Say what you will about the so-called "erosion" of democracy in Latin America: At least they vote here! Peru's second-round presidential election is on Sunday, and I'm struggling to find a cheap bus ticket to Nazca this Friday because, um, guess what? Voting is mandatory in Peru. If you don't show up to vote in the municipality where you're registered, you get slapped with a big fine. For this reason all the bus companies jack up their prices in the days leading up to the election, kind of like US Airlines do before Thanksgiving... and it's therefore hard for tourists like me to find cheap tickets. And, in case it didn't strike you as noteworthy the first time I mentioned it, I'll repeat: the elections are on SUNDAY... when nobody has to work, and can therefore afford to take a little time out of their day to get themselves to the polls.
For a country boastful to the point of condescension that "democracy is our greatest export," the US sure has a few simple lessons to learn from Peru. Why bemoan low voter turnout and then make it next-to-impossible for working people to get to the polls before 8PM on a Tuesday evening when many work ´til 7, struggle with a wicked commute, and have to put dinner on the table besides? Why complain about apathy in what's arguably a citizen's most important civic duty but then make voting optional, when, say, skipping out on JURY DUTY can land you in jail?!
US-style "democracy" a model for the world? Puh-leeeze...
6 comments:
obligatory voting doesnt show the level to which democracy works. i dont think we should laud peru for its system of manadatory voting.
voting should be a choice and a right, and in many ways abstaining from the polls, while you call apathy, is an elective form of political action, not simply passive.
and on the other hand, jury duty obligation is actually important in fielding representative bodies to execute judicial actions in the state of a true democracy.
Hey "Anonymous,"
I don't know if you're the same anonymous person who commented on my global warming post last week, but if so, thanks for reading... it's cool to actually see this blog sparking a bit of a dialogue!
While I agree in theory with your statement about the poor correlation between voting and democracy (my ideal personal political philosophy leans towards some form of post-statist ecological anarchism) I feel compelled to point out that in the real world, where the decisions taken by the current U.S. government often translate into matters of life and death for thousands, if not millions, of people around the world, it's downright irresponsible not to exercise one's right to vote as a U.S. citizen.
Nonparticipation in the (granted, faulty) democratic mechanisms available to you as a U.S. citizen in the context of the Bush administration's "war on terror" is tantamount to a vote of approval for the status quo.
And I don't know about you, "Anonymous," but making voting mandatory seems like a step in the right direction when so many potential voters seem so fed up with politics-as-usual. Nothing's gonna change if thoughtful and caring people like yourself stay home on election day, comforting themselves by claiming to be taking an "elective form of political action," as you put it.
In a world where bad people in power are making bad decisions and counting on good people to look the other way or throw their hands up in disgust, it's all the more important to speak up, and voting is one small but important way that people can do this. I hate to say this, but in today's political climate, your statement seems a but naive.
speaking of jury duty. I kept my democratic obligation, while keeping my ass out of a fat fine, by sitting through two days of jury selection for the Fajitagate civil trial. Don't know to celebrate or bemoan that I won't get a chance to squeeze fagan for all he's worth (not much I figure).
i don't know how you assume that i would stay home on election day? did you actually vote in your local elections, say for town officials or school board?
i totally disagree with your take on voting. compulsorary voting would actually take the purpose out of voting. instead of lamenting on low voter turn out on pathetic excuses of its too hard to get to the polls, maybe concetrate on why people don't vote. nonparticipation is not a vote of approval for the status quo.
to see this you just need to look at the fact that the reason people turn out is because its not a priority for them, and they see no real difference in their lives with who ends up winning. the perception is that these people who are supposed to represent their interests are really only self interested, as can be seen by the outcry of the investigation by both parties of the representative jefferson from louisana by the f.b.i. but when it comes to torture and secret prisons or espionage, there is little if any political consequences.
i don't think mandatory voting would affect much change or if as you suggest voting took place on sunday instead of tuesday.
i think in the contrary voting is seen as the small civic duty that has potential for countering the 'bad people in power' making bad decisions as you say. to see this just look at a recent cook political report that detailed if voter participation increased to over 80 percent there would be almost no change in actual party representation. i think you put way too much faith in voting to the point of romanticizing peru's elections, when in fact it is the other forms of political action, like the strength of unions and public manifestation that would be much more influiential in the 'democracy' you say you are so skeptical of in the usa.
and by the way, what exactly is "post statist ecological anarchism", besides a mere fancy jargon?
hey anonymous...
thanks for writing back. first off, i want to agree wholeheartedly with the last point you made, about "other forms of political action" being more effective and influential than voting. totally. if even 1/100 of the people who vote every 4 years for president actually got off the couch and signed a petition, organized a union in their workplace, or took to the streets in protest to change things that should be changed, our country would be in much better shape, and with a "democracy" worthy of calling itself one.
with regard to making voting mandatory: i totally disagree with your statement that "nonparticipation is not a vote of approval for the status quo." i'll use an intense and loaded analogy just to heighten the wrongness of what i think you're suggesting by saying this: lots of good german people during the holocaust stayed quiet, stayed at home, didn't speak out... with horrific consequences. that's why people today say "silence equals complicity." clearly, bush isn't hitler. i'm not claiming the two political situations are even remotely similar. but when you give up your voice or your vote, you're essentially ceding it to those who don't. power abhors a vacuum, and all that.
and sorry for the fancy jargon - it would take a longer blog post than i have time for to explain my political philosophy. basically, i'd like to see an ecologically sustainable future society where people make decisions for themselves in the contexts of their communities, local, regional, and etc., without needing the system of "nation states" that i see as often more of a hinderance than a help in solving people's problems and providing them with what they need to survive and thrive in the world. i just thought it would be easier to use the shorthand of "post statist ecological anarchism."
cheers!
Post a Comment