parties fiercely fighting elections.

High voter turn out is said to increase the legitimacy and stability of the political system.  Research surveys in some countries where compulsory voting is in force have revealed that compulsion causes 7 to 15% increase in votes polled. In Australia, political participation is said to have increased from 51% to 91% after voting was made compulsory also reducing political polarization.

Low polling raises the question of legitimacy of the government formed by the winning party/alliance. If in an election 40% of the voters do not express their choice, the true support behind the contenders cannot be assessed. Under such an atmosphere, the winning party, which gets only a fraction of the votes polled, will naturally hesitate to take risks or embark on new policies and programmes. 

It is found that compulsory voting increases voter turn out in elections. In referendums, it has a definite effect of increasing voting. Its impact is also related to the extent of enforcement and imposition of prescribed punishment.

Arend Lijphart, Robert Dahl and their team have pointed out that compulsory voting could reduce representational inequality in mobilizing those citizens who would otherwise remain politically inactive. However, one cannot overlook the differential effect of even compulsion on the people which promotes unequal political participation.  The motivated may get further impetus while the politically marginalized tend to withdraw further.

Opinion is divided on the issue of constitutionality of this drastic political reform. Some argue that it violates Articles 14 and 19 pertaining to equality and liberty. Some are of the view that it should be incorporated as a Fundamental Duty under Article 51A so that the question of violation of any Fundamental Right will not arise. In the US, despite low voting, a poll showed that people were not in favour of making voting mandatory.

Voting is presently a right in India as elsewhere. One becomes eligible to vote on completing 18 years of age. Compulsory voting amounts to transforming this right as a duty with penal provisions for non-compliance or eligibility into an obligation to be fulfilled under duress. Legal implications of making voting compulsory must be examined by experts.

Introduction of compulsory voting will enormously increase the work and responsibility of the Election Commission in charge of conducting elections from preparation of the electoral rolls to the stage of declaration of results.

If voters can be penalized for not voting, they can be punished for not enrolling in the list also. Presently, there are numerous cases of missing names already enrolled in the list   for which nobody is made responsible. If voting is compulsory, official responsibility for maintaining and updating electoral rolls, and for missing names in the list must be fixed.   It is a huge administrative task of managing 18+ age-group to make them participate in elections. Former Chief Election Commissioner Navin Chawla had said in 2010 that compulsory voting was not practical. Another CEC argued that compulsion and democracy do not go together.

The debates coolly forget the role of political parties. A major function of the parties is to provide political education. They have to motivate people to participate in politics, provide them information and create awareness. Their job is to mobilize people – a task that includes enrolment of voters and creation of interest among voters to vote. Public speeches, organization of rallies, and propaganda through mass media are all intended to be tools in imparting political education. 

Unfortunately, all these avenues are used for personal attacks and allegations, false propaganda, spreading of rumours, instigating communal animosities and so on directed at mobilizing votes by raising emotions. Emotional factors more than reasoned choice between parties/candidates decide electoral participation of voters in many places.

Legal compulsion to vote is no substitute for voluntary political motivation by political parties and interest groups. It is for the parties to present issues requiring popular choice and support and create enthusiasm to vote among the voters. Sudden increase in the votes polled occurs when crucial electoral decisions are made as in 1977 and 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

Voter turn out is small where parties do not perceive any big difference in the policies and performance of rival parties. Voters get disillusioned by inclusion of tainted candidates in the contest. Voter apathy is also noticed when too many elections follow one another. Compulsion is no answer to any of these problems. Transforming the right to vote as a duty is not a simple political decision. Our right to vote also includes our right not to vote. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)