Two doors.
Behind a door is an evil and behind another is yet another evil but of a different species. Which door would you choose to venture through?
In many cases especially in politics, it is about choosing the lesser of the two evils. Sometimes, we talk so much about choosing the lesser that we overlooked the third option: not choosing at all. Indeed, many voters have expressed their unwillingness to make a decision when presented with two evils. I was part of them for awhile until I began to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
I deplore being having to choose between two evils but that is the case I will be facing for the upcoming election. There are only two candidates contesting in my constituency; one is from UMNO and another is from PAS; being having to choose between a racist and an Islamist party is a real turn-off.
Presented with limited options, I had to ask myself, do I need to vote at all?
Regardless the options, I do feel strongly about voting. I blame this on MTV, with its incessant messages extolling the virtue of voting. I bought so much into it that if I were given a chance, I would not hesitate to vote in the 2004 US Presidential Election. What made the urge greater was the options presented by the day; between Bush and Kerry, my choice was clear. Living in a liberal bastion of Ann Arbor and close to the Bible Belt made the decision easier to make.
I feel strongly about exercising my right to vote because I believe those whom consciously fail to vote practically relinquished their moral authority to discuss matters of collective importance, from state to the federal levels. Rightfully, every individual has a say in the governance of a state, especially so if those individuals are taxpayers. They have a stake in setting the direction of their state and refusal to vote should not affect that. Yet, a normative statement is not a positive statement. Positively, failure to vote means one disenfranchises oneself from the system.
An event in Iraq provides a clear example how failure to vote causes one to be irrelevant. In January 2005, Iraq had an election to appoint various representatives into its national assembly. The Sunnis mostly boycotted the process and as a result, the Kurds and the Shiites dominated the house.[1] Regardless how the boycott affected the legitimacy of the election, the house was formed to draft a brand new constitution for the war-torn country. Due to limited participation from the Sunni, the Kurds and the Shiites could have a free hand in writing a new constitution, the supreme law of Iraq.[2]
The rationale for refusal to participate in Iraq in 2005 is different from the Malaysian scenario but the effect is still the same. Those that refuse to vote make themselves irrelevant to the system. Unless, of course, if you are planning for a bloody revolution. Yet, a free election is a revolution in its own way.
All that does however only explain why it is imperative to vote. It does not tell how one breaks the false dilemma of choosing between two evils. I will touch on that soon.
[1] — Read Iraqi legislative election, January 2005 at Wikipedia. Accessed February 28 2008.
[2] — The Sunni Arabs’ January 2005 election boycott and the simultaneous campaign of intimidation of Sunni Arab voters by the insurgency resulted in only seventeen Sunni Arabs elected to the 275-member Assembly—a very low number compared to the proportion of Sunni Arabs in Iraq, conventionally estimated at 15 to 20 percent. By contrast, the Kurdistan Coalition List won seventy-five seats and the predominantly Shia United Iraqi Alliance won 140—an absolute majority that in theory, if not in fact, gave the Alliance the ability to write a constitution without the involvement of any other political grouping. [Iraq’s Constitutional Process II: An Opportunity Lost. Johnathan Morrow. United States Institute of Peace. December 2005]
6 replies on “[1564] Of make yourself irrelevant by not voting”
[…] ignored in favor of issues raised by the supporters of the candidate. As I have explained earlier, this makes voting imperative, especially when the participation rate is high and when the voting outcome affects the voters. […]
Dear Abidin,
This is written within Malaysian context. Within Malaysian context, “state by default operates in such manner”. The state in Malaysia after is pervasive in its reach. More instructively, Malaysia is not a libertarian or even a liberal state.
And indeed, “the electoral duty of the libertarian is to vote for the candidate which is more likely and able to advance the cause of liberty — if one exists.” I am choosing those that sit closest to me to maximize my own well being
Surely, if a person that sits the farthest from libertarian ideal got elected into office, it would lead to reduction of libertarians’ well-being. By not voting, a libertarian increases the chances of his well-being being diminished. This is why libertarian must vote, especially when participation rate is high. By not voting, libertarians make themselves irrelevant to decision-making processes. This is the message of this article.
On individuals and parties, the reality is that the party dominates the scene in Malaysia. This is mostly true, regardless the practices of western democracy. This is compounded by the fact that BN controlled 90% of the seat in the Dewan Rakyat. We form ideals and then we face reality. Regardless of ideal, libertarians (in fact, all) must consider the reality and then see how should libertarians move from reality to ideal. I supposed, in management lingo, do a swot and a gap analysis.
And I do not believe in “any opposition candidate is better than any BN candidate” all the time. But please hold on to your thought. There is a follow up to this blog entry, explaining a voting pattern for strategic maneuvering, rather than ideal. While here I focused on the positive, in the follow up, it will be on the normative.
This article was supposed to be longer but, hey, it’s election time and I’m helping some friends. With limited time, I decided to cut the article into 2 parts. Perhaps, it would tie some loose end.
I don’t think it’s valid to argue that it’s an imperative to vote on the basis that the state by default operates in the matter that it does. Voting isn’t the only real way to lessen the role of the state – witness the sheer expansion of private education in the past few decades, for instance.
Surely the electoral duty of the libertarian is to vote for the candidate which is more likely and able to advance the cause of liberty — if one exists.
Westminster democracies send individuals, not parties, to parliament – in theory at least. I sympathise with libertarians who argue that this is false in Malaysia given the power of parties over their representatives, and who believe that BN is detrimental to liberty, and consequently believe that any opposition candidate is better than any BN candidate. But that is not a view I entirely subscribe to.
Dear Abidin,
Regarding moral authority, I’ve qualified it with the word “practically”. I took the extra mile to mention that it is a positive statement and not normative.
“Matters of collective importance” does not have to be handled by the state but within Malaysian context, the state by default operates in such manner. In order to not have it that way, a person needs to take over of the state first and then scales the state’s influence down to a certain level. Unless one thinks of a revolution, voting is the only real way to do so.
Again, within Malaysian context, the only way to cut excesses of the state is to reduce the power of the state, whatever government (BN or something else) that might be. Without voting, BN would probably command a healthy majority, enough to disrespect liberty.
Would you regard as having “relinquished their moral authority” those who refuse to vote so as to avoid being (or feeling) accountable for legitimising state authority over others?
And must “matters of collective importance” be handled by the state? Must governance be the preserve of government?
4th option. Since a group of people choosing it, split it 50:50. Let the evil fight each other. ;)
Only choosing the opposition will give us choice to enable the 4th option.