On July 17, Gujarat notified the Local Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2009, making voting a must in local bodies. But can this be
implemented in a democracy?
By Kaushik Joshi in Ahmedabad
After a lot of dilly-dallying, the Gujarat government notified the Gujarat Local Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2009, on July 17, 2015, making voting mandatory in all local body elections in the state. The Act also res-erves 50 percent seats for women in these bodies. With that, a bold new Indian experiment has begun.
The new law provides for punitive action against registered voters who fail to cast their vote in local body elections without any acceptable reason. These polls are due in September and October this year.
The government has also recently made public the fine to be paid by those who fail to exercise their franchise and the situations where exemptions will be considered (see Box: “Govt notifies punitive action”).
The new law will apply to 253 municipalities, 208 taluka panchayats, 26 district panchayats and six municipal corporations. The law includes the right to exercise the NOTA (None of the Above) option.
Gujarat’s law on compulsory voting was first passed in the assembly in December 2009. It was returned for reconsideration in April 2010 by then governor Kamala Beniwal on the ground that “it was an infringement of individual liberty and violative of freedom guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution”.
The government passed the bill again in March 2011. The governor, however, refused to approve it again and it gathered dust until the newly elected NDA government removed Beniwal, replacing her with OP Kohli, who gave his assent in November 2014.
The new law added five sections—Section 16A to 16E—to the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. While Section 16A provides for a qualified voter to vote, Section 16B empowers an electoral officer to declare someone who has not voted as a defaulter. Section 16C provides for categories exempted from voting, including the sick and the infirm, while Section 16D provides for the procedure to be followed before declaring a person a defaulter. Lastly, Section 16E provides for appeals by a defaulter.
Critics have slammed the controversial legislation as anti-democratic, anti-poor and cruel. Even former Election Commissioner HS Brahma had said the Gujarat government’s move “may not be correct”. He was reported as saying: “What if we have a similar law at the center, and out of 83-crore-plus voters, 10 percent choose not to vote? Will you put eight crore voters in jail or impose fines on them? Do we have jails to accommodate eight crore voters?”
Beniwal was reluctant to consider compulsory voting for several reasons. She wanted the government to create an enabling environment for the voter to cast his vote, which included updating of electoral rolls, timely distribution of voter ID cards to all individuals and ensuring easy access to polling stations.
Incidentally, the idea of compulsory voting was mooted by an MP in 1951 during the debate on the People’s Represen-tation Bill. However, it was rejected by BR Ambedkar on account of practical difficulties. Later, in 1990, the Dinesh Goswami Committee did briefly examine the issue but it was again rejected for practical difficulties.
In July 2004, the Compulsory Voting Bill was introduced as a Private Member’s Bill by Bachi Singh Rawat, a Lok Sabha MP. Argu-ments against the Bill included remoteness of polling booths and hassles facing nomadic groups, disabled people and pregnant wo-men. The Bill could not be passed.
Later, another Private Member’s Bill was introduced by JP Agarwal, an MP, in 2009. The then law minister supported the Bill in some measure as he felt that “parliament would then reflect, more accurately, the will of the electorate”. In the same breath, he also said that “in a democratic setup, active participation must be voluntary, not coercive”.
But why have compulsive voting? Suppor-ters argue that a higher turnout is needed for a proper democratic mandate and that larger participation means greater legitimacy. They also say that people will take politics seriously and it is their duty to vote in a democracy. Staunch advocates also argue that good democratic habits are learnt, not inborn. They argue that norms against drinking, rash driving or not urinating and defecating in public have to be backed by law and due enforcement till it becomes second nature.
Vishnu Pandya, a columnist and au-thor is all for compulsory voting. He says: “This measure only aims at taking the voter to the polling booth. People who don’t vote lack commitment to democracy. It could also be due to broken promises on the part of the elected. The word ‘compulsory’ should be changed to ‘total’. Efforts should be made to make voters active in a democracy.”
Jasubhai Chauhan, a betel shop owner too lauds the measure. “Well-off people hardly go to the polling booth. They donate money to politicians and get things done. Now, they too will have to vote. The Act should be welcomed.”
The naysayers would disagree. Jayant Patel, an NCP MLA from Umreth in Anand district of Gujarat says: “Compulsory voting is persecution. The BJP’s eyes are on the vote bank and they will make political capital out of it.”
Gujarat Congress spokesperson Manish Doshi says the Bill was moved in a hurry without inviting any discourse with intellectuals, experts or social activists. “If a person, though physically fit, cannot cast a vote due to some compulsion, it would be improper to impose this law on him and declare him a defaulter. People will reject this in the local bodies polls in October,” he said.
Indukumar Jani, a social activist and editor of Naya Marg, a Gujarati fortnightly, says he is against this measure as punitive action will be taken against migrant laborers, especially poor tribals, if they don’t vote. “These days, democracy is being violated in many ways. This single measure cannot strengthen it,” he added. Dankesh Oza, a retired joint secretary of Gujarat asks why this should be made mandatory when the NOTA option is still there.
However, Hargovind Chakraborty, a security guard, angrily asks: “Has the government put its own house in order by updating the electoral rolls? When voters’ names and surnames are found changed, how can they cast their vote? This is another ‘fatwa’ from the state government.”
This move, obviously, smacks of illiberalism. American essayist Harold Edmund Stearns puts it succinctly: “The root of liberalism, in a word, is hatred of compulsion, for liberalism has respect for the individual and his conscience and reason which the employment of coercion necessarily destroys.”
Democracy, after all, is about choices.