Stop romanticising non-voter

THE EDITOR: Another election has come and gone, and this time almost 70 per cent of the population chose not to vote for one vague reason or another. This was perhaps the most dramatic representation of the demographic, that usually hovers around 40-50 per cent each election, who consistently refuse to participate in the democratic process.

In every election post-mortem, in an attempt to understand this section of the population, often words like "disenchantment" and "unmotivated" are used.

We often speak of the non-voting group with some air of superiority over those who choose to participate in the only process that legitimately changes the government in a democracy.

We describe the supporters of the major parties as being "diehard" or "sycophants," ignoring the fact that, despite their flaws, these voters are at least trying to determine the political course of a nation.

We need to stop glorifying and romanticising the non-voter.

There is no glory in non-participation. You do not change anything by not voting because the fortunes of the nation are determined by the majority (either districts or votes) among the participating electorate. By withholding your vote you are allowing others to chart the course, while you continue to silently suffer a fate you may not agree with.

I refuse to believe that the problem is that there are not enough choices. There are two major parties, but in every election there are other parties and independent candidates who bravely come forward and offer themselves for consideration.

Even if you have to choose between the "lesser of the two evils" your vote can ensure that at least there is a chance to make the country even slightly less worse. And if you are not satisfied with all the options, then step forward, engage the process, and become the candidate that you want to be. Unclear silence does not help.

Every election when the media interview the community, many people say they do not know or see their councillor or MP. They do not even know who these people are. They do not even know the difference between their MP and their councillor or how to engage them.

There are no excuses because, in every community there are offices for these officials. How can you get any results from the system if you choose not to engage the system?

Then there is the statement to justify non-participation: "At the end of the day, they not changing anything and I still have to get up and hustle a dollar." Why do you have to hustle for a dollar? Is it because food prices are high? Is it because jobs are hard to come by? Is it because the roads are so bad that it costs money to repair the vehicle?

These very reasons are influenced by politics and can be influenced by your choice at the polling booth. Will staying away allow you to change them?

I agree that our politicians are not the best, and the policies that they implement are many times questionable. But the politician is but a product of the people who elect them, either actively or passively. As long as we disengage them, they have a free pass to continue, but I assure you that if they know they have to be accountable to us they will think twice before taking many decisions. After all, their jobs depend on our choices.

Perhaps we need more education, but if we continue to glorify non-participation, then education will fail. In a 61-year-old democracy, a system that runs on the participation of the electorate, we may be passively heading to a failed state if we choose not to engage.

SARVESH DASS

via e-mail