If an election was held today, and this were Peru or Belgium, you'd have to vote. That's due to a policy in both of those countries that requires all citizens of age to vote and since Sunday is a day in both of those countries that most businesses are closed, the elections are held on Sunday.
Mandatory, or compulsory voting for all you semantics sticklers, intrigues me. Primarily because it presents a Catch-22 of sorts for my feeble brain. I agree that people, the citizens of a country, should have the right to chose their governments by voting for the representatives of their choice. Governments of choice are, in my opinion, a basic human right (that whole "...to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." thing).
However, I also strongly believe that non-participation, as long as it does not take advantage of or harm another human being, is also a basic human right.
Yeaaahhh...It's a prickly one, that.
Ten countries actively enforce compulsory voting, and another 13 countries have laws on the books that make voting mandatory.
A few of the countries that strictly enforce their voting laws have long histories of Democracy (uhm, as long as can be expected considering universal suffrage, the right to vote for all citizens who have reached the age of majority, regardless of gender, race, property ownership, wealth, etc, is a relatively new concept. New Zealand, in 1893 was the first country on the planet to actually allow all citizens, male, female, rich, poor, etc., to vote).
Realistically, that gives a record of maybe 100 years of compulsory voting in almost 2 dozen countries for a review to determine whether or not requiring a populace to vote is actually effective in producing truly representational governments.
The 10 countries that enforce compulsory voting are Uruguay, Peru, Argentina, Ecuador and Brazil in South America, Australia and Nauru in Oceania, The Democratic Republic of the Congo in Africa, Singapore in Asia, and Luxembourg in Europe.
Of those 10 countries, Luxembourg only requires voting in regional elections, and only if you signed up to vote - don't sign up to vote, and you don't have to.
Luxembourg is also a Constitutional Monarchy - it's 2013, what's up with that?
All 5 of the South America countries have suffered through multiple civil wars since they were founded/declared their independence (from either Spain or Portugal) and all of them have at various times been ruled by military juntas or de facto Dictators (a Dictator's a Dictator, voted in or not - Hitler was voted into office).
Nauru, the 2nd smallest country in the world, is an interesting case study. With a population of less than 10,000 and a history of tribal/family councils, the politics on the island are a bit volatile - as in over 20 different administrations since 1989 volatile.
Singapore requires that anyone over 21 vote, and if you vote for the People's Action Party, your vote will count (the P.A.P. has not lost an election since 1959). Singapore is considered one of the least corrupt countries on the planet, so there must be something that works over there (of course, it ranks extremely low in freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, which may have a lot to do with it, too).
The Democratic Republic of the Congo, a country that unfortunately played host to what is known as the African World War from 1998 through 2003 (a period that saw 9 different African countries involved in bloody fighting that resulted in the deaths of over 5 million people, the highest casualty rate in a conflict since WWII), requires all citizens to vote regardless. The D.R.C. can pretty much be deemed the bad example of the effectiveness of compulsory voting.
The good example of compulsory voting is the second country that put the law on the books, Australia.
The law there states that a person must register, must go to the polls, must receive a ballot, and must drop it in the box. The law does not state that the ballot must be filled out in any specific manner, thus allowing those who do not wish to vote to drop in a blank ballot.
The Australians make voting compulsory and allow an out of sorts at the same time.
Which swings me back around to the other side of the coin, the right not to vote. There is no country that actually guarantees a person the right not to vote. The vast majority of countries simply make voting optional.
Which is fine by me, with the proviso that those who do not vote, who do not participate in the political process in the least little bit, shut the hell up when it comes to complaining about the government they live under.
Debating the right not to vote quickly devolves into an argument as to whether voting is a basic civil right, or if it is an actual civil obligation, a duty.
If voting is a right, akin to the right to free speech, personal liberty, representation in a court of law, choosing a favorite color, etc., then it's fairly easy to argue that it's ones right not to exercise that right.
Consider the following cases:
There are religious orders that decree that followers not participate in politics - is it an infringement on a person's right to freedom of religion to compel them to vote?
If a person has absolutely no faith in the political system shouldn't it be their right not to have to participate in it?
If voting is a civic duty, doesn't it logically follow that there is the chance that people who wish to protest an election will cast votes for the candidate least capable of winning, and most likely least capable of fulfilling the duties of the office if they should win?
That scenario, btw, plays out in elections world-wide. Fictional characters, from Snoopy to Obi-Wan Kenobi, have received votes in elections held in countries all over the planet.
It's a tough call, this one. All I'm actually certain of is that people should vote, just because they can. It's a privilege the vast majority of humans on the planet have only known for a fairly short time.
If anything, it gives you the justification of stating "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for that asshat".
No comments:
Post a Comment