The practice of compulsory participation in voting threatens negative consequences, according to human rights defender Akylai Tenizbaeva. In her opinion, it will lead to an increase in irrational voting and corruption.
In the waning months of 2023, Deputy Tazabek Ikramov proposed a draft law mandating citizen participation in elections and fining those who do not cast a ballot with 5000 som. Drawing inspiration from countries like Australia, Brazil, and Turkiye, where the absence from polls without a valid excuse can lead to prosecution, Ikramov’s proposal has thrust the concept of compulsory voting into the forefront of national discourse. First Deputy Justice Minister Askarova stated that according to the Constitution and international agreements, participation in elections is a right, not an obligation. Conversely, Tynchtyk Shainazarov, a member of the Central Commission for Elections and Referendums, backs the initiative. He argues that if future election turnout reaches 80-90%, it will positively impact the government and the Jogorku Kenesh itself. Tazabek Ikramov withdrew the draft law. However, according to Ikramov, the law will be finalized taking into account the comments and suggestions of deputies and the people. After that, it will be put up for public discussion again.
This raises a pivotal question: Should voting be considered a democratic duty incumbent upon all eligible citizens, or does the imposition of mandatory participation infringe upon the individual’s fundamental freedoms? Through the lens of Kyrgyzstan and its place within the broader Central Asian context, I will delve into the contentious debate surrounding compulsory voting. I will unravel whether this practice serves as a pillar of democratic engagement or a coercive measure that undermines personal liberties. As a corner principle in the analysis, I will consider the principle of proportionality in law since it serves as a fundamental doctrine used to ensure that measures taken by the government are appropriate, necessary, and balanced in relation to the objectives it aims to achieve.
Proportionality in Law
The principle of proportionality serves as a cornerstone in legal theory and practice, ensuring that actions taken by government authorities are not only appropriate and necessary but also balanced in achieving their intended objectives without infringing upon individual rights and freedoms unduly. This principle is especially pertinent in democratic societies where the balance between public interest and individual rights is continuously navigated. In the context of compulsory voting in Kyrgyzstan, the application of the proportionality principle raises significant questions about the measure’s appropriateness, necessity, and its balance in relation to the democratic ideals it seeks to uphold.
Compulsory voting mandates that all eligible citizens participate in electoral processes, under threat of penalties for non-compliance. This policy is typically justified by objectives such as increasing voter turnout, ensuring more representative governance, and fostering a politically engaged citizenry. While these aims are undoubtedly in the public interest, the proportionality of mandating voter participation warrants scrutiny.
Firstly, on the appropriateness of compulsory voting, one must consider whether this measure is suitable for achieving the desired objectives. While compulsory voting can increase turnout, it does not necessarily lead to a more politically informed or engaged electorate. Voters compelled to participate may lack genuine interest or understanding of the political issues at stake, leading to uninformed or arbitrary voting choices. This outcome contrasts with the democratic ideal of an electorate that actively informs itself and engages in the political process out of personal conviction and interest, rather than compulsion. Alexandru Volacu in their research articulates a comprehensive argument against compulsory voting on democratic grounds by emphasizing the distinction between the act of voting and the essence of voting well. It posits that democracy is not merely facilitated by participation in the form of ballot casting but is fundamentally reliant on the quality of that participation meaning that a democratic duty to vote presupposes the duty to vote well, which entails being informed, rational, and casting a vote with the public good in mind. By focusing solely on voter turnout, compulsory voting overlooks the necessity for informed and deliberative engagement with the electoral process. The study further contends that increasing the quantity of voters without regard to the quality of their votes can dilute the democratic process, potentially leading to less informed decisions that do not accurately reflect the will of an engaged and informed populace therefore distorting electoral outcomes.
Secondly, regarding necessity, the principle of proportionality demands that a measure must be necessary to achieve the intended objectives, with no less restrictive means available. In the case of compulsory voting, alternative strategies could potentially achieve higher voter engagement without infringing on individual freedom. For instance, educational campaigns aimed at increasing political awareness, reforms to make voting more accessible, or incentives for participation could serve as less coercive means to encourage voter turnout.
Lastly, the balance aspect of the proportionality principle requires that the benefits of a measure outweigh its costs to individual rights. Compulsory voting imposes a duty on individuals to engage in a specific form of participation, potentially penalizing those who, for various reasons, choose not to vote. This imposition raises concerns about the infringement of personal autonomy and freedom of conscience. For instance, individuals may object to voting on moral, religious, or political grounds, viewing abstention as a form of political expression. In such cases, the benefits of marginally higher electoral participation are outweighed by the cost to individual freedom, suggesting a lack of balance in compulsory voting measures.
Real-world examples illuminate these concerns. In countries with compulsory voting, such as Australia, while high voter turnout is achieved, there’s an ongoing debate about the quality of engagement and the prevalence of “donkey votes” – where voters randomly select candidates without regard to their policies, simply to fulfill their legal obligation. This phenomenon indicates that while the objective of increased turnout is met, the deeper democratic goal of fostering a genuinely engaged and informed electorate may not be achieved, questioning the balance and appropriateness of compulsory voting under the proportionality principle.
Fostering Corruption
Mandatory voting legislation in Kyrgyzstan could potentially foster corruption through several mechanisms, given the specific socio-political context of the country. Kyrgyzstan, a post-Soviet Central Asian republic, has experienced significant political turmoil and challenges to democratic governance, including corruption, electoral fraud, and political instability. Implementing compulsory voting in such an environment may exacerbate existing vulnerabilities to corruption rather than ameliorate them.
The enforcement of mandatory voting requires a robust administrative framework to monitor compliance and levy penalties on non-voters. In a country grappling with issues of bureaucratic efficiency and corruption, such as Kyrgyzstan, the potential for misuse of this system is high. Officials tasked with overseeing voter participation could be susceptible to bribery, allowing individuals to evade voting obligations in exchange for payment. Similarly, the process for determining exemptions from the voting requirement could become a conduit for corruption, with exemptions granted based on nepotism or favoritism rather than legitimate reasons.
Moreover, the focus on enforcing voter turnout could divert attention and resources from more critical electoral reforms needed in Kyrgyzstan. Rather than addressing fundamental issues such as transparency in campaign financing, the integrity of the vote count, or the independence of electoral bodies, resources might be allocated towards ensuring compliance with the voting mandate. This diversion could indirectly foster a more permissive environment for electoral corruption, as efforts to enhance the overall fairness and transparency of elections are sidelined.
Real examples from other contexts with compulsory voting highlight these risks. In some countries, compulsory voting has been associated with increased instances of electoral manipulation and fraud, particularly in environments where democratic institutions are weak or corruption is already a significant concern. For example, as a country with compulsory voting, Brazil has faced challenges with vote-buying and electoral fraud. Despite high voter turnout rates, there have been instances where political candidates engage in corrupt practices to secure votes from the electorate, exploiting the compulsory nature of voting alongside existing socio-economic inequalities. While Kyrgyzstan has its unique context, the challenges faced by other countries suggest that without strong institutional safeguards, compulsory voting could exacerbate vulnerabilities to corruption rather than strengthen democratic participation.
International Legal Framework
At the heart of the debate is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, which sets out fundamental human rights to be universally protected. Article 21(3) of the UDHR states, “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” The essence of this provision emphasizes the expression of the will of the people through elections, implying the importance of voluntary participation in the electoral process as a reflection of genuine democratic will.
Furthermore, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which entered into force in 1976, provides a more detailed legal framework on political participation rights. Article 25 of the ICCPR guarantees every citizen the right and the opportunity to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, and to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections. These elections must be characterized by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors. The language of the ICCPR, particularly its emphasis on “free expression” and the opportunity to participate, suggests an underlying assumption of voluntary, rather than compulsory, participation in elections.
The central argument against compulsory voting from an international law perspective hinges on the interpretation of these freedoms and rights. Compulsory voting mandates participation, potentially under penalty of fines or other sanctions for non-compliance, which raises concerns about the violation of individual autonomy and freedom of choice. These are core democratic values that international conventions seek to uphold. The imposition of compulsory voting may be seen as infringing upon the freedom not to participate, which is an inherent part of political freedom and autonomy. It compels individuals to engage in a process that they may, for various reasons, choose to abstain from, thereby questioning the voluntariness of their participation and the genuineness of the election process as a reflection of the people’s will.
Alternatives to Compulsory Voting
While the intention to increase voter turnout is commendable, the method of compulsory participation raises concerns about its alignment with democratic principles and individual rights in Kyrgyzstan. In this context, exploring alternative strategies to enhance electoral participation becomes paramount, strategies that respect individual autonomy while fostering a robust democratic culture.1. Electoral Education and Civic Engagement Programs
One such approach involves a comprehensive investment in electoral education and civic engagement programs. By instilling a deep understanding of the democratic process and the critical role of voting in shaping governance, citizens can be motivated to participate out of a sense of informed duty rather than compulsion. This could involve integrating civic education into the national curriculum and hosting community workshops that demystify the electoral process and highlight the tangible impact of political decisions on everyday life.
2. Enhancing Voting Accessibility
Moreover, enhancing the accessibility of voting is crucial. Simplifying the voting process by extending hours, increasing the number of polling stations, especially in remote areas, and introducing more flexible voting methods, such as early and absentee voting or secure online platforms, could significantly reduce barriers to participation. Such measures ensure that all citizens, regardless of their circumstances, have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.
3. Incentivizing Voter Participation
Incentivizing participation presents a positive alternative to compulsory voting. Rather than penalizing non-participation, recognizing and appreciating voter engagement through non-monetary incentives could foster a more enthusiastic approach to voting. Additionally, designating election days as public holidays or scheduling them during weekends can eliminate practical barriers, making it easier for citizens to vote without sacrificing personal or professional commitments.
4. Promoting Political Participation Beyond Elections
Finally, promoting a culture of political engagement beyond the ballot box can sustain a politically active electorate. Encouraging public debate, participation in political parties, and engagement in community decisions can keep citizens involved in the democratic process continuously, fostering a society where political participation is valued and sought after.
Therefore, fostering electoral participation in Kyrgyzstan requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond the imposition of compulsory voting. By focusing on education, accessibility, trust, incentives, efficiency, and continuous engagement, Kyrgyzstan can cultivate a democratic culture that respects individual freedoms while actively encouraging informed and voluntary participation in the electoral process.
Conclusion
The debate over compulsory voting in Kyrgyzstan, prompted by Deputy Tazabek Ikramov’s proposal, has ignited a crucial discussion on the balance between enhancing electoral participation and preserving individual freedoms. This proposal, drawing on examples from countries like Australia, brings to the forefront the tension between democratic engagement and the autonomy of the electorate. The principle of proportionality, emphasizing the need for governmental actions to be appropriate, necessary, and balanced, serves as a critical framework for assessing the validity of compulsory voting within Kyrgyzstan’s unique socio-political context.
Concerns about the potential for compulsory voting to exacerbate corruption, alongside considerations of international human rights norms, highlight significant challenges to its implementation. These international standards affirm the importance of voluntary participation as a cornerstone of genuine democratic practice, suggesting that the imposition of voting may conflict with the essence of democratic freedom.
In summary, while aiming to boost voter turnout is commendable, I argue that compulsory voting raises complex ethical, legal, and practical issues that cannot be overlooked.
As a lawyer and a human rights defender, I implore all stakeholders—authorities, parliament, and civil society—to prioritize education as the cornerstone of our democratic endeavors. Civil society must redouble its efforts to enlighten individuals about the critical significance of elections and the profound impact they have on our collective quality of life.
Moreover, let us recognize that nurturing legal consciousness holds greater efficacy than the imposition of punitive measures. Rather than resorting to coercive tactics, we must cultivate a culture where respect for the rule of law is paramount. Authorities and parliament must lead by example, ensuring that every proposed law upholds the bedrock principles of justice, equality, and human rights.
In this endeavor, let us unite in our commitment to empowering individuals through education and upholding the rule of the law. By doing so, we can forge a society where democracy thrives, and every voice is heard and valued.