Democracy and mandatory voting

Delroy Chuck

DEMOCRACY IS one of the cherished ideals of civilised societies. In democracies, people have choices, rights and options. Power is vested in the people and only entrusted to elected officials through elections.

People choose governments by voting; and voting is definitely the most fundamental means of participation in the democratic process. Democracy, in the immortal peroration of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, is government of the people, by the people and for the people.

During the week of June 11, at the invitation of the British High Commission, I attended a wonderful and thought-provoking Conference on Parliament, Democracy and the Electoral Process at Wilton Park, West Sussex, organised by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. One of the issues discussed was the need for Mandatory Voting (MV) as a pre-requisite for a democratic outcome.

Around the same time, I presume, Melville Cooke, a freelance writer, was penning a column 'Why I refuse to vote' published in The Gleaner on Friday, June 15. I wonder how Mr. Cooke would react if we had MV and the penalty for not voting was severe? More importantly, if we had to vote whether or not to have democracy or some other form of government, would he still abstain? I entirely agree with the letter writers, Dennis Stephens and Geoffrey Marshall, in The Gleaner of Wednesday, June 20, who exposed Mr. Cooke's untenable reasoning.

Interestingly, 24 countries have MV and its main proponents at the Conference were the Australian Parliamentarians. The Australian MV experience, since its inception in 1924, suggests that MV is not only accepted but also regarded as a fundamental pre-requisite for their democratic process. In the vast hinterland of that country in which voters have to travel far distances to the voting booths, many voters would stay away from the poll simply on the basis of travelling costs.

Amazingly, the penalty for not voting is less than US$15, yet over 95 per cent of the voting population vote and those who don't usually have valid or reasonable excuses. Moreover, even though voters need only turn up at the polling booth and register, they actually vote and do not spoil or destroy their ballot in resistance or protest to MV. Proponents of MV feel and believe the benefit of MV far outweighs its detriments and is probably the surest means to remove fraud and corruption from the electoral process. Multiple and bogus voting could be eliminated, as everyone votes.

Moreover, political parties need not spend money to get their voters to the polling booth or on campaign issues persuading people to vote. The parties can concentrate solely on the issues and present their candidates as the worthy choice. These proponents further feel that those who want to live and enjoy the benefits of democracy have a duty to participate in the electoral process.

For democracies to work, people have a duty to let it work. Just imagine if we allowed people to decide whether or not to serve on juries, very few would. Yet, it is the civic duty of every citizen to serve in the judicial process and once they are summoned to serve, they must, unless they have a reasonable excuse or suffer the indignity of being fined. Why then in the most important democratic process of choosing a government should the process not be mandatory?

Much as I believe people have a duty to vote, personally, I do not and would not support mandatory voting.

Individual's rights

I think democracy allows freedom of choice, including the dim-witted and wrong option not to vote. I believe in the individual's rights and freedoms and do not believe it would be right to force him to engage in a process against his will, his religious belief or even his conscience. At the same time, those who withdraw from the political process must understand that indirectly they choose the government of the day. Every vote counts and those who do not vote may very well cause a bad candidate to get elected. To be sure, the PNP, the JLP, the NDM and any other political party seeking the support of the electorate should make themselves sufficiently attractive with leaders, candidates and policies that will capture the imagination and interests of the electorate.

Yet, even when they are terrible and have nothing worthwhile to offer the Jamaican people, one of them will form the government. It is then the political duty of the electorate to choose from a bad lot and to choose the one that will either do the best for the country or the least harm. I accept there are many things wrong with the political process and agree that the chaos, decay and despair overwhelming the country is due to poor political leadership, yet it is simply not right for people to withdraw and refuse to participate. For all our problems and hopelessness, Jamaica still remains a beautiful and potentially prosperous country. The real challenge is how to make Jamaica work.

During the past two weeks, as I attended conferences in London and Washington D.C., I had to acknowledge that in spite of our tragic circumstances, there are many other countries much worse off than us, in every way. Still, must we compete at the bottom when with leadership and vision we can rise to the top?

We can take comfort in the fact that there is no country in which politicians are revered or even greatly respected during their political tenure. Neither do I know of any country in which people feel politics and their political system have served them well. In the USA, candidates spend tens of millions to get elected; the newly elected New Jersey junior Senator actually spent US$63 million in the last election, and still there is much disenchantment.

The people who offer themselves for political office in Jamaica, I believe, do so with great sacrifice and most with good intentions.

To be sure, some enter for selfish and unbecoming reasons, but there are others who enter to serve, to make a difference and to build a better Jamaica for this generation and generations to come.

In the interest of democracy and the country's future, the very least every thinking and concerned citizen can do is to exercise the powerful choice of choosing the best candidate and/or party whenever the opportunity comes.

Delroy Chuck is an attorney-at-law and Opposition Member of Parliament. He can be contacted by e-mail at delchuck@hotmail.com.

Back to Commentary