Even as the Gujarat state government makes voting compulsory in elections to local self-government bodies, constitutional and legal experts have opined that the move is against the basic tenet of democracy.

On November 5, the state’s governor, OP Kohli, cleared the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2009, which has been in the works for years now. The bill was drafted by the then Chief Minister of the state, Narendra Modi and passed in the Assembly in 2009 and again in 2011.  The then governor Kamala Beniwal, though, refused to clear it, calling it “against the principles of individual liberty”.

Jagdeep Chokkar, founding member of Association for Democratic Reforms, an organisation that works towards a more representative democracy, while speaking to Newslaundry, said that people should be encouraged to vote and not forced. “If you read the fine print of the Supreme Court’s judgment on the None Of The Above (NOTA) provision, it clearly states that people’s right to not vote should be protected by the state. This bill though does exactly the opposite”, he said.

It must be mentioned here that the bill does allow negative voting – wherein you can choose to not vote for any of the candidates. However, India’s NOTA provision, as it currently stands, is more symbolic than practical. According to a Supreme Court judgment, there is no provision for re-elections even if NOTA is the highest-exercised option. Instead, it is the candidate next on the list who is considered the winner.

However, you’d imagine that there must be some merit to the bill in spite of the seemingly stifling and even futile nature of it. Particularly, considering that the bill was a brainchild of one of the sharpest political minds in the country. An interview that Modi gave to CNBC TV 18, immediately after the bill was passed the first time in 2009, is illuminating.

Modi begins by trashing the media and people who discuss low voter turnout in the comfort of their living rooms. To prove his point, he speaks of how Mumbaikars, despite being subjected to a terror attack, didn’t turn out in large enough numbers to vote.  He then goes on to explain how mandatory voting would go a long way in addressing the rights of the “neutral voter”.  A neutral voter, according to Modi, is someone who’s not aligned to any party and only has the welfare of the country in his mind. (Isn’t welfare of the country the reason voters align to a particular party to vote for that party?)

Modi then goes on to furnish a few examples explaining how making something compulsory is not as sinister as it is being made out to be. Case in point: making studying compulsory for children, and getting people to use preventive medication in case of an epidemic.

Modi ends by saying that mandatory voting would help cut down on costs of elections and put an end to the practice of black money-funded poll campaigns. However, he doesn’t go into the how of it.

The most riveting moment of the interview though is when Modi makes a caustic remark about how detractors of the idea, oblivious to the country’s ground realities and ignorant of other mature democracies practising the same thing, should take a leaf out of Italy at least.  He comments on Italy doing well with compulsory voting and does so with a face that would put most professional poker players to shame. However, in his attempt to be funny, Modi gives facts a miss yet again. Compulsory voting in Italy ended in 1993, and the country now views exercise of the adult franchise as a “right and duty” of its citizens, and the word compulsory has been dropped.

While Modi may have had the country’s best interests in mind – notwithstanding his inane sense of humour built around imaginary facts – but the desire to legislate everything is a little worrisome. One of the most important foundations of democracy is choice. Social commentator Santosh Desai says, “The fact that someone chooses to not vote is in itself a statement and should be respected.”

While there is little doubt about the pointlessness of the NOTA provision in India, Desai said he’d be uncomfortable even if NOTA had a more robust structure. “There is a line between desirability and duty in a democracy and the sanctity of that line should be preserved”, he said.

The Election Commission too has expressed its reservations on the idea. Also, it is unlikely that the bill will go through the judicial process in its current form.

Interestingly, Indian politicians have an option of abstaining from voting in Parliament. A privilege that Modi, in fact, exercised when the bill was floored in the Gujarat Assembly the first time in 2009. Preach what you practise, anyone?