To Vote Or Not To Vote: That Shouldn't Be The Question

Aside from the indisputable room for improvement that the Canadian electoral system has, over 60 per cent of voters still believe that voting is an important way of participating, that it allows us to weigh in the debates regarding the future of our country, that we have choices, and above all that it is an undeniable right that is revalidated through its exercise. For me, as for almost all New Canadians, the most significant moment after receiving citizenship was the first time I could cast a ballot; as someone who believes in democracy, and has made following political affairs his main occupation, I love to vote. Still, in our very stable Canadian context there seems to be a perception that the individual decision to vote or not to vote doesn't matter much, making it hard to understand under which circumstances deciding not to vote becomes the means to express a political position, or when abstaining is the chosen course of action. Case in point: the Venezuelan opposition parties' decision not to participate in the parliamentary elections on Dec. 4, based on the overwhelming proof of the National Electoral Council's pro-government bias and the potentially fraudulent electronic voting system. The local headlines on the day after the election spoke either of a landslide victory for President Hugo Chavez, or about the 75 per cent of voter abstention; with the choice depending on each media's political leanings. From the government's perspective, the fact that less than 25 per cent of the registered voters participated does not jeopardise the legitimacy of the outcome --pro-government candidates won every single seat in the National Assembly-- as it was the opposition's choice not to take part. The opposition claims the minuscule turnout as a victory, interpreting it as a rejection of the government's abuses, one that questions the legality of the new parliament as a result of a flawed process. Beyond the partisan interpretations, a closer look shows that support for the government decreased considerably since the presidential recall referendum in 2004; however, the opposition, still lacking in leadership and a consistent alternative platform, cannot attribute the abstention figures solely to its mobilisation capability. The overwhelming fact is that the erosion of the electoral system and the lack of trust in the democratic institutions are such that the vast majority of Venezuelans decided to either stay home or tend to their Christmas shopping on election day. During the time the polls were open, the government supporters actively tried to mobilise voters by employing a variety of tactics; from roaming the barrios on trucks with loudspeakers (in clear violation of the prohibition of electoral propaganda on voting day) to the broadcast threat, by National Assembly member Iris Varela, of sacking public employees who did not vote. These and other harassment tactics failed. By mid-afternoon the Minister of the Interior told the press that "any result over 11 per cent of the vote would legitimise the new National Assembly," indirectly admitting the government expected exit figures. Despite the absence of voters, polling hours were extended and, according to the NGO Sumate, more than 30 per cent of the electronically-transmitted votes took place during that time, casting doubts on the veracity of the official results. International observers present for the Venezuelan elections will produce their reports in the days and weeks to come. Beyond stating that it was a peaceful day with no acts of violence or serious disruptions of public order, and some references to the obvious absence of voters at the polls, it is unlikely that they will express an opinion regarding the validity of the process. http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2005/december/7/vote/

Note: http://www.embassymag.c...