The legend goes that god created earth and was like, “guys,
do whatever you want, just don’t eat the apple.” And Eve was like, “fuck this
shit! I'm going to eat that apple anyway. In hindsight, we would all agree that
it wasn't the best tactic used by god and he could have said something like
this: “see, if you eat that apple, it would lead to dire consequences. Your
future generation would have to suffer horrors like plague, Ebola, Bieber,
authoritarian governments etc.”. I'm pretty sure Eve would then have acted
differently. The point is education and reasoning work better than coercion.
Add the word ‘compulsory’ before anything and chances are it will be rebelled
against.
Gujarat government’s decision to move ahead with ‘compulsory
voting’ in elections to local bodies is an ill-conceived step and let me
explain why.
1) We have a first to the post system of election. It
means that if 99 out 100 people did not vote, the one person voting would
determine the winner. It is argued that compulsory voting would be a true
representation of people’s wishes. It is not so because even if every-one
voted, the winner would still be decided by the one who gets most votes i.e. if
9 out 10 candidates get 9 votes each (81 votes), the winner would be the 10th
candidate with 19 votes. It is not a true representation as 81 people did not
vote for candidate number 10. For true representation a system requires ‘proportional
representation’ i.e. if there are 10 seats, these seats should be divided as
per the votes received. It’s not so in India.
2) None of the above (NOTA) - suppose everyone
apart from the candidate votes for NOTA, he’ll still win because NOTA votes don’t
cancel out valid votes, and they just reduce the number of votes which decides
a winner.
3) Grave situation – suppose there are 3 seats(X, Y
and Z) and three candidates (A, B and C) up for election. Anyone even slightly
in touch with politics knows about mutual seat sharing wherein parties
mutually agree not to contest against each other for some seats. So, say each
of these candidates divide the seats by agreeing not to contest against each
other. They will win the seat even if everyone apart from themselves votes for
NOTA. The problem is, since everyone voted, their election would acquire
legitimacy which morally it shouldn't. It is not as far-fetched a situation. I have
just tried to simplify the process for understanding.
4) Mistrust – Compulsory voting effectively states
that as a state we don’t trust you to exercise your will to vote and hence we’ll
compel you to do so. The irony is that these are the same people who we voted
for and now in power, they tell us that we are not trustworthy of exercising
our own right.
5) Constitutionally – our constitution gives every
adult a right to vote and the right to liberty is a Fundamental right in India.
The duty to vote is implied and quite frankly not even mentioned in the
constitution. It is so because the authors of our constitution trusted in our
sense of judgement. They understood that as the democracy matures, people would
learn and vote willingly. That is why they did not even bother mentioning it in
such a lengthy constitution. Besides, choosing not to vote can be understood as
a very legitimate form of protest albeit not preferable but rightful enough.
Indians have increasingly came out and voted
and the percentage is increasing every time an election is held. Why can it not
be allowed to take its course? The thing is, it is a maturation process. A
child walks when he matures; try forcing it to walk before that!
6) Examples – the examples cited in favour of compulsory
voting is that of Australia and Singapore. First of all, it should be
understood that their system of government and constitution is vastly different
from ours. We overall follow the mix of British, American and Canadian system
of government. None of them have compulsory voting and none of them can be said
to have a dysfunctional democracy in the absence of compulsory voting.
7) Compliance – Anything that is
made a compulsion, induces compliance. Not voting is not a crime but if it is
made so, one is forced to comply. You’ll pay taxes if you understand that it is
for the benefit of the country but if you are forced to do so without
understanding the cause, chances are that you will evade it. Coercion NEVER
works as intended. It breeds resentment. It causes rebel. It curbs freedom.
Let me give one last example as to why it
is not a good thing to force people to do something, in this case vote. The
point of focus is to educate them and to trust them to take their decision for
themselves: We TEACH children, we TRAIN dogs. Children
are made to understand why they are being punished and the child learns to
reason and not repeat his mistakes. A dog merely associates his action with a
punishment and does not reason why it is so. The dog is coerced into a pattern
of behaviour which suits the owner and there is little it can do to change it.
To start with god and end with dog is not what I intended, but anyway; If you
make me sit, I’ll sit for the fear of stick but I for one would not wag my
tail.
