Is compulsory voting the answer to voter apathy?
Edward Mpoloka | Wednesday October 16, 2013 22:52
Wikipedia describes compulsory voting as 'a system in which electors are obliged to vote in elections or attend a polling place on voting day. If an eligible voter does not attend a polling place, he or she may be subject to punctive measures such as fines or community service.'
Kesitegile Gobotswang, the secretary general of the Botswana Congress Party (BCP), blames not the voters but the BDP government for the scourge of voter apathy and insists that the problem could be solved without resorting to compulsory voting. 'This is because there are many factors that account for voter apathy that need to be addressed first. These include poor voter education resulting from lack of resources among political parties especially opposition parties and a reluctant IEC,' he says.
For his part, the secretary general of the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC), Gomolemo Motswaledi says the reforms such as the introduction of electronic voting would go a long way in solving the problem of voter apathy. 'Besides our education system should engender the spirit of voluntary responsibility as a tenet of civic responsibility. In this way, the consent of the people is clean and not tempered with through forcing people to vote,'
Although Australia is the most well known for its compulsory voting legislation, a total of about 23 countries worldwide as of august 2013 practice compulsory voting. On the other hand, countries such as Spain, Austria, Holland, Venezuela and Chile have rescinded it in response to those to those who felt that it was undemocratic to compel people to vote. Literature shows that of the 30 or so countries that have practical compulsory voting, only 12 have enforced the law by way of failing punitive measures again defaulters.
Punishment for those who defy the law by staying away from voting include denial of a government job, loss of social security, being prevented from obtaining a new passport or drivers' license, being denied access to the bank for some months as well as a fine which might result in imprisonment if not paid. Critics of compulsory voting say that the system is wasteful as enormous resources have to be allocated to tracing and locating offenders.
Supporters of compulsory voting argue that the legitimacy of any government is related to the number of people who voted. They insist that because electing a government is a civic duty comparable to paying tax, all citizens must be forced to vote if they will not do it voluntarily.
When the maximum number of people vote, argues the lobby, parliament reflects more accurately the will of the people. 'Compulsory voting systems confer a higher degree of political legitimacy because they result in increased voter turnout. The victorious candidate represents a majority of the population not just the politically motivated individuals who would vote without compulsion,' says Arend Lijphart, a political journalist.
Voter turn up in countries using the compulsory voting system is much higher than in those countries where people are not compelled to vote. For example, the last federal elections this year in Australia attracted 94% of the voters while only 65% and 57% of the voters turned up in the Britain and America in 2010 and 2012 respectively.
Because the role of money will be minimal considering the fact that he needs to convince people to go to the polls, compulsory voting presents an elections process which is decidedly clean, it is argued. The benefits of this is that instead of spending time looking for money to bribe voters to go the polls, the candidate will have more time to convince the voter on why they should vote for his party policies.
'Pro-compulsory voting elements are of the view that since smaller campaign funds are needed to send a large number of voters to the polling stations, the role of money in politics decreases as it also discourages vote buying in many ways,' says practical analyst Sabir Shah.
Mandatory voting is a seen by its supporters as not only being a catalyst for greater solidarity and a strong sense of citizen among the people. It also supposedly improves political literacy and engenders a political culture among the people which thing helps them develop interest in other political and social matters in general because they become better informed.
Because every individual or community matters with compulsory voting, parties will device policies that cover everybody's interests. It is also argued that compulsory voting ensures stability in the concerned country since everybody, including moderates would vote as opposed to the voluntary voting systems where only the highly partisan and politically motivated show up.
Also if everyone must vote, impediments such as distance or waiting time would have to be addressed to facilitate ease of vote. For example to cater for the sick and the old, mobile voting booths might have to be used including electronic voting.
Indications are that compulsory voting encourages the people to take more interest in the qualities of the respective candidates before them since they must vote anyway. The benefit is that representation improves. This means candidates would take themselves more seriously knowing that they need to appeal to a more general audience rather than a small section of the community.
The system has its opponents. Jason Kent, an Australian political journalist, says, 'People have been sentenced to jail terms for not voting. It's disgusting. It's far from being democratic. We are not a democracy if we can't vote democratically.'
Legal schools argue that 'it is essentially a compelled speech act, which violates freedom of speech because the freedom to speak necessarily includes the freedom not to speak.' Compulsory voting is contrary to the religious believers and practices of groups such as Jehovah's witnesses who believe that participating in any political activity is anathema to their religion.
Many people despise politics which they think is corrupt. This group, called the principal non-voters, would like to keep as much distance as possible between themselves and the 'dirty game,' to be respected.
For Kent it behoves the politicians themselves to attract voters to themselves without making it a legal duty.
'If voting was democratic politicians would be beholden to voters. They can't hold a gun to our heads and force us to vote. They would have to give us a good reason to vote. They would have to inspire us,' he says
Despite numerous attempts, the BDP elections office failed to give their comment.