A NEW ELECTORATE: RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

"The people is sovereign". From the masses comes collective wisdom and authority. In a democracy, this simple concept is central to the entire political and philosophical structure. It means that, as Alec Guiness said when playing King Charles I in the movie "Cromwell", there are "extraordinary possibilities in very ordinary people."

Over the years, wars have been fought, blood shed, and magnificent words uttered about this notion. In throwing off the shackles of absolute monarchy, dictatorship, and narrow oligarchies, the people who live in democracies control their own destinies and determine how they are ruled and who rules them. It would seem that those who are fortunate enough to live in such countries would celebrate their right to participate every chance they could. However, if democracy is the best government in the world, why do so many people in democratic countries opt out and cease caring? Why do so many refuse to vote? Why do so many not take their rights and responsibilites of citizenship seriously?

Canada provides an interesting example of this lack of commitment. In the 2008 federal election, more than 13 million people voted: an impressive number when viewed as a simple fact on a page. But the 13 million voters represented a mere 58.8% of the number of registered eligible voters in the country. That figure was down from the previous election in 2006, wherein almost a million more voters cast their ballot, representing 64.7% of the total eligible voters. Scanning the statistics of all Canadian federal elections, one sees that 2008 was the low-water mark of voting participation, while the election of March, 1958 was the highest at 79.4%.

Statistics can be made to prove many things, of course. But what seems to emerge from this quick analysis is the fact that Canadians are a somewhat apathetic lot when it comes to exercising their democratic right to vote. The recent weak numbers fly in the face of the sacrifice of young Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, where, we are made to believe, they are fighting for the cause of greater deomocracy and freedom in a country that has known nothing but tyrrany and terror all through its history. Other examples of people yearning for the same rights that Canadians can't be bothered to exercise are seen in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen in current times, and in South Africa, China, the former Soviet bloc, and Latin America in the past three decades.

The fact that 42% of Canadian voters didn't bother to vote in the last election might mean dissatisfaction with the options with which they were presented. It might also mean that they were fatigued by the recent spate of elections and manoeuverings that they have been forced to witness from their so-called leaders. Or, it may mean that the current system of allowing anyone over the age of 18, with no mental deficiencies, no criminal record, and proper citizenship to be eligible to vote IF THEY CHOOSE is in need of an overhaul.

Canada's voting statistics are not much different from most democratic countries. In the last few decades, people have become jaded with the political process. Since Watergate, the electorate seems to sit in wait of the latest scandal or example of inefficient government, and are rarely disappointed. Politicians are not trusted, the process of choosing new governments has become a mean-spirited dog fight among those contesting the elections, and the media has bombarded voters with constant "coverage" until the inevitable fatigue sets in among the population. Many people prefer not to participate, claiming that their single vote won't mean much, and that they are either too tired or too bored to bother to go out on election day. Is this democracy?

It is preferred, of course, to see large numbers of people turn out on election day to cast their vote. It is their right to do so. But when so many opt not to vote, their sacred democratic right is forfeit. For what, then, did all those former generations fight, labour, struggle, and, in many cases, die? Surely, their sacrifice was in vain. Surely it must be agreed that, for us who follow those who sacrificed, for us who enjoy the rights gained by their efforts, our rights come with a responsibility to participate in the process which they passed down to us.

The question is, how can this responsibility to exercise our right be encouraged? The answer may lie in two parts.

First, make voting mandatory. There are several countries who do this, with varying degrees of success. Perhaps the best known model is that of Australia. Australia makes voting in federal and state or territorial elections mandatory for all eligible voters. Failure to do so results in a fine, usually very small. This sounds like a great idea to encourage voting, but articles on the subject suggest that it has only partial success. People can avoid voting and the accompanying fine by claiming illness or other extenuating circumstances. Authorities are reluctant to persue these claims, and fines are often waived. In other situations, those who are forced to vote often deliberately spoil their ballot by voting for fictitious persons, dead people, or ludicrous ideas on referendums. It often makes for humourous reading for scrutineers and vote counters.

Mandatory voting and an accompanying fine for offenders is an idea that has merit. But how does a country avoid the possible abuses and protests outlined above? A possible solution lies in the second part of the concept.

Make voters take a simple test to determine if they have the basic knowledge to participate in the political process. In other words, when a person reaches eleigible voting age, have them write a simple, half-hour test that asks them basic questions on how the government and the political system works. This would be a test that any high school student, who is studious enough, and has a good, serious outlook on his or her responsibilites as a citizen could pass. The test would be re-administered every few years, just to ensure that a voter was taking his or her obligation seriously. The test would be administered and evaluated by a non-partizan agency and would not involve the evaluators knowing the identity of the person taking the test.

Why would a test be useful as a possible solution to voter apathy? Because if a potential voter had no interest whatsoever in taking the test, it would show that that voter had no interest in exercising his or her right to vote. Similarly, if a potential voter should fail the simple test, it would prove one of two things: that the voter needed to learn just what he or she was voting for, or that the potential voter was not taking the test seriously, and that he or she would not take future elections seriously either, therefore potentially wasting or spoiling his or her vote.

The test would weed out "bad" or reluctant voters from the process. It would give people a chance to opt out of the process in a democratic way: if a potential voter does not want to vote in the future, the voter could simply not take the test, or deliberately fail the test. This is democratic because it gives a person options, and the results of the test would be calculated fairly, not based on any possible prejudice. It is democratic also in that, if the potential voter decided to take the test again, presumably when they have decided that they wish to participate in the political process as a voter, they could do so, hoping to give a better effort,pass the test and become an eligible voter.

These two parts provide a solution. With mandatory voting combined with an eligibility test, only those voters who are interested in the political process could vote, and would be sure to do so in order to avoid paying a fine. If legitimate reasons ( such as verifiable illness or bereavement ) are presented, a voter could be excused from voting without the fine. But it is presumed that voters who have bothered to take the eligibility test and pass it would be motivated to vote in every election.

Thus, our voter turnout numbers would be better. Thus we would have a real working democracy. Those who chose to fail the test, avoid the test, or avoid voting would not count in the statistics, and would suffer the penalty of fines or the stigma of not being an eligible voter.

Would this work? Only a practical test would prove it one way or the other. But to continue in our current system dishonours those who believe in the sanctity of democratic rights. And it dishonours those who have fought for those rights. To continue as we have done so for generations makes a mockery of the notion that we are a true democracy.