THE Gujarat government has recently introduced a Bill to make voting compulsory. If passed, every voter will be legally bound to cast his vote. He will be liable to face punishment unless he can furnish valid reasons for abstention. In fact, the turnout in this country is so poor that the idea of compulsory voting was made some time ago. The Gujarat government has accepted the suggestion. Though Article 326 of the Constitution has granted universal adult suffrage, a large number of people abstain from voting. More often than not, it is the minority within the electorate that decides on electoral issues. In effect, democracy becomes a misnomer. If one compares the percentage of the turnout with that of the Western countries, India's performance demonstrates that democracy has failed to strike roots.
It bears recall that SP Sen Verma, former chief election commissioner, once suggested that voting should be made compulsory in order to make democracy a government of the people. He had cited the examples of some countries where penal measures are taken against those who abstain. In Australia and the Netherlands, fines are imposed.
In Chile, those who don't vote are imprisoned. Indeed, Sen Verma had suggested that abstention be made a cognisable offence. The Gujarat government's Bill recalls the proposal of the former CEC. Such a measure does not require a constitutional amendment; Article 32 empowers Parliament to enact legislation regarding the representation of the people. "Entry 72" may help Parliament to introduce such changes.
A complex issue
BUT law alone cannot determine such a complex issue. There are related questions that ought to be seriously considered. Sundaram, Sen Verma's predecessor, was opposed to the idea for various reasons. It is important to note that voting is a right, and not a duty. Therefore, should a voter want to abstain, he cannot be forced to take part in the polls. As many as 10 fundamental duties were inserted by the 42nd Amendment (1975) in part IV of the Constitution. But the duty to vote has not been inserted in the list. Nor has it been made legally compulsory.
Second, under Article 19(1)(a) the individual enjoys freedom of thought and expression. This is a fundamental right which is judicially enforceable by Article 32 and Article 226. So, if a voter thinks that none the candidates of his constituency can be relied upon, he can reserve the right to stay away.
Third, the law that is on the anvil in Gujarat may bring the unwilling voter to the polling booth. But if he is a reluctant participant in the polls, how can the law expect him to cast his vote judiciously? He may deliberately misuse this right in order to avoid the legal penalty.
Fourth, the low turnout is a symptom of a vulnerable democracy. Compulsory voting can, at best, be a palliative which can hardly cure the actual sickness. Instead of introducing this mandatory system, we should ascertain the actual reasons behind public apathy.
The fact of the matter is that the majority has lost its faith and interest in our democratic system. They elect their rulers, but have no control over them. Collectively, the elected representatives become the masters of the electorate. They do not serve the electorate. Between 1967 and 1971, 10 per cent of the MLAs across the country defected from their respective parties for political gain or personal profit. As the former Governor of Haryana, BN Chakraborty, observed, a change of party was, for these persons, a trifling affair like the change of a necktie. Floor-crossing can be profitable. This has made democratic politics unstable. No wonder people are largely disinterested in the electoral process. After the 1967 election, Orissa knew no fewer than 16 ministries in as many months, a measure of the opportunistic floor-crossing.
There is another factor. As the Constitution is silent about the qualifications of the representatives, there has been a qualitative deterioration in the legislatures. The behaviour of the members is often deplorable. In the midst of the all too frequent pandemonium, there is little or no scope for serious discussion. The debates are largely sub-standard, the attendance of members is irregular and doesn't always ensure a quorum. The Speakers often suspend the members for misbehaviour.
Vitiated process
THE electoral process is vitiated, marked by booth-capturing, intimidation, impersonation, abduction and violence. Money and bullets can influence the results.
Above all, there is little or no interaction between the people and their representatives. Most of the chosen legislators do not visit their constituencies during their term. Even criminals can contest and capture votes at gunpoint. Therefore, a large segment of the electorate can deem participation as useless.
Given the mounting electioneering costs, leadership has become an oligarchical affair. An able but poor person can hardly think of being a candidate. An election has become a lucrative game of the few. The electoral process has hardly changed the lot of the poor. Poverty, social oppression, political injustice and concentration of wealth have vitiated our body politic. The majority of voters are frustrated and, therefore, indifferent.
Of course, universal adult franchise without the spread of education is the basic reason for such indifference. The Government of India Act, 1935, recognised the right to vote in such a restricted manner that only 13 per cent of the people could cast their votes. But the new Constitution has made it almost universal despite the fact that crores of voters are still deprived of educational opportunities. So, a large number fail to realise the significance of franchise and the need to take part in the polls.
A legal compulsion can never be the remedy. Instead, purification of politics along with the spread of education can achieve results. If these two requirements are duly fulfilled, there will be no reason to express concern over the low turnout in elections.
