• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Low turnout in UK elections -- Does rational indifference explain it?

P. R. Brahmananda

IT IS reported that in the UK election, the percentage of voters who exercised their vote was as low as 40, compared to 65 per cent in the previous election five years ago. What does such a heavy non-turnout indicate? The UK is the mother of democracies. The right to vote and choose the Government once, at least in four or five years, is a fundamental right in a democracy. But does the right to vote also imply an obligation to vote and always?

One may not exercise one's franchise for a number of reasons. Ruling out random factors such as climate, one may not vote if the range of choices -- from the voter's angle -- is limited. The bundle of promises made by different parties may not be the opt imal bundle as far as the voter is concerned. But, this is inevitable in a democracy where the parties cannot promise the bundle optimal to each voter. It can only opt for the maximum commonality in the potential range of optimum bundles of the voters, w hich will be composed of heterogeneous components. Therefore, the absence of the best bundles in the range of choices offered from the point of view of the non-voters is not a valid reason.

When in a hypothetical social contract, democracy is chosen as the best form of Government, the members of the contract know that the ranges of choices offered by different parties cannot be the best from each voter's hypothetical preference surfaces.

The second potential reason for non-voting would be that some among the potential voters do not like any of the parties who compete in the election. But this reason is the same as the previous one. Parties represent bundles of promises and the social con tract presumes this.

The third potential reason is the non-voters are indifferent as to which party comes to power. Note that the UK consists of reasonably highly educated electorate. The indifference angle must be considered as a valid reason. Such an attitude would mean th e potential voters' interests are not affected by the policies of any of the parties that comes to power. This may be due to the selfish angle of the voters' material interests or from an abstract angle of the citizens as a whole.

In order to admit the indifference hypothesis, it should have happened that in some of the previous elections, the voter turnout was higher. This means when vital interests are involved, the potential voters take a strong decision to exercise their franc hise. It is probably when things are going well by the polity, and when some potential voters believe that whichever party comes to power will not disturb the above course of progress of well-being, that they refrain from going to vote. Indifference to t he outcomes may be a conscious choice on the part of the potential voters.

Such voters who become indifferent should be deemed `not-so committed' to the ideologies of any of the competing parties. Each party will have some committed supporters who will vote, and for that party. The entire electorate may not consist of such comm itted voters. This does not mean these individuals will not exercise their franchise at all. They probably will, when their interests may be threatened one way or the other, and would like them to be safeguarded by not voting for a party which hurts thei r interests.

If the above explanation is tenable, it should seem that in an old democracy, where the population is almost stationary, the probability of variable turn-out proportions in elections should not be treated abnormal. Active indifference means that not exer cising franchise is also an act of choice in a democracy.

I am abstracting from the opportunity cost of going to the booth, standing in a queue and consciously exercising one's right to vote. This cost may be treated as nominal to all the potential voters in a developed country.

In the manifestos of the three major parties -- the labour, the conservative and the liberal democratic -- the bundles of promises seem similar. The uncommitted voters could think that whatever party comes to power would not indulge in any major structur al changes that would conflict with their interests and ideas.

The UK had a good economic growth of 2-3 per cent per annum during most of the 1980s. But, during the later part of decade, from 1988 till 1991, its growth rate dipped and became negative. But, from around 1991, it started moving up and reached the high in 1994. Then it started dipping again. The labour party which came to power in the mid-1990s has maintained a steady 2-3 per cent growth rate per annum. Actually, the average annual growth rate during 1983-1992 was 2.5 per cent, lower than in the US, Ja pan and Germany.

The IMF projections for 1993-2002 are that the UK will have an average growth rate of 2.9 per cent, higher than that in Japan (1.2 per cent) and in Germany (1.6 per cent); also higher than in France and Italy. The UK's average unemployment rate of 9 per cent during 1983-1992 was higher than that in other advanced countries, except Italy and France. The unemployment rate in the UK came down to 7-8 per cent by the late 1980s. Thereafter, it started rising and reached a peak of 10-11 per cent by 1993. Then it started falling to less than 7 per cent in the late 1990s. The projections are it will continue to fall.

The credit for achieving the lowest rate of unemployment in the recent decades can be given to the Labour Party. Savings and investment also moved up during the Labour regime. What is significant is that government debt is slowing down and budget surplus es have been achieved over the last three years. Real wages of workers have been going up and productivity per worker has also been rising. In most of these respects, the Labour Party's achievement can be compared to the ultra-conservative regime of Ms M argaret Thatcher. Though, during her successors period the economic conditions started deteriorating! This brought the labour party to power and revived the UK economy to Thatcherite heights.

Basically, there is no substantial difference in the policy stances of Mr Tony Blair and Ms Thatcher. The UK citizens probably want the Thatcher programme to be implemented by Mr Blair who has successfully won a second regime for himself and his party. A ll the political parties are unanimous in wanting a referendum on joining the euro.

The Labour Party does not want to take any radical stances on this issue. Improvement of the educational system, reducing the incidence of crime, improving the health services and the performance of the public transport system, strengthening local govern ments are the important components of each party's manifesto. The UK faces one problem -- the rising real exchange rate, which is leading to current account deficit necessitating import of capital from outside. The inflation rate has been brought under c ontrol and the interest rates have been falling. Joining Europe might help UK in foreign trade matters, but, the historic pound will have to go. The issues here are so delicate that no party wants to take a lead! Hence, a referendum is awaited. Let us se e what UK decides on this issue. There is an invisible consensus among the UK parties. This has been achieved by separating the euro issue from each of their stances. This is a lesson the Indian political system can learn. Go directly to the people when divisive major issues are involved. In the meantime, concentrate on improving the efficiency of administration and the style of political functioning.

Anyway, the hypothesis of conscious indifference which was the attitude of many potential voters may be accounted in rational terms.