When BJP secured 31% of vote share this Lok Sabha election in 2014, it managed to get a full mandate in the parliament. Although winning elections is about issues, strategies and poll management, here it also caters to vote banks. This term vote bank is a direct consequence of multi factorial reasons where religion, caste and economic background cause mass segmentation of voters. One invisible enemy lurking inside all of these factors is the percentage of voters coming out to vote. This Lok Sabha, a phenomenal rise was projected owing to an expected Modi wave however still if you pull out polling numbers a large number of voters will be missing. Discrepancies in the list resulting into absentia may be a thing of the election commission and the authorities. But fundamentally a massive lot of the citizens especially educated give elections a miss.
At times when elections unfortunately happen to be scheduled on a particular day which is interspersed by weekends or a public holiday, a lot of citizens prefer to go on an outing or a vacation. This can translate into low attendance if we perceive a larger macro picture and sleeper vote banks are effectively cashed in to secure victory. And with the number of parties in fray, the division of the votes can make an undeserving candidate win elections. The drop in the polling percentage has actualized vote banks to thrive as this has necessitated politicians to further exploit by subversion, bribery or otherwise that hampers the actual realization of the right candidate romping home.
Compulsory voting has been seen as an alternative to turn the tide over these dwindling participation numbers. The debate however stems between safe guarding fundamental rights of expression of a citizen and striving for an authentic and realistic reflection of any mandate. As ascribed in the constitution we have a non-discriminatory voluntary system of voting where anybody above 18 years of age mentioned in electoral roll of the constituency and not subjected to discrimination from the act is duly eligible to vote. In 1951, during deliberations over people’s representation bill, the prospect of a compulsory voting system was considered in the parliament by one of the drafting members. After hectic parleys though, Ambedkar rejected its adoption. Practical inability in implementation was the basis and this along with other wholly of electoral reforms failed to see the day.
Over the years as various reforms were discussed, compulsory voting found voice in only one committee (Dinesh Goswami committee) which briefly examined this issue. In July 2004, the Compulsory Voting Bill, 2004 was introduced as a Private Member Bill by Bachi Singh Rawat, a Member of Parliament in the Lok Sabha. The idea was again mooted this time to consider compulsory voting system but exemption on the premise of certain conditions were also emphasized which included grave illness, pregnancy and disability. The bill failed to win support of the house and was not passed. Same fate prevailed in 2009 when this idea was introduced in another private bill which furthered provisions into enabling support to senior citizens to vote and so on but failed to muster the house.
The tussle between the Gujarat Govt then headed by the current PM and then governor Dr Beniwal got this supposed reform a bit of light in the media. Modi govt had fiercely volunteered to ‘The Gujarat local authorities act (amended) 2009 providing voting to be made compulsory in local body elections. It empowered the state govt to take action against non-voters. Governor Beniwal took cognizance of the issue and termed it impingement of the freedom a citizen is entitled to enjoy under article 21 of the constitution. 40 percent of the voters skip general elections and 35 percent do the needful for the state assemblies giving even low figure of 20 percent to actualize a mandate and make a govt. This does not rake in the real face of the mandate but a fractured piece of it surmised as a whole. The argument its detractors portray is that compulsory voting will kill the choice of a citizen to protest and boycott the elections which is said to be a core proponent in a democratic institution. However ‘NOTA’ which issues the right to a citizen to reject candidates may nullify the said argument.
How will compulsory voting be beneficial to a democratic process when some label it as draconian for its said effect of striking down your fundamental right of not to vote?
Primarily, it would represent the actual mandate. The victorious candidate is representing wholly majority rather than a set of certain politically influenced coerced voters. When we talk about elections in UP, polarisation in the state on the basis of caste or religion can be more accelerated and effected on the basis of lower turnouts. It gives parties with an agenda a certain cake walk to galvanize the said voters as still many of them lie in rural areas where voting is still a decree by force and manipulation. If educated abstaining class has to compulsorily vote, it will counter check and dilute this phenomenon.
Compulsory voting may bring in larger numbers to ensure more stable govts and reduce the dependency on govt dissolution and coalition possibilities as it may give a clear direction or sway to a certain party. This may further help in policies and governance implementation which will benefit a compulsory voter who may not have voted for his choice.
Australian academician and an active supporter of compulsory voting Lisa Hill, has emphasized a prisoner’s dilemma situation arises under non compulsion systems for marginalized citizens. It builds a notion for them to abstain from voting, under the assumption that others in their situation are also doing so, in order to conserve their limited resources. However, this very class of people need political representation, and so it amounts to being very irrational. Hill argues that the introduction of compulsory voting removes this dilemma.
Another factor for consideration is funds spent in an election. Compulsory voting may not end the exorbitant spending done in elections but can reduce dependency of it as campaign money distribution won’t be required to coax a specific gullible set of voters to go to polling booths.
Compulsory voting can make people believe they will have to vote to take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Proponents of this theory also believe it will disseminate more political education and this may refine emergence of better candidates and further enhance better selection of leaders by a complete participation.
Even if a debate on compulsory voting is brought into effect, the ground reality of bringing it on board would be an enormous challenge on two accounts.
Primarily considering compulsory voting would need amendments in the constitution with a ferocious political back room deals and consensus. Parties and both houses should be unanimous in their perception and erasing sticky points to bring them on the same side will require efficient task mastering. Owing to dominance of BJP, other parties would term it as draconian (Just as they do for one nation, one election) to serve the ruling dispensations interest and Rajya Sabha numbers will be required to realise it to become a law.
However Gujarat Govt in its initiative of compulsory voting in 2014 for local bodies can be taken as an example and be replicated for larger scheme of things and put for a long term plan.
More than the legal framework, its implementation would be tedious and how the govt would penalise and blacklist defaulters would branch another debate. Some opponents have suggested the massive numbers of expected non-voters will practically impede punishments. However this argument can be fallacious as tax defaulters and many other arrays of crimes have over bustling number problem and so it dies a natural death. The govt will have to handle it with pristine robustness as seen even in clean India campaign it had stylized as an effective marketing program that raised and created awareness but the actual ground implementation in terms of penalizing defaulters is still muddling in rough waters. Fines or community service can be recommended but have to be catered down to effective functioning.
If a person comes to the govt for business proposal or building a house, his voting credentials will be examined. And for no serious circumstances if he has not voted, the decision will have a bearing on the said proposal. Although theoretically it sounds good, the complications arising in its application would be entangling.
However a number of countries around the world make it mandatory for citizens to vote. Australia has ratified compulsory voting at the higher level of elections such as Prime ministerial. The penalty for violation includes an explanation for not voting and a fine. It is interesting to note that the voter turnout in Australia has usually been above 90%, since a very long time .Several countries in South America including Brazil, have adopted compulsory voting.
Bringing compulsory voting will lead to polarizing debate whether it overrides the sense of fundamental freedom that is bestowed upon us to protest or boycott. However backing the prized provision of NOTA, compulsory voting supporters are trying to make it a certain electoral reform that will have long term benefits in improving the quality of democracy in India. After years of choking vote bank politics that has been patronized as a by-product of sorts from non-voluntary voting system here, a refreshing subtleness of participatory democracy through compulsion may just offer some lease of an alternative.
