They say that we get the government that we deserve, and that if we do not exercise our right to vote, not only do we deserve the outcome but we also cannot complain about it. I do agree with that so, the simple answer to this question is, yes. Yes, I do vote in political elections regardless of what I suspect the outcome of my vote will be. There is, in my opinion, no such thing as a wasted vote because at least in casting it, I have the right to an opinion on the government we get.
I live in a country (United Kingdom), where having the ability to vote is seen as a basic human right. It was not always so, but we have had our civil war, we have had our civil unrest, we have had our internal battles as a country, and we have fought foreign aggressors for the right to vote. And so, I refuse to abuse it by not using it.
It wasn’t always this way in the UK. Up until the seventeenth century we had an absolutist monarch though we did have an elected Parliament, and we had the Magna Carta which provided some check and balance against the worst excesses of the monarch. The monarch had to go to Parliament to raise taxes to fund wars or their lifestyle, but equally was able to dissolve Parliament if it did not give them the answer they wanted. This, ultimately, was what led to the civil war and the death of the monarch Charles I, though there was a hefty dose of religion thrown in as well because Charles I was never truly trusted as not being a secret Catholic, and the Church of England was tearing itself apart with endless sub-religious schisms. But democracy was also at the heart of the civil war. When the monarchy was restored after the Interregnum (as the authoritarian rule of Oliver Cromwell is known), it was restored as, essentially, the constitutional monarch we know today to a large extent. Charles II had none of the powers of his father, he was not able to see himself in effect as God’s representative on earth (this was how absolutist monarchs saw themselves, the lay version of the Pope in effect), and his ability to dismiss Parliament was removed. He had to live within the constraints the politicians put him under, and by and large he went along with it. His focus was the restoration of the monarchy and vengeance against those who had killed his father, both of which he achieved. That’s not to say that Parliament was fully democratic, the majority of people still could not vote. But it was the start of the democratic process, and while the civil war had been bloody and deadly, it was a necessary step in that process.
Men who owned property (not just the huge estates) had the right to vote from 1832, women had no right to vote at all until 1918 when most women over the age of 30 were allowed to vote. This was given as a result of two things – the Suffrage movement in the pre-war period, and the impact of World War One where, for the first time, women were required to backfill the places of men in industry. Almost as a ‘thank you’, a proportion of women were given the right to vote. It still didn’t go far enough, but it was another 10 years before all men and women over the age of 21 were given the right to vote. The age limit was reduced to 18 in 1969, and there are occasional discussions about lowering it further still to 16, which has so far been resisted. All of this happened before I was born, so I have not had to witness first-hand the fight for the right to vote. My great-grandmother was a Suffragette, but she died when I was 3 years old so I was unable to talk to her about it unfortunately. But, I have never forgotten that she fought for the right to vote and was prepared to stand against seemingly overwhelming odds to make sure it happened. The women in the Suffragette movement were not treated well by the Establishment or men generally, and I do feel I owe a debt to those women for withstanding such treatment by exercising my right to vote.
It is no exaggeration to say that people have given their lives for the right to vote. World War II stands out as a war that was about protecting democracy. Had Hitler prevailed, and Stalin initially, no one in Europe – and beyond – would have had the right to vote because it would have been totalitarian dictatorships, not democracy. I think this is something we are forgetting in the 21st Century, especially in the West. Democracy might be the oldest political system, but it is equally still relatively new and fragile, even in Europe where it was born. We have had a lot longer living under some form of total rule than we have as democracies. Democracy is messy by its nature, but it is in my opinion the best means of governing populations because when it works properly, it gives everyone the chance to have their say. When democracy works well, the victor in the election should understand that they are not 100% supported by the population but their job is to work for 100% of the population – so compromise is essential. That is increasingly being forgotten, I feel. The fact that people vote on the basis of a manifesto in the UK, is something that is being forgotten also. Too many times, that manifesto is then torn up once power is achieved and the focus is more on remaining in power than it is on doing what is best for the country.
Socrates did not believe that democracy was sustainable. He did not like that the general population got to select their political leaders because, he said in essence, the general population is too stupid to be entrusted with this responsibility. On the face of it, that sounds terrible. But what he was saying was that in order for democracy to work and to survive, it has to be part of a system that provides an excellent education for its population so that they are able to make informed choices. This, clearly, is the ideal type of democracy. One that works hand-in-glove with an educated electorate, and compromises to serve the population as a whole. Increasingly, this is not the type of democracy we live in. Our education systems are not built to provide the type of society Socrates wanted, one that encourages and rewards critical thinkers, but the type of society that Rockefeller wanted which was one of workers not thinkers. And as a consequence, democracy is probably at its weakest point right now.
We live in a society now where in the US, that apparent bastion of democracy, if your name on the voting slip does not match your birth certificate, you cannot vote. Well, either this is deliberate or the result of the hollowing out of the civil service in the US (which is the part of government that does the thinking about unintended consequences), a whole swathe of married women who have adopted their husband’s surname, will be excluded from voting. Including, interestingly, the First Lady. Men will not be affected by this by and large. Funny that. To say this is a backward step if it is enacted into legislation is possibly the understatement of the century. Is the consequence of the severing of DEI rules not about creating a meritocracy, or whatever the excuse coming out of the Trump administration for this policy is, but actually about reverting back to a white, heterosexual, male-dominated society? Rowing back on decades of women’s rights improvements? And removing one of the most basic rights in a modern democracy, the right to vote.
So, as a woman, I exercise my right to vote in political elections most assiduously. Even when, as with the last General Election in the UK, I struggled with who to vote for because none of the political parties, I felt, represented me. But I still made my cross on that piece of paper. Because when we stop doing that, we tacitly stop fighting for a democracy that has already been very hard fought for.
Louisa Simpson 