A new law wants to make voting compulsory in low-level elections in Gujarat. The logistics would be daunting but more importantly, does it go against the fundamental principle of a liberal democracy?

What Gujarat thinks today, India thinks tomorrow?

Kiran Bedi certainly hopes so.

After the Gujarat governor cleared a law that makes voting mandatory in local body elections, Bedi tweeted out enthusiastically that it should be made mandatory for the whole country if you wish to make all Indians equal stakeholders.

All eligible Indians+NRIs with Indian Passports must fully participate as equal stake holders by mandatory voting to strengthen democracy.

In effect, Bedi would like mandatory voting to be the equivalent of the small pox vaccine. That is a requirement mandated for the larger public health good, the goal being eradication of a dreadful disease. This, to push the same analogy, is for the greater good aka the public health of India as an engaged democracy.

Ironically, what Ms Bedi seems to miss is in her effort to make India a stronger democracy. She is championing a strategy that strikes at its very democratic core.

The bedrock of a democracy is NOT a free election but a free citizen. One, we could argue, who is free not to vote. Of course, that freedom is not absolute. It comes with rights and responsibilities and that’s why we have a Constitution that tries to do the tricky job of balancing those freedoms. But the guiding principle of a liberal democracy must be to never lose sight of that basic tenet.

That’s why while the idea of compulsory voting sounds like an attractive short-cut by fiat to a more representative democracy. According to the BBC, only 23 countries have it. And of those, only 10 actively enforce the laws. Most had a history of abysmally low turnouts which they felt could not be addressed by awareness programmes.

Australia is perhaps the most famous example with an a $20 fine. But even in that country, abolishing it is a recurring topic. For one, according to Jason Kent, a columnist, at least 10% of Australians are not even registered to vote and the Australian Election Commission estimates that a third of all eligible voters who are not enrolled are between the ages of 18 to 24. Australians may be forced to show up to vote or pay a fine but it has not made them more politically engaged. Spoilt ballots that cannot be counted have been going up steadily.

Setting aside the issue of constitutional validity in India, the arguments put forward against mandatory voting have often been logistical.

“Let me ask you, what if we have a similar law at the Centre, and out of 83 crore-plus voters, 10 per cent chose 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?” asks Election Commission HS Brahma in the Indian Express.

“The compulsory voting will hit the poor people. More particularly the labour class, including the migrant labourers and daily wagers, who cannot sacrifice their livelihood just to use their franchise,” contends rights activist Girish Patel in dna.

“Why doesn’t the government first make it compulsory for MPs to vote (inside the House) and then force common citizens to follow suit?” challenges Jagdeep S Chokhar of the Association for Democratic Reforms.

But these are just hurdles which can be ultimately be circumvented in some fashion. They do not address the fundamental guiding principle at stake – whether a liberal democracy has any business herding its citizens into a voting booth and forcing them to vote even if it's supposedly in their own interest. That is ultimately a Papa-knows-best idea of democracy and fundamentally illiberal, treating voters not as adults but as children compelled to do their homework or face punishment.

There is a reason why voting is restricted to adults. It is assumed that as an adult you will make an informed choice. One has to be very careful about even tinkering with that idea of choice that should be in the DNA of the system (And no, just because Australia has it is not a good reason for India to adopt it.) The framers of India's constitution went for universal adult franchise because at a fundamental level they wanted all adults, irrespective of caste, creed, gender, education level, to have the option to exercise their choice for better or for worse. And not exercising it is a valid choice as well.

“It’s not as if people don’t have the option of NOTA,” says the BJP’s Shaina NC on NDTV putting forward the most common argument about why the disaffected voter has no excuse anymore not to vote. But as columnist Rupa Subramanya points out, there is an “important conceptual difference” between “choosing to opt out” and being “forced to cast a ballot for NOTA”. They might seem tantamount to the same thing but as she says “(R)ights are not about the outcome being the same when your choice is force. It’s political science/law/logic 101.”

Reasonable citizens on all sides of the debate will agree that they all want a vibrant democracy. Once could also argue that if everyone is compelled to vote parties would have a tougher time playing votebank politics where the goal is to cultivate your voters while counting on the apathy of the others. It might make for better services that benefit more people, it might even make for more somewhat accountable politicians (though are Australian politicians really more accountable than American ones?) but the fundamental question remains whether the quality of that democracy can, or even should, be improved by compulsion.

Former Chief Election Commissioner T S Krishnamurthy says on NDTV’s Left, Right and Centre that if the goal is to increase turnout it is “worthwhile introducing it at the local level to improve people’s awareness in civic matters”. He says initially instead of fines the government could issue warning letters. But he agrees it would be difficult to implement it for state assemblies and the parliament. That argument has some merit because the Gujarat measure came out of low turnouts at the very local municipal level. Mukulika Banerjee, author of Why India Votes said before the last general election that the trend of our voter turnout is actually on the rise in general while in the “mature western democracies” there is real concern for voter apathy. But she also said ultimately people vote not just for sops – a new road or a tin roof - but out of a sense of ownership. “It’s a sense of duty and responsibility of what you need to do. And a sense of pride in being a citizen of having this right that has been given to you by the constitution that you need to fulfil.”

Compulsory voting in a way relieves the government of the responsibility of fostering that sense of ownership. The question compulsory voting does not address is whether turnout is the same as awareness or even engagement. While an empty classroom does send a clear message does enforced attendance in a class automatically mean an engaged student body? Since Narendra Modi as chief minister had pushed for this measure in Gujarat, it will be interesting to hear what he has to say about it as prime minister.

Is this a trial balloon or does what happens in Gujarat stay in Gujarat?