Compulsory voting will strengthen our democracy

The Gujarat law on compulsory voting in local body elections has evoked a country-wide debate. But the debate is skewed with rhetoric and criticism shifting the focus from the issue central to the deliberation - whether such a scheme in the present context would have an adverse impact or help reinforce democracy.

A deliberation on the pros and cons could help take a policy decision on introducing compulsory voting at the state and national level elections and conclude a debate which started right at the time of the framing of our Constitution.

A Constituent Assembly member had proposed compulsory voting while voting rights to illiterates was being debated on January 4, 1949. Stressing that such a provision may be felt necessary in "the future years", M Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, however, closed the debate stating that "you may have to have a provision, as exists in some other constitutions, that there must be a compulsion on voters to come and vote".

Probably, the time has come. If not for adoption of the proposal, at least for reconsidering it in the light of fresh challenges posed by democracy.

Coming to the merits of fighting low voter turnout, not many would disagree that democracy emerges stronger with increase in participation of people in the electoral process. Mandatory voting and diverse spectrum of voting population can also help deal with other challenges - like politicians managing voters, ensuring bogus voting etc - posed by electoral politics in modern times.

In fact, the Supreme Court while ordering "none of the above" (NOTA) option for voters in 2013 took note of the argument that more participation of voters, apart from promoting free and fair elections in a democracy, "will have the benefit of reducing bogus voting". The NOTA judgement also records that "larger participation is better for the democracy" and non-participation "is not a healthy sign of a growing democracy like India".

The criticism that mandatory voting was impractical and would violate the rights of people might not be totally irrelevant but it has surely overshadowed the central issue. Besides, one should wait till the law is put to test during the 2015 Gujarat local body elections before concluding that the scheme was not practical. Further, only a finding by court could settle the debate on the law being violative of rights of voters.

In the backdrop of above, it would not be wise at this point in time to allow criticism preempt a holistic debate or the laudable experiment with democracy in Gujarat. After all, local bodies have served as good laboratories for democratic experiments for good. The reservation for women and the two-child limit for holding electoral posts in local bodies have served social purposes and have been upheld by courts.

In fact, a 2003 Supreme Court judgement, upholding the two-child rule which was also opposed as being violative of the right to religion of Muslims, would be relevant for taking forward this debate. The bench ruled that since the right to contest an election was not a constitutional right, it could only be exercised on the conditions laid down by the statute. "The Fundamental Rights Chapter has no bearing on a right like this created by statute," the court said.

To reject the Gujarat law saying so many defaulters cannot be jailed amounts to putting the cart before the horse. The rules have not been framed and it is open for such critics to suggest the extent and scope of sanctions.

Coming to violation of right to vote on the premise that it included the right not to vote, the argument might not hold ground with voters being given a choice to reject all candidates in fray.

The right to vote for somebody may include the right not to vote for anyone. But the question is, can one now claim a right not to vote at all? With the right to vote not being a constitutional right, it is surely a question to be answered by relevant law/statute which can be amended from time to time as a matter of public policy.

The ground reality does and should guide public policy in this regard. Does it not make headlines, if a politician does not cast his vote?

Given the probablity of litigation, the validity of the Gujarat law is likely to be decided by court but India should brace up for compulsory voting at all levels if the law passes judicial scrutiny and the experiment is a success. India is already the largest democracy in the world. It will emerge more powerful as well.