Addressing the Low Turnout

Almost all the countries of the modern world have democracy as the form of government. Democracy seems to be overwhelmingly influencing and has burgeoned over all other forms of government. Though, few countries still have archaic forms of government, i.e. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Brunei, UAE, etc. United Kingdom also has certain form (monarchy) but it doesn’t have any other role than being ceremonial or nominal head. Anyhow in countries having democracies, representatives are elected through General Elections.

Now the question arises about the representative status of elections. For this, the turnout rate is considered to be the variable of checking how well general public is being represented. Among many other drawbacks of democracy, low turnout is also enlisted. During Zia regime, the highest turnout occurred for the first time (and for the last time till today) in Pakistan, i.e. more or less 52% voter cast their votes. But average turnout has remained almost 30-35% throughout the history of Pakistan’s General Elections.  The figure is self-explanatory that how ‘well’ people have been represented. Even if the figure of 52% is seen, the one which is considered to be highly representative in Pakistan and so the dictatorial government rejoiced to have the label of ‘true’ public representation, it still fails to get representation of almost half of the voters.

Here, low turnout forces to ponder that what have been the reasons behind such an apathetic behavior of the nation.

Socio-economic factors of any country determine the voting habit of the nation. In particular, Pakistan’s turnout is badly affected by its socio-economic factors. Education plays dynamic role in public awareness. The more the people are educated, the more they likely to vote since it is there in their knowledge that they are going to suffer if wrong person gets elected just because of their non-voting behavior. Ethnicity and race also affect the voting but its effect is debatable. It is less likely to happen that candidate doesn’t belong to the caste of the majority of the population of the certain constituency. So, even if he/she belongs to other caste – the one whose population is comparatively less in number – generally the certain number of people is seen to vote who otherwise too vote.

A big portion of population becomes ambivalent about voting when it comes to the hereditary politics. Most of the candidates belong to the families of those who are already or have remained in the politics. Unavailability of the choice of non-hereditary candidate, sometimes makes voters not to vote as they think that each of the candidates of certain constituency belongs to the family of the person who has remained a despot in their area and had never involved in public welfare.

It is witnessed that the lack of confidence on electoral process also prevents people not to perform their civic duty of voting. General perception of the planned rigging by the Establishment adds fuel to the fire.

Historically, democracy has failed to function efficiently and effectively in Pakistan. It could not deliver what was in manifesto. Belligerent and warlike politicians seldom worked for the people and always fought for their vested interests. This is also a factor of apathy of the people in the voting process.

Similarly, many other factors are there keeping people aloof from their civic duty. These may include security concerns at polling-stations, inconvenient location of polling-stations, military oversight of the democracy, etc. This public aloofness proved to be a blight on the whole country.

The politicians of inefficient, callow, unfeeling, corrupt, immoral, illiterate mentality are the consequential output of the public apathy. They do what they are meant to do. Vested interest is interpreted as ‘national interest’.  Corruption is their label. Deceiving people is their duty. In short, current apocalypse of Pakistan is just because of the ‘blessings’ of their steps in ‘greater national interest’. Here, it can be argued that it is the military, not the politicians, who ruined the country. The counter argument is very simple: had belligerent politicians not failed to run the democracy, military would never have been intervened. Hence, the fault is of the politicians who are merely the result of Public apathy in electoral process.

Here comes the need to prove how the voters, who don’t vote in elections, are sole responsible for the election of such representatives. For this, the domestic political system needs to be critically analyzed.

In domestic politics, especially in rural areas, parameters to elect representative are not that which are generally perceived. It is unfortunate, though fact, that nearly the whole rural population – which constitutes a major portion of the total population and considered to have a decisive role in determining the ruling party – doesn’t take the cognizance of candidate’s credibility and all of his character related issues. They just vote for a person who comes to their happy/sad occasions, i.e. marriages and funerals. Furthermore their Thana/Kochehry related issues are also taken under consideration while voting, i.e. whether the candidate can resolve these issues. Now, the point to be noted here is to see how this partisanship badly affects.

Most of the people, who are among the 30-35% turnout, belong to the ‘influenced class’. A person, who is candidate’s relative, comes under the category of the influenced class. Similarly, the people who are town-mates, caste-mates, who come under certain pressure-group (Dharra), and who belong to certain Chaudry’s territory (Number-Dari) are also enlisted among the influenced class. This influenced class doesn’t base their vote on any rationale rather they just consider their genial or forced relation with their influencer. Therefore, they can’t rightly arbitrate and consequentially the wrong person is elected. Here comes the issue about the remaining 65-70% voters of the Electoral College.

This remaining Electoral College is termed as ‘neutral class’. They have no others’ influence over their decision to vote. Any of the influencers has nothing to do with their decision to vote as they are not influenced because of their independence. One may argue that how they can’t be influenced when they may belong to certain caste, town, etc. This argument does not suit as not every person weighs these conservative approaches. The people, who consider these approaches, have already been included in the list of influenced class which comprises 30-35% of voters. Hence neutral class can rightly arbitrate whether who is credible. But disappointingly, nearly 95% of them don’t vote and resultantly the wrong, inadequate candidates are elected. So, it is categorically visible that neutral class (70-65% of the Electoral College) is the responsible for the election of the incapable politicians. Therefore, some kind of need to reform arises.

Addressing the problem of low turnout exacts the reforms from the government. The immediate solution can be the compulsion of voting: for every voter it should be made compulsory to cast vote otherwise face penalties. Now the question arises that how compulsion on voting can be enforced?

For this purpose, certain rules and regulations are to be made. There may come the need of the constitutional amendment. Penalties, as already prescribed, must be made to make it compulsory. There should be reasonable fine if a voter has not cast vote for no reason. And if there comes any reason, then show-cause notice should be issued, e.g. medical certificate for illness. NADRA record can be used to blacklist certain voters. Blacklisted people should be declared ineligible of all kinds of jobs, business opportunities, certain rights, privileges, and all other possible hurdles should be created. A person’s name should only be reversed from the blacklist if he/she pays fine or shows cause of not voting. All these rules and regulations are flexible and so are debatable about their strictness but the guiding principle of penalty must be upheld.

Another thing also needs to be incorporated. The election in any constituency with less than 80% of the turnout should be declared null and void. And re-election should be held. But this percentage is again flexible and can be debated over.  The logic behind this restriction is that of the representative status of the election. The argument, how that much of the turnout can be possible provided that average turnout is 30-35%, can be responded with the prescribed compulsion of voting.

Besides these rules and regulations, all other issues of low turnout also need to be fixed. These may include awareness about civic duties, security threat in elections, inconvenient location of the polling stations, etc.

The above scenario will certainly result in drastic increase in turnout, as it is in Australia, i.e. almost 95% average turnout because of compulsion of voting. The voters will automatically come out for the voting since the opportunity cost of not voting is far higher than that of voting itself. Consequently, with neutral votes, the right people would be elected and it will have trickle-down effect on the overall condition of the country. As a result, the beloved motherland will move ahead on the strong and stable footings of prosperity and public welfare.