The right to vote is called the suffrage or franchise. It is one of the most important political rights of the citizens in a democratic State, inasmuch as it is the very foundation and essence of the representative democracy. By the exercise of this right the citizens not only elect their representatives but also express their opinion on the policy of the government.
When a citizen exercises his rights to vote, he becomes a voter or elector. The actual choice or exercise of the right to vote is called voting. The act of voting is called polling. When the citizens as a whole exercise their right to vote to elect their representatives, it is called an election. All the citizens who at a particular time have the right to vote or franchise are collectively called the electorate. The size of the electorate depends upon the law of franchise or representation, which differs from country to country.
Two theories of Franchise
What is the nature of the franchise? Why should a citizen be given the right to vote? Two general theories answer these questions differently about the nature of the franchise or suffrage as under:
(1) Individualistic Theory of Franchise.
According to this theory, franchise or the right to vote is the natural and inherent right of the individual. This theory was based on three doctrines which were prevalent during the 18th century: the doctrines of natural rights, equality of Man and popular sovereignty or General Will. Carried to its logical conclusion this theory implies universal suffrage. All citizens have the inalienable and sacred right to participate in the formulation of the law. “None can be deprived of this right upon any pretext or in any government.” Thus law, as the expression of popular sovereignty, was justified only when all citizens have the right to elect their representatives who make laws, the doctrine of the political equality also required that every citizen should have the right to vote. Law and government affected all, and should be influenced by all: “What toucheth all should be decided by all.” In present times, Laski has given another justification for universal suffrage. History has demonstrated; says Laski that those persons or classes who are excluded from a share in political power are also excluded from its benefits and advantages and their interests are neglected when the policy of the State is formulated. Without franchise
there could be no freedom. Unrepresented interests are likely to be neglected by the government.
(2) Collectivistic Theory.
The doctrine of natural rights is not acceptable in modem times. It is now said that franchise is not a natural right of the individual. If it is so, then we cannot refuse this right to such persons who cannot obviously exercise it, as, for example, the minors or the wicked. Reason and morality require that they should not be given the right to vote. Hence the right to vote is not attached to the individual by nature but is a privilege, a franchise or a social function, conferred on him by the State for the fulfilment of its aims and ideals. It cannot be granted to all citizens but to those whom the State considers fit for its proper exercise. Hence the Collectivistic theory favours a restricted franchise or suffrage certain sections or classes can be excluded from the right to vote on grounds determined by the law of the State as illiteracy, ignorance, etc. This theory has the support of several modern writers, such as Bluntschli, Lecky, John Stuart Mill and Sir Henry Maine. The Fasciss and Nazis upheld it on ground of racialism and nationalism, while the Communists on grounds of proletarian citizenship.
In practice, however, modem democratic States admit the need for universal adult franchise. Yet they do not go to the extremes of these two theories. The right to vote is now recognised not as a natural right but as a privilege. It is conferred by the State not on all citizens without discrimination but only on those who fulfil certain conditions which, however, differ from country to country. It must be remembered that franchise is at once an individual right and a social function. In this sense it differs from the personal rights of the individual. Hence its exercise must be justified on social grounds and restrictions. The result is as Gamer says, that the electorate in every democratic State today “includes a fractional part of the population, varying from three fifths to one-half of the total population.” Restrictions on franchise are of various kinds such as age, sex, property, education, mental and moral fitness, etc.
Age Restriction.
Every State requires that an individual acquires the right to vote when he attains a certain age. Minors and young people are not given the right to vote because they are too young and immature to understand the purpose of voting and election. It is undoubtedly a necessary condition. But there is no uniformity as to the age of maturity or adulthood when the individual becomes a voter. It is eighteen years in the U.S.S.R, U.S.A, U.K & other countries, which is the lowest in the world; 21 years in Pakistan, and 25 years in Holland. However, it is better to fix 18 years of age as the age of a voter.
Mental and moral Fitness.
An individual must be mentally and morally fit to be a voter. Every State excludes lunatics, idiots and criminals from electorate, because they do not possess necessary moral and mental ,qualifications. Those who are convicted of crimes may be temporarily or permanently deprived of this right, because they show lack of civic sense. Sometimes bribery at elections also disqualifies a person permanently.
Sex.
For long past women were not granted the right to vote. Politics was regarded as man’s job only. The demand for universal suffrage was understood as a demand for male suffrage exclusively. One reason why women were disfranchised was the view that those persons only could be voters who fought for the State: warriors alone were voters. In early stage the military classes were alone the citizens, while the non-military classes were subjects or slaves, possessing no civic rights. For this reason also wemen were excluded from the right to vote.
It is only in very recent times that they have been enfranchised in almost all the civilized States of the world. For instance, the women in the U.S.A. got the right to vote in 1920, in England in 1929,’after nearly half a century of the agitation by the Suffragettes, or the advocates of women suffrage. Soviet Russia granted franchise to women when it came into being in 1917 after the Russian Revolution. Switzerland enfranchised Swiss women in 1971 after a referendum. In Pakistan, women were enfranchised soon after the Independence. The only country which denies this right to women to-day is Saudi Arabia. Sex restriction, however, is quite unjustifiable.
Argument against Female Franchise.
Several arguments have been advanced against female enfranchisement by some writers and thinkers in the past and present, as follows:
1. Feminine nature is unfit for politics.
The chief argument against female enfranchisement has been that female nature is such which renders women unfit for political life and decision. Politics is man’s job; just as maternity is woman’s. The Egyptian Ulama of the al-Azhar University of Cairo issued a Fatwa in 1952, declaring that women must not be given the right to vote or sit in the legislature because, firstly, their nature is swayed by emotions which makes them “of unstable judgment; secondly, voting will require their presence in public which is unbecoming of womanly behaviour. They must stay at home. Thirdly, female franchise is un-Islamic. But the arguments of the Ulema are fallacious. Women in early Islam participated in political discussions and decisions.
- 2. Politics would unsex women.
It is also said that not only female nature but also womanly functions and role in life require that they should not participate in politics, if they are to preserve their feminine qualities and habits. They earn respect and honour from men only when they are delicate, retiring in habits, and devoted to their domestic duties. If they begin to participate in politics on equal terms with men, they would involve themselves in the mud and mire of political controversies and would be treated as roughly as men treat one another in political disputes and quarrels. Moreover, “the exactions of political life are inconsistent with the duties of child-bearing and the rearing of families. Thus politics would completely unsex women.
- 3. It would create discord in family life.
The opponents of female franchise paint a dark and dismal picture of family discord and quarrels if women are given the right to vote. It is said that if a woman voter agrees with her husband and votes as he wants her, then her vote is useless, for it is mere duplication of his vote. But if she disagrees with him, then peace and happiness of the family would be destroyed for the wife and husband would quarrel over voting.
- 4. Women are incapable of bearing arms.
A citizen must fight for the country or State; women cannot be given civic rights as they can do nothing to defend the State.
Arguments for Female Enfranchisement.
Several writers, e.g.; Mill, Hare, Sidewick, etc; have championed women’s right to vote. Their arguments are as follows:
- 1. Democracy remains an imperfect ideal without female
enfranchisement.
Just as democracy does not differentiate between men on basis of race or blood, so it should not differentiate between men and women on the basis of sex. Politics cannot be a monopoly of men, for law and government affect women, their life and happiness as much as they affect men. The ideals of democracy, such as liberty and equality, are meaningless so long as women are not also free and equal with men in political life and activities. “If, observed Judge Story, “it be said that all men have a natural, equal, and inalienable right to vote because they are born free and equal, these considerations are equally applicable to females, as free, intelligent, moral beings entitled to equal rights and interests and protection and having vital stake in all regulations and laws of society.”
- 2. Sex is no disqualification.
The right of voting is a political right of the individual based on moral and rational grounds rather than on physical considerations. It belongs to both men and women. Women cannot be denied franchise on the basis of sex, for it is a physical factor which does not affect polities.
- 5. The arguments of family quarrels and military incapacity of
women refuted.
The argument that the enfranchisement of women would increase family quarrels is quite baseless. On the contrary, it would sharpen the intellects and increase their understanding of the problems confronting their country. It will also increase family harmony, for “it would also be no small thing that the husband would necessarily discuss the matter with his wife and that the vote would not be his exclusive affair but a joint concern.” It will also enlarge the horizon of activities of women who are otherwise confined to family circle and domestic duties. The military incapacity of women is also not as great as it is usually thought. Women now serve as soldiers, nurses, etc. Moreover, a lesson which human progress teaches is that mankind develops only by overcoming its natural weaknesses. Even if the women may not like to participate in voting due to their physical disabilities, it is better to afford them an opportunity to do so. “It is a benefit to human beings to take off their fetters, even if they do not desire to walk.”
- 6. Weakness of the female sex necessitates her participation in
politics for the sake of better protection.
Citizens are given the right to vote for they have to protect certain rights. Women, being physically weaker, are more dependent on law and government, State and society, for protection of their rights and interests, which men have failed to protect, as past experience has demonstrated. Usually the laws made by men favour them alone. This is partly because men are selfish, and chauvinistic, but mainly because they are unable to understand some of the peculiar needs and problems of women. All laws and policies affect both men and women equally. But there are some which affect women more, such as the laws regarding family life, marriage, maternity, children, etc. Hence women must have a share in the making of all such laws and policies. This is possible only when they have the right to vote and the right to be elected to the legislature. This alone will prevent the adoption of such laws and policies which are hostile to or discriminatory against women’s interests and rights.
- 7. Female enfranchisement will exercise moral influence on
political life.
The admission of women into politics would have a purifying, ennobling and refining influence on it It will tend to improve the tone of public life and will be conducive to better government. It will introduce decency, righteousness and purity in politics. Moreover, State will devote its energy and attention to several activities and services which it has neglected in the past, such as child labour, public health, education, pure food legislation, employment of women for heavy duties in factories and
farms and other social services. Women are more interested in s<xl«t legislation than men.
- 8. Good citizenship is as necessary for women as men.
Women are given many civil rights and perform many civil du(latfi In present times, women are to compete with men in several walks of life t| is, therefore, inconsistent and irrational that they should be denied politkil right of franchise. When they enjoy other rights, perform civil duties nnd have to struggle for existence on equal footing with men. Divorced women, widows, and unmarried women are often the bread-winners of thelt families. Many women earn their livelihood as teachers, nurses, offic*i workers, and as labourers on farms and factories. If they can do all such jobs, why should they not be given all opportunities for good citizenship? Women must, therefore, have the right to vote and participate in political discussions. Their civic sense is as sharp as that of men.
- 9. Women are the custodians of culture and civilisation and the futui* of every State depends upon their active and equal participation in III# affairs of the government.
Property.
In the nineteenth century, possession of property was considered At an essential qualification for franchise. Various reasons were given why property-owners alone could be the voters. Firstly, men of property wril men of education who could thereby understand the meaning and purpon# of voting and election and could express their opinions on national issued Secondly, men of property had a stake in the country and would giv# considered opinion on problems and dangers confronting it. Thirdly, it wnn feared that if the propertyless classes were given the right to vote, they would elect such representatives as would abolish private properly altogether and thus bring economic ruin to the country.
Fourthly, tha legislature which imposes taxes should consist of those who pay taxes, that is, the representatives of the propertied classes. In the present times, however, the attitude towards property qualification has completely changed. Political equality demands that all classes, whether propertied or property-less, should be treated alike in respect of franchise. They must have an equal right to vote. Moreover, it is now felt that to exclude some men from a share in political power is to exclude them from its benefits and boons. Past experience has demonstrated that the propertied classes misused their monopoly of political power and corrupted the government. They made it a plutocracy or oligarchy. Furthermore, modern opinion regards the State as existing for the wellbeing and happiness of all citizens,’ irrespective of their property or social position. Lastly, it is a well-established fact that propertied classes exercise great influence on the government both overtly and covertly. It is, therefore, not necessary to give them special protection by means of enfranchisement. Hence in all modern democratic States, qualification has been abolished and all adult citizens are given the vote regardless of their property or income.
In the 19(h century, ignorance and lack of education were regarded grounds for disqualifying a person as a voter. This restriction was on different grounds by various writers. Bluntschli said, “To vest er of choosing those who are to rule the State in the hands of the hie and unworthy classes would mean State suicide.” J.S. Mill ‘ that “I regard it as wholly inadvisable that any person should pate in the suffrage without being able to read and write.” He, remarked that “universal teaching must precede universal isement.” Like property qualification, opinion about educational lion has also changed in present times. Firstly, it is said that the m of modern democracy is not to disfranchise the illiterate masses but cate them. ‘Educate our political masters’ is a slogan necessary for y and vigorous democratic States to disfranchise the masses on ds of illiteracy would make the State both undemocratic and unjust, cr, it is really difficult to define and fix educational qualification for I, Is mere literacy enough to qualify a voter? Or should higher tests be for enfranchisement? Even an educated person in philosophy or matics or sciences may not be properly qualified for exercising his ise. Education is indeed necessary for proper fulfilment of civic ::ns, but much depends on the kind and nature of education. Education al and economic matters is far more useful for voters than in natural . Hence educational test is a difficult criterion for enfranchisement, is no doubt.” writes Finer, “that tests based on knowledge now le and indispensable to rational voting would exclude some 95% of Its from franchise.” Lastly, the spread of universal, compulsory on in present times has removed the need for imposing educational cations. In countries like the U.S.A. Educational qualification was ired, But this was merely a political trick to exclude the dangerous and loured men from a share in elections and political power, because were usually uneducated. In Pakistan, illiteracy is no longer a ification, as it was before Independence, ntial qualification.
It is an old controversy that a person should be a resident of the al district before he can be qualified as a voter or stand as a candidate election. This condition is imposed to prevent fraud and to enable the s and candidates to understand the needs of their locality. In some es, like the U.S.A. and England, very strict residential restrictions are <1 on voters which are quite unjustifiable. Strict residential lication produces several evils, like provincialism or parochialism. It
promotes sectional outlook at the expense of national interests. Moreover, men of ability are prevented from standing from places of their choice. They have to resort to fraudulent methods to seek election in other places. The only residential restriction that can be justified is that the voter must have resided in the locality six months before the electoral register is prepared.