Not a democracy by force
Despite critics calling Modis move to make voting mandatory for local body elections, if successfully implemented, it will weed out vote-bank politics……….N Vittal
Despite critics calling Modis move to make voting mandatory for local body elections, if successfully implemented, it will weed out vote-bank politics……….N Vittal
Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat, has taken a radical step with immense potential to weed out money power, muscle power and vote-bank politics, and make a more credible version of democracy. He has initiated a bill in Gujarat State Assembly to make voting mandatory for the elections to local bodies.
Although this is the first time that such a legislation has been introduced, 32 countries in the world already have laws making voting compulsory.
Critics have already started pouncing on Modis initiative, describing it as democracy by force. What about the freedom of choice for voters in exercising their right? For some critics, the step reminds them of totalitarian regimes.
Above all, a critically important question has also been raised. How will the law be implemented?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The effectiveness of a law depends on its implementation. A law only on paper is like a scarecrow. The birds it is meant to scare may initially be afraid. Yet, once they know it is a lifeless doll, they build their nest in it.
Nevertheless, a closer analysis will show that Modi has introduced a radical element in our electoral process, which has the potential to make our democracy more meaningful.
We can analyse the realities of the way democracy is practised in our country today:
i) Democracy is famously defined as the government of the people, by the people and for the people. We have adopted the British system of elections, where the principle of the first past the post applies to decide the winner. This has perpetuated a pseudo-democracy, as the winning candidate or parties hardly ever get more than 50 per cent of the votes polled. And, definitely always less than the total number of voters in a constituency. To use an American expression, the winning candidates in our elections have a plurality of the votes polled and never a majority.
ii) This main defect of our electoral system is that it has led to vote bank politics based on money power and muscle power. The 2009 general elections were brazenly influenced by money power as the former Chief Election Commissioner conceded. He stated that the Election Commission could hardly contain the deployment of money power even though it could control violence and electoral malpractices such as booth capturing quite effectively.
iii) Caste-based vote-bank politics is the legacy of our social values. This makes voters support a member of their caste, community or religion above the needs for good governance.
iv) The strong identity of the minorities with their religion motivates them to vote as a block. Many political parties cultivate them as they play a decisive role in many constituencies.
In one masterstroke, the initiative of the Gujarat Chief Minister opens the door for a move away from money power, muscle power and identity politics.
Once the law is effectively implemented, at least 95 per cent or more of the voters will vote. This will reduce the critically decisive role of caste- and religion-based vote banks in influencing the results. In any case, the law will strengthen the hands of activists such as those behind the Jaago re campaign in the 2009 elections to educate the voters.
However, there is a big if. We do not know the penalty for failing to vote and its effective implementation. Unless there is a strong deterrent, money power can still be used to ensure the absence of voters. This is nothing new. The minority government of P V Narasimha Rao and the UPA government allegedly resorted to money power to win crucial trust votes.
It is an urgent national need to learn from the countries where voting is compulsory, and adapt the best practices to effectively implement the law for mandatory voting.