Scholars have long emphasised that democracy thrives on political participation – but should participation be forced? A fundamental aspect of democracy is that citizens who are impacted by institutions should have a say. Without citizens actively engaging in politics, representative institutions risk failure to reflect the preferences of the governed people.
Declining voter turnout
Elections are generally viewed as a cornerstone of democracy, yet across the world, voter turnout has been declining, raising urgent questions about the health of democratic systems and the legitimacy of those who govern.
The growing concerns are not without basis. Countries known for democratic values, including the United States, South Africa and the UK have all witnessed declining voter turnout in recent decades. Turnout in South Africa’s highly contested 2024 elections dropped to 59 percent, down from 66 percent in 2019, despite intense political competition. Likewise, in spite of global attention surrounding the US 2024 presidential and parliamentary elections, turnout was approximately 3 percent lower compared to 2020. Across Europe, participation has also slumped, with some countries, like Hungary and Latvia seeing turnout fall below 30 percent. This erosion of engagement poses a direct threat to the sanctity of democracy.
This global decline in electoral participation has sparked renewed interest in a controversial solution: compulsory voting. The question is should governments legally require citizens to cast a ballot, and would this reinvigorate democracy?
Why vote?
Voting might not be the only way to participate in politics, but it remains the most universal and symbolic act of citizenship. Direct participation may not be viable in larger democracies; rather, through electing representatives, citizens can communicate their needs and preferences. Elections allow citizens to select, reward or punish representative leaders, shape policy direction, and legitimise political authority.
Arend Lijphart, renowned political scientist and astute supporter of compulsory voting, emphasised that declining voter turnout is a small aspect of a much larger democratic dilemma, specifically the tension between political participation and political equality. When turnout is high, decision-making reflects a broader spectrum of society. When it is low, the system risks skewing towards the preferences of wealthier, older, and better-educated groups-leaving the disadvantaged without a voice.
Why are people not voting?
The reasons behind declining turnout trend are complex. Some explanations are institutional: frequent elections can wear down enthusiasm, and certain electoral systems are less effective at mobilising citizens. Information gaps and socioeconomic inequalities are also factors.
Citizens with less education or limited access to political information often feel disconnected from the process, which can breed apathy, disillusionment, and withdrawal from civic life. The result is a vicious cycle: fewer people participate, trust in institutions erodes, and democracy itself becomes weaker. Consequently, governments are incentivised to prioritise the preferences of demographics with higher turnout rates.
What can be done?
Several scholars, especially Arend Lijphart, Sarah Birch, Keith Jakee and others argue that declining voter turnout is a serious problem for democracy and advocate for compulsory voting as a solution to not only the problem of low voter turnout, but as a means to consolidate democracy. At the same time, other scholars such as Annabelle Lever and Jason Brennan have fiercely argued against it, viewing it as unrepresentative of democratic norms. Compulsory voting in a nutshell is straightforward. Citizens who are eligible and registered to vote are legally mandated to vote in elections, often with penalties for abstention. However, the extent to which compulsory voting laws strengthen democracy is highly contingent on the impact of its institutionalisation.
For and against compulsory voting
Turnout
At the very least, compulsory voting impacts voter turnout, particularly when citizens are sanctioned for not voting. In countries where compulsory voting has existed for decades, such as Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Peru, Uruguay higher turnouts have been consistently registered. While other major democracies experience declining turnouts, Australia boasts one of the highest turnouts rates at over 90 percent. A common theory among scholars is that participation fosters participation. That is, citizens who engage politically in one way are likely to do so in another way. However, although compulsory voting increases turnout, multiple studies (e.g. Miguel Carreras, Gabriela Sainati Rangel) have demonstrated a negative effect on other forms of participation, such as involvement in interest groups and political party membership.
Representation
Because disadvantaged groups are less likely to vote voluntarily, their interests often go unheard. By requiring everyone to participate, compulsory voting could help level the playing field. Studies suggest that women, minorities, and working-class citizens are more likely to be included under compulsory systems. However, the picture is not uniformly positive.
Evidence from Brazil suggests that the form of sanction matters. Non-monetary sanctions such as barred access to government services, financial transactions etc, disproportionately affects upper- and middle-class citizens, compelling them to participate more, thus ironically worsening the inequality. Other research shows compulsory voting boosting support for extreme or populist parties, raising concerns about unintended and spill over consequences.
Democratic Attitudes
Another contested area is whether compulsory voting fosters stronger democratic values. Proponents argue that by implementing compulsory voting, societies cultivate a culture of civic responsibility. Over time, this could normalise engagement and strengthen legitimacy of political authority. Yet the reality is more complicated. Research shows regions in Austria, and the Netherlands that abolished compulsory voting saw turnout drop to 4 percent and 16 percent respectively. This suggests that compulsory systems do not necessarily instil a lasting sense of civic duty.
Political Knowledge
A final dimension is whether compulsory voting encourages citizens to become more informed. In theory, if people know they must vote, they might pay more attention to politics. Some research supports this, showing that sanctioned voting systems lead to more evenly distributed political knowledge. Other studies, however, paint a bleaker picture. Forcing disengaged citizens to the polls may simply result in random or poorly informed choices. One study in Belgium found that compulsory voting led less knowledgeable voters to participate, potentially distorting outcomes. Another experiment in Canada showed no meaningful difference in knowledge between students compelled to vote and those who weren’t. Simply put, making voting mandatory may increase the quantity of votes, but not necessarily the quality.
The democratic trade-off
So, in conclusion, compulsory voting is undeniably effective at one thing: raising electoral turnout. For governments in contexts where turnout has collapsed to dangerously low levels, introducing compulsory voting could provide a boost to legitimacy and inclusivity..
However, compulsory voting is not a one size fits all solution. It can solve the problem of low turnout, but it cannot by itself fix core issues within a democratic system, declining trust, civic disengagement, or political apathy. If anything, it risks papering over deeper issues while leaving structural inequalities untouched.
If the goal is deeper, to strengthen democratic governance by encouraging broader civic participation, improving political knowledge, or cultivating a culture of democratic responsibility, then a compulsory voting policy should be paired with broader reforms. These include better civic education, fairer more accessible electoral systems, and more responsive institutions that give citizens real reasons to care, and to feel like their engagement can make a difference.
There are also philosophical objections. Some argue that democracy is about the freedom to choose, including the freedom to choose not to participate. Forcing people to vote can risk undermining the very principle of voluntary contract on which democracy rests.
Ultimately, the debate over compulsory voting boils down to a trade-off between participation and liberty. Do we value democracy more as a collective duty or as an individual right? Is it better to compel engagement or to respect disengagement? Different countries or regions will answer these questions differently, shaped by their histories, cultures, and political needs.
Haddy Sowe is a recent IDS student studying MA Governance, Development & Public Policy.