More Than Kings
– Folha de S. Paulo, March 28, 1984 –by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
During my term, I took a personal stance — different from that of my caucus — only on issues related to defending the Church and Christian civilization. After my term ended, the two main political groups in São Paulo — the PRP and the Constitutionalist Party — politely yet insistently invited me to join their slates for the 1935 election. I chose instead to run as an independent candidate, even though the results of that election (which should be noted) were fiercely contested.
I recall all these facts to clearly show how long I’ve been detached from party politics. It is a detachment that only very specific circumstances could make me overcome.
In fact, I mention this detachment only to emphasize the strictly non-partisan and apolitical way I have been and am addressing today’s increasingly contentious issue of direct elections.
It is important to note here that this detachment does not stem from any principled objection to the role of a politician or to party activity.
And now I get to the core of the issue.
In my opinion, the right to vote and the right not to vote are the primary natural outcomes of direct elections. Therefore, there should be no fines or other forms of coercion against voters who, tired of all the candidate options, choose not to vote. Another consequence is the automatic nullification of elections where the majority of voters do not participate.
I am not an advocate of the current representative system. However, since it exists, it should at least be consistent. No matter how flawed a system is, internal contradictions only make its problems worse and prevent it from delivering any benefits.
Now, for a representative system to be genuine, it must — as its name suggests — represent. Represent what? Clearly, the voters’ thoughts and will. If more than half of them refuse to vote, what does that indicate if not that these voters do not feel the candidates represent their views, and therefore choose not to vote?
In other words, a representative system that requires voters to cast a ballot, even when they do not support the candidates presented, forces them to choose between candidates they dislike or are completely indifferent to.
Then, how can anyone argue that these candidates truly represent this electorate?
What other options do hostile or uninterested voters have to express their rejection besides abstaining? Isn’t forcing them to vote anyway effectively banning them from showing disapproval? If electoral law prevents them from demonstrating that rejection, then how can election results truly reflect their preferences?
Considering all factors logically, a representative system is legitimate only when voters are free to choose whether to vote, and when an election with more than 50% of the electorate not voting is considered invalid.
Since we’re used to high turnout at our elections, it’s natural that many readers might think it’s not entirely unreasonable for the majority of voters not to show up. However, experience from various countries shows this situation isn’t unusual.
For example, in neighboring Colombia, elections for state and municipal legislative chambers were held on March 11, and only 28.6% of the electorate voted (see El Tiempo of Bogotá, March 13, 1984). Do those elected by this small minority truly represent the majority? I don’t see how that can be justified.
In the Middle Ages and under the “Ancien Régime” — which the proud advocates of the modern representative system often criticize as a time of tyranny, despotism, and similar faults — the people were never denied the right to express their dissatisfaction with their kings. Although they couldn’t do so with boos or jeers disrespectful to royal majesty, they were allowed (and how could anyone forbid it?) not to applaud the king when he appeared in public. Hence, the well-known saying: “Silence is the people’s lesson to kings.”
Proponents of mandatory voting in modern democracies aim to give congressional and Senate candidates privileges even greater than those of ancient kings. When these candidates run for office, voters have no right to stay home or remain silent. They must vote for one of them, and no one else. Is this truly representative?
Some might argue that voters can still exercise this right to opt out — even when they are required to vote — by submitting a blank ballot in the privacy of the voting booth.
In theory, yes… in a fantasy world. After all, since the voter has taken the trouble to go to the polls, it makes sense that they should at least get some benefit from the effort. For them, that benefit will usually involve voting for the party ballot that seems the least objectionable. Here, the blank vote is characterized by a stoic, cold, and inhuman quality that makes it rare.
Voters are convinced that the only way to express their dissatisfaction genuinely is to abstain from voting in an attempt to invalidate the election. This motivates political parties to develop new slates that better reflect the public’s preferences.
_________________________________________________________________
Index of English posts - Plinio Correa de Oliveira