Source/Voting Rights and Suffrage: Difference between revisions
Import-sysop (talk | contribs) m (Import-sysop moved page Voting Rights and Suffrage to Source/Voting Rights and Suffrage: move to source) |
|||
| (33 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 517: | Line 517: | ||
====Sweden==== | ====Sweden==== | ||
The Preamble of Sweden’s Constitution notes that their democracy is founded upon the principles of universal suffrage. Article 4 expands on this notion stating that all citizens (at home or abroad) over the age of 18 can vote for the members of the Riksdag. (Constitute Project, “Sweden’s Constitution of 1974 with Amendments through 2012”). | |||
====Switzerland==== | ====Switzerland==== | ||
Article 136 of the Swiss Constitution lays out the political right for Swiss citizens, stating that all Swiss citizens over the age of 18 (unless they are mentally incapable of doing so) may vote in their free elections. The Swiss legislature can create mandatory and optional referendums. (Constitute Project, “Switzerland’s Constitution of 1999 with Amendments through 2014”). | |||
====Syria==== | ====Syria==== | ||
Under Article 59 of Syria’s Constitution all citizens over the age of 18 and meet the proper “conditions” have the right to vote in elections. Article 57 states that the members of the People’s Assembly are elected by these voters.(Constitute Project, “Syria’s Constitution of 2012”). | |||
====Tajikistan==== | ====Tajikistan==== | ||
Under Articles 49 and 65, members of the Majlisi Namoyandagon and the President of Tajikistan are elected in universal and free elections by secret ballot. Citizens in Tajikistan can vote if they are over the age of 18. (Constitute Project, “Tajikistan’s Constitution of 1994 with Amendments through 2016”). | |||
====Tanzania==== | ====Tanzania==== | ||
Article 5 in Tanzania’s Constitution grants all citizens over the age of 18 the right to vote in any election. Members of Parliament and the President are elected by the people. (Constitute Project, “Tanzania’s Constitution of 1977 with Amendments through 2005”). | |||
====Thailand==== | ====Thailand==== | ||
Article 95 of the Thai Constitution grants Thai citizens of 5 years or more that are registered and are at least 18 years old the right to vote. Article 85 states that members of the House of Representatives of Thailand are elected via direct suffrage by secret ballot. (Constitute Project, “Thailand’s Constitution of 2017”). | |||
====Togo==== | ====Togo==== | ||
Under article 5 of the Constitution of Togo grants all citizens over the age of 18 the right to universal, equal, and secret suffrage. Articles 52, 59, and 141 state that the Deputies, President, and territorial collectivities are voted into office based on the principles of universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “Togo’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2007”). | |||
====Tonga==== | ====Tonga==== | ||
Tongan citizens over the age of 21 who are not nobles, insane or disabled by the definitions of the 23rd Article can vote for representatives, according to Article 64. Citizens living abroad may also vote as long as they are registered. (Constitute Project, “Tonga’s Constitution of 1875 with Amendments through 2013”). | |||
====Trinidad and Tobago==== | ====Trinidad and Tobago==== | ||
Under Article 51, citizens 18 years or older and that have proper residence may vote and run for office. Eligible voters elect the members of the legislature and the President. (Constitute Project, “Trinidad and Tobago’s Constitution of 1976 with Amendments through 2007”). | |||
====Tunisia==== | ====Tunisia==== | ||
Under Article 54, Tunisian citizens are eligible voters if they are at least 18 years old. Article 55 states that these voters elect the members of the Assembly of the Representatives of the People via principles of universal, free, direct, and secret suffrage. (Constitute Project, “Tunisia’s Constitution of 2014”). | |||
====Turkey==== | ====Turkey==== | ||
Article 67 of Turkey’s Constitution gives its citizens (18 years old or older) the right to vote, run for office, and engage in political activity. Some members of the Armed Forces and individuals convicted of crimes cannot vote. Articles 75 and 101 grant voters the right to elect the members of the Grand National Assembly and the President via universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “Turkey’s Constitution of 1982 with Amendments through 2017”). | |||
====Turkmenistan==== | ====Turkmenistan==== | ||
Under Article 119, citizens of Turkmenistan who are at least 18 years old can vote for the President of Turkmenistan, the deputies of the Mejlis, and members of the People’s Council. (Constitute Project, “Turkmenistan’s Constitution of 2008 with Amendments through 2016”). | |||
====Tuvalu==== | ====Tuvalu==== | ||
Article 87 of the Tuvalu Constitution states that the members of Parliament are voted into office by voting age (18 years old) adults based on the principles of universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “Tuvalu’s Constitution of 1986 with Amendments through 2010”). | |||
====Uganda==== | ====Uganda==== | ||
Articles 78 and 103 grant citizens of Uganda the right to vote for representatives and the President through processes of universal suffrage by secret ballot. The voting age in Uganda is 18 years old. (Constitute Project, “Uganda’s Constitution of 1995 with Amendments through 2017”). | |||
====Ukraine==== | ====Ukraine==== | ||
Articles 70 and 71 of Ukraine’s Constitution lay out the rights of voters. Ukrainian citizens age 18 or older who are not deemed incompetent can vote in local and national elections based on the principles of universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “Ukraine’s Constitution of 1996 with Amendments through 2016”). | |||
====United Arab Emirates==== | ====United Arab Emirates==== | ||
Under article 46 of section 1, The Supreme Council of the Union, each Emirate shall have a single vote in the deliberations of the council. According to article 49 decisions of the council and procedural matters shall be taken by majority vote. Article 61 states that the decisions are secret and in an evenly divided vote the Chairman’s vote shall prevail. There are no political parties and, until the beginning of the 21st century, no elections were held. Now, an electoral college meets every four years to select half of the members of the advisory Federal National Council, the other half is designated by appointment. (Constitute Project, “United Arab Emirates's Constitution of 1971 with Amendments through 2004”) | |||
====United Kingdom==== | ====United Kingdom==== | ||
The Reform Act of 1832 was the first piece of legislation to expand voting rights in the United Kingdom. It established that men above the age of 21 who were freeholders of property could vote. Universal suffrage was established with the Representation of the People Act 1969, which extended the right to vote to all persons of age (Anglotopia, "The History of Voting Rights in the United Kingdom") | The Reform Act of 1832 was the first piece of legislation to expand voting rights in the United Kingdom. It established that men above the age of 21 who were freeholders of property could vote. Universal suffrage was established with the Representation of the People Act 1969, which extended the right to vote to all persons of age (Anglotopia, "The History of Voting Rights in the United Kingdom") | ||
| Line 583: | Line 615: | ||
====Buddhism==== | ====Buddhism==== | ||
====Platonism==== | ====Platonism==== | ||
In the Republic and Laws, these dialogues of Plato attempt to firstly address the conception of the ideal state, and further, the practices and implementation of such a state. Plato’s Republic provides an insight into the possibility of a new system of governance, outlined primarily with the guided discussion of Socrates. Throughout the series, Socrates defines the nature of justice and the conditions under which one would be incentivized to act justly, drawing parallels between the state and the individual. Socrates argues that the just state will provide stability and prosperity to society. Plato’s Laws comes to a similar conclusion about the just state, however, justice here is maintained through the enforcement of virtuous law. Throughout several dialogues with the Athenian stranger, the conception of the state is presented through a more democratic lens. Although Plato does not officially endorse voting rights, the system in Laws is a controlled form of voting, whereby citizens nominate candidates, who are then selected through subsequent rounds of voting and the drawing of lots. Emphasis is placed on the scrutiny of final candidates to ensure that virtuous people are put into authoritative positions. | |||
States will only be effective if they are ruled in a just manner, however, just leadership must come from just men. Socrates addresses the nature of justice both within society and pertaining to individuals in the Republic. The structure of Kallipolis is based upon both the individual and collective will to act virtuously - if the state is successful in cultivating just citizens, just policy will be enacted. A similar principle is presented in Laws, but importance is emphasized here on the role of the lawmaker, who enacts virtuous laws, and the education of citizens, which indicates virtue within a society. | |||
The Myth of the Metals, or Noble Lie, lays out the foundation for social order in Socrates’ Kallipolis. He proposes that a noble lie is needed in order to allow for citizens to accept their position within the state, as well as to instill a sense of unity, as citizens will regard themselves as “brothers and sisters, sprung from the self same earth.” (Plato, The Republic, Book III, 414E). Justice is defined in the Republic as each of the three classes performing their respective duties, and not engaging in the affairs of the other classes. “In relation to the excellence of the city, the capacity of each person therein to engage in what belongs to himself is on an equal footing with its wisdom, its sound-mindedness and its courage (Plato, The Republic, Book IV, 433D),” thus, the city retains unity and is able to cultivate a collective virtue. Upon the basis of the individual, Socrates alludes that “a just man will not differ from a just city with respect to the form itself, of justice” (Plato, The Republic, Book IV, 435B). The argument that Socrates proposes is that the state cannot be just unless man is just, and vice versa; that justice is contingent upon practice within the individual as well as the state. A unified state is created through the enforcement of this class system, and the unified state indicates a just society. | |||
In the Laws, the Athenian stranger proposes internal warfare is the greatest threat to a society, which he describes as the threat of faction. Here, he states that, “the highest good, however, is neither war nor civil strife (Plato, Laws, Book I, 628C)…the city itself winning a victory over itself is not to be counted among the best outcomes, but among those that are necessary” (Plato, Laws, Book I, 628D). Additionally, a distinction is made between divine goods and human goods, in which the former are composed of virtues such as wisdom, sound disposition, justice, and courage. The purpose of the law is to regulate the behavior of citizens, so that they will pursue the divine goods over human; the stranger suggests that “[the citizens] should be watched and supervised, and censure or praise should be bestowed…through the laws themselves” (Plato, Laws, Book I, 632A). The just state will ultimately arise from the virtuous citizen, and the method by which one achieves virtue is through abiding virtuous laws. | |||
Thus, the role of the lawmaker is such that dictates virtue within society, and it is the citizen’s responsibility to follow these laws to achieve personal virtue. The stranger suggests that “the lawgiver has set out, in detail, what’s disgraceful and evil on the one hand, and what’s good and noble on the other, [and] whoever is not prepared to refrain from [evil] by every means at his disposal (Plato, Laws, Book V, 728A)… is heaping vile dishonor and deformity on his most divine possession, his soul” (Plato, Laws, Book V, 728B). Virtuous law will uphold the divine goods, and the citizen will protect his most divine element (the soul) by following the law. This law acts as a form of unity within the state, so when there is faction, this indicates that citizens are not abiding to the laws and therefore disregarding virtue itself - this is described as an “excess of [human goods] bring[ing] about enmity and faction…[which] is good neither for [citizens], nor for the city” (Plato, Laws, Book V, 729A). In the Laws this unity plays an essential role in shaping the legislation of the city-state; insofar that the citizens are not divided, the most effective state will unify if just laws are enforced. This unification is not contingent on the basis of equality, which differentiates Plato’s discourses from modern conceptions of suffrage. | |||
Once the connection between justice in the individual and the state is established, the question of leadership arises. Who is fit to be in the ruling class, and is it possible to ensure they will not be corrupted to act in their own interests? Socrates proposes the theory of forms and the allegory of the cave as an answer to this. The philosopher king is the sole entity fit to rule, who must be trained rigorously in order to fulfill such a position. Conversely, in Laws, it is suggested that although absolute rule will be most effective in enforcing laws, it is impossible to ensure that citizens will abide by them through compulsion alone. Therefore, a system of voting including the drawing of lots is proposed, which combines both democratic and monarchic elements. | |||
Socrates uses the allegory of the cave to establish the flawed nature of human beings. The cave is representative of the physical realm, shadows of the images of physical objects, statues of the physical objects themselves, and the fire as the Sun. What is physically tangible is easier to comprehend, however belief concerning visible things alone is perceived as a low perception of the truth. The analogy of the cave proposes that most are blind to the good, therefore they are unable to act truly virtuously.. Instead, they comprehend the intelligible realm through the means of the physical realm, as a desire for worldly possessions and physical objects. The shadows presented to them are seemingly the truth, therefore they have an unwavering belief in what is idealized to them (the statues, ie. physical objects). The only one who can truly perceive the intelligible realm and act virtuously is the philosopher - therefore, Socrates suggests that the state should be ruled by a philosopher king who is able to maintain virtue within society. Additionally, Socrates warns of the unrestrained freedom within democratic systems, which eliminate systems of law and order. He equates this to the loss of virtue within society, as the citizens become weary of authority and “don’t even pay attention to the laws, written or unwritten” (Plato, The Republic, Book VIII, 563D). The future of democracy is dependent on the sentiment of the masses, in which the rulers fear the people - Socrates compares this to the father who is subservient to his son, and the teacher who is afraid of his pupils. For fear of displeasing the public, rulers will attempt to appease the masses, and this is the tactic that will eventually lead to the rise of the tyrant. This version of Kallipolis disparages the concept of democracy and democratic rights such as suffrage, equating these systems to the downfall of society. | |||
However, in Laws, the concept of the philosopher king is disputed. Although the Athenian states that the most efficient way to rule would be under a just tyrant and virtuous lawmaker (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 710E), it is recognized that human nature does not reflect the ideal state, and that “any [city] ruled by some mortal, and not by God, finds no escape from evils and hardships for their citizens” (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 713E). He proposes that law plays the important role of regulating the behavior of both citizens and leaders, as it “[regulates] by reason,”(Plato, Laws, Book IV, 714A) both the public and private spheres. This is presented as the divine element of reason, by which rational laws will mirror a divine rule - rational law will allow for citizens to “[obey] the immortal element within them,” (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 713E) acting rationally, and therefore virtuously. He uses the doctor analogy to support this, wherein the slave doctor represents the tyrant who rules by compulsion alone, and the free doctor represents the legislator who creates laws using both compulsion and persuasion (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 720C). Only with the cooperation of the patient, who represents the citizen, is the doctor able to successfully restore his health (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 720C). Similarly, within the state, the rational laws can only have effect within the city if the citizens are willing to adopt them - absolute rule, therefore, is not a realistic solution, as compulsion alone is not enough to ensure compliance with the laws (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 720C). The stranger concludes that the legislator should be like the free doctor, so that citizens will willingly obey the laws (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 720C). Additionally rulers should be “servants of the laws,” (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 715C) as the “salvation…of the city hinges, most of all, upon this” - the subservience of the entire populace to the laws (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 715D). The Athenian acknowledges the role of the legislator as shared with the public, and rejects the concept of absolute rule. | |||
The proposed voting system would “maintain a mean between monarchic and democratic constitution” (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 756E), as candidates would first be nominated, and proceed through several rounds of public voting until the top thirty seven candidates were chosen (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 756C). At this point, half the candidates would be selected through a lottery, and then subject to scrutiny before appointment (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 756E). In the case of positions of office, the vote is to be cast by “all who were involved in the military” (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 753B). In the Republic, Socrates designates a specific military class in the Myth of the Metals. If a similar class system were to be assumed here, it may be reasonable to suggest that suffrage would not be universal, due to the strict class segregation argued for in Kallipolis. The Laws, however, as previously established, operate outside of Kallipolis, so it is reasonable to assume that military status would not be limited to a specific class within society. The Athenian stranger places importance on physical education in the development of good character and military training of citizens. When discussing the city-state, he exalts military exercise as amongst the noble pursuits (Plato, Laws, Book VIII, 831E), and proposes physical contests for each of the military classes - for the horsemen and chariots, archers and hoplites - where victors can win prizes (833B). He suggests that there should be three classes of competition for all members of society: one for the women, children, and men, respectively (Plato, Laws, Book VIII, 833C). The military education is not only stressed but encouraged for all and therefore the vote may be at least relatively accessible. When considering the origins of hoplite warfare, linked to the agrarian sector of Greek society (Hale, “Origins of Hoplite Warfare,” 177), it can also be assumed that citizens of various classes were involved in the Greek military. Hoplite service was also mandatory during the Classical Age and eventually became enforced by record, where conscription was based exclusively on age (Christ, “Conscription of Hoplites in Ancient Athens,” 398). Taking these points into account, the Athenian stranger would likely have been advocating for a relatively universal form of voting, as most citizens were under conscription. | |||
The Athenian stranger proposes two types of equalities, one that is measurable by weight and number, and the other, the pure virtue of equality itself, described as the “truest and most excellent quality…the judgment of Zeus” (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 757B). This pure equality, therefore, is likened to the divine good; this divine equality acts as a form of justice itself by “giving due measure to each, according to their own nature…bestowing greater honors upon those whose excellence is greater” (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 757C). The voting system is able to merge this divine equality with its measurable counterpart - divine equality is exercised in the casting of the lots, as chance or fate determines who is best suited for leadership. The stranger explains this when discussing the appointment of priests, stating that “we should allow God to bring about what is pleasing (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 759B) to himself, by entrusting the matter to the divine chance of the lot” (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 759C), and purity is maintained through the process of scrutiny, ensuring that those who are appointed truly display qualities of integrity and legitimacy, “pure and untainted by slaughter and all such transgressions of divine precepts'' (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 759C). Measurable equality is seen in the nomination and subsequent rounds of voting, whereby candidates are evaluated by citizens on the basis of their character and virtue. Here, importance is stressed on the education of the selectors, as they should be “reared in lawful habits, and well enough educated to be able to decide…who deserves to be accepted as satisfactory” (Plato, Laws, Book VI,751C). If citizens are educated on principles of virtue, then this will be reflected in their scrutiny, benefiting society overall in the appointment of proper leaders. | |||
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates disparages the democratic system for its failure to uphold virtues within both the individual and society. He argues that an “insatiable desire” (Plato, Republic, Book VIII, 562B) for freedom will lead to injustice in the state, as class divides will cease to exist and individuals are dictated by their appetitive desires. The system proposed in Laws, however, acts as an intermediary between the ideals of Kallipolis and the reality of human nature, by merging principles of absolutism with democratic practices. A measured equality is maintained through the casting of lots, and importance is stressed on the education of citizens to be able to maintain virtue within society, reflected in the appointment of leaders. | |||
Christ, Matthew R. “Conscription of Hoplites in Classical Athens,” The Classical Quarterly, 51, no. 2 (2001): 398–422, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556519 | |||
Hale, John R. “Not Patriots, Not Farmers, Not Amateurs: Greek Soldiers of Fortune and the Origins of Hoplite Warfare.” In Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece, edited by Donald Kagan and Gregory Viggiano, 176-191. Princeton University Press, 2013. | |||
Plato. Laws, Book I. Translated by David Horan. The Dialogues of Plato, Platonic Foundation, 2021. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/laws/laws-book-1/ | |||
Plato. Laws, Book IV. Translated by David Horan. The Dialogues of Plato, Platonic Foundation, 2021. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/laws/laws-book-4/ | |||
Plato. Laws, Book V. Translated by David Horan. The Dialogues of Plato, Platonic Foundation, 2021. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/laws/laws-book-5/ | |||
Plato. Laws, Book VI. Translated by David Horan. The Dialogues of Plato, Platonic Foundation, 2021.https://www.platonicfoundation.org/laws/laws-book-6/ | |||
Plato. Republic, Book III. Translated by David Horan. The Dialogues of Plato, Platonic Foundation, 2021. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/republic/republic-book-3/ | |||
Plato. Republic, Book IV. Translated by David Horan. The Dialogues of Plato, Platonic Foundation, 2021. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/republic/republic-book-4/ | |||
Plato. Republic, Book VIII. Translated by David Horan. The Dialogues of Plato, Platonic Foundation, 2021. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/republic/republic-book-8/ | |||
====Aristotelian thought==== | ====Aristotelian thought==== | ||
An Aristotelian approach to voting is complex, in part because democracies of his day functioned differently than those today. Aristotle broke the selection of officials into three main categories. The first was selection of officials by lot in which case office would be open to all citizens. Aristotle viewed selection by lot to be a democratic feature. The second category was selecting officials by means of elections, which he considered to be more oligarchic and aristocratic. The third category was a combination of the first two, in which some members were elected for the purpose of certain matters and others were chosen either by lot from all or by lot from a preselected group, or these two groups worked together in the same offices (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1298b5). | |||
Aristotle outlined election features of different types of democracies that were considered democratic because of their incorporation of the assembly. The first type would be that in which offices were open to all but would be appointed in turn by magistrates. In this case few things would be decided by all in the assembly, but the assembly would decide on the passage of laws and they would approve or withhold the selection of officials by magistrates. Aristotle did not specifically explain how magistrates would go about selecting officials in this type of democracy (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1298a9). Another type of democracy was one in which more matters were decided by the assembly, including legislation and selecting offices. Offices would be chosen by lot, except in the cases where an office required a special skill or knowledge, in which case they would be chosen by election (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1298a24). In the final form of democracy, the assembly would decide all matters. Officials would only be necessary for organizational purposes to ensure the assembly ran properly, and officials would not have final judgment on matters (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1298a28). In the case of democracies, Aristotle suggested paying the poor to attend the assembly and fining the rich for not. He also recommended limitations on payment for attendance in order to ensure the common people would not outweigh the rich. Aristotle wanted to avoid oligarchy by evening the influence of the rich and the poor, to ensure the common interest was at hand (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1298b11). | |||
Aristotle also outlined differences in voting procedures in different types of oligarchies as well as mixed regimes and aristocracies and polities. One type of oligarchy was that in which officials were elected from among those who had the requisite amount of wealth. Another type was that in which all who had the requisite amount of wealth shared in rule. There were also cases of aristocracy or polity in which case all had control over matters of war, peace, and taking audits, but magistrates had control of everything else, including laws and electing officials. This type of regime would not be democratic because officials were not chosen by all, or at least not approved by all in the assembly. However, because all still decided on other matters such as war and peace, the regime would not be an oligarchy. “Lot is a democratic feature and will make them [regimes] polities by opening up office to many; election is an oligarchic and aristocratic feature and will either confine office to the wealthy (in which case the regime will be an aristocracy in the sense in which oligarchic polities are aristocracies) or to those with a certain quality or virtue (in which case the regime will be genuinely aristocratic…)” (Simpson 2002, 345). In general, Aristotle believed that rulers should rule in the common best interest, rather than solely in their own best interest (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1279a28). In the case of oligarchy, Aristotle recommended affording the populace the ability to give some input on political decisions, as this could promote peace, even if they were not given power in final decision making (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1298b26). | |||
Aristotle had two large concerns with elections, campaigning and demagoguery. In terms of campaigning, Aristotle was concerned that only the people who wanted to be in office would be, rather than the people who necessarily deserved to be in office. He believed that a man who was worthy of office should accept the position regardless of if he wanted to (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1271a10). He also thought that campaigning “promotes love of honor, the cause, along with love of money, of most voluntary wrongs or deliberate acts of injustice” (Simpson 2002, 118). It is the pursuit of these wrongs that leads to tyranny. Additionally, regarding demagoguery, Aristotle worried that class interests would dominate elections, rather than the good of the whole. To prevent this, he recommended that the populace be divided into local groups for voting in elections. He believed that by voting in such groups, people would be less concerned with their general class interest, and would be more alert to local ties (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1305a28). | |||
While Aristotle strongly believed citizens should participate in politics, he did not support extending political rights to slaves, women, or laborers. He thought that slaves did not possess the intellectual skills to be able to govern themselves, and hence would be subject to the governing of others (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1254b16-23). Similarly, women were viewed as naturally inferior to men with less capability of leading (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1259b1-2). An important point that Aristotle emphasized was that citizens should be ruled by their equals, resulting in a reciprocal equality, unlike that between slaves and their masters or women and men, and therefore women and slaves were not considered citizens. As for laborers and artisans, Aristotle believed that “there is a need for leisure both with a view to the creation of virtue and with a view to political activities,” which laborers and artisans did not have sufficient time for (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1329a1-2). | |||
====Ancient Chinese Philosophy==== | ====Ancient Chinese Philosophy==== | ||
'''Confucianism''' | |||
Confucianism presents that a virtuous person, and therefore a virtuous society, can only come about through the understanding of an individual’s place within their society, and the eager participation in the rites and rituals of the society by that individual (Mark, 2020). If both these things are realized, there will be a righteous and happy culture. | |||
The two major parts of understanding one’s place in their social system is honoring ones familial and social superiors: “Filial piety and fraternal submission,--are they not the root of all benevolent actions?” (''Analects'', 1.2). Within the Analects, there are many rules emphasizing the actions and attitudes one must take to those one should honor. Confucianism proposes that interest in oneself is limiting and: “To subdue one’s self and return to propriety, is perfect virtue”. | |||
This importance on the collective can harshly rub against one of the founding traditions towards the right to vote, as the right usually implies a dissatisfaction found within the current leadership when the right is expressed—certainly the modern origins of voting were led by that dissatisfaction. In fact, the insistence of usurping the power traditionally given to political superiors is greatly disrespectful and damaging under the Confucian view: “The requisites of government are that there be sufficiency of food, sufficiency of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler” (12.7). Confucianism reveals the highly individual nature of the right to vote which rises from a discontent towards the present politics. | |||
Confucianism can reveal the other, more collective side of the right to vote as well, however. The overcoming of the self is key for Confucianism which is realized when: “…one de-emphasizes the boundaries between oneself and others, and gives one’s own and others’ concerns as much weight as is appropriate to the situation” (Chang & Kalmanson, 2010, pg. 109). This is immanently compatible with the right to vote. Moreover, public rituals were seen as the path towards peace and virtue: “In practicing the rules of [ritual] propriety, a natural ease is to be prized. This is the Way of the ancient kings, a quality of excellence, and in things small and great follow them” (''Analects'', 1.12). Later: “The management of a state demands the rules of [ritual] propriety” (11.26). Under this lens, the right to vote is a ritual with which the current political and social order is being upheld, as well as an opportunity for citizens to participate together. Confucianism reveals how the right to vote is also a modern ritual of political participation, | |||
Confucianism shows how the right to vote has a paradoxical nature. On the one hand, it is a mechanism that allows citizens to privately disrespect their leaders and voice their resentment with the qualities of their current political system. At the same time, voting also acts as a modern-day ritual that is experienced with other citizens. | |||
'''Taoism''' | |||
Central to Taoism is the full acceptance of the Tao. Describing the Tao is difficult as the very first lines of the Laozi texts state: “The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the ternal Name” (''Tao Te Ching'', 1). This notwithstanding, the Tao is akin to the source and substance of nature (James, 2015). It both creates and holds everything that is existing. With this expansiveness, the ambitions and anxieties of man’s daily life are unimportant and giving them special attention would be a personal mistake: “Heaven and earth are not like humans, they are impartial” (Tao Te Ching, 5). | |||
The strivings that people have create a paradoxical relationship between our ambition and their outcomes and this relationship is found all throughout the foundational text: “The pride of wealth and position brings about their own misfortune” (9). What we strive towards will usually bring what we are trying to avoid. The Taoist prescription to this issue is wu wei, which is a type of nonattached, spontaneous action. With wu wei, one doesn’t struggle to get anywhere, rather they are just expressing their natures as part of the Tao: “To win true merit, to preserve just fame, the personality must be retiring. This is the heavenly [Tao]” (9). | |||
The connection between Taoism and the right to vote can be readily made. The Taoist political life and rule is decidedly hands off. If it were intentional and active, one would reach similar problems to the ones that result from striving for things in one’s daily life. The Taoist errs on the side of not-intervening: “Among people the more restrictions and prohibitions there are, the poorer they become…The more laws and orders are issued the more thieves and robbers abound” (57). Later it states: “If a ruler practices wu wei the people will reform themselves” (57). The implication is that the more active a society’s politics is, the worse outcomes will occur for the state and its people. This shows that the Taoist has a preference towards a freer politics where the ruling forces are not apparent: “When great men rule, subjects know little of their existence…How carefully a wise ruler chooses his words. He performs deeds, and accumulates merit! Under such a ruler the people think they are ruling themselves” (17). Many have taken the Tao Te Ching as advocating for anarchism (Irwin, 2014; Rapp, 2012; Stamatov, 2014), and despite the inclusion of a ruler in most of its political references, this interpretation is quite proximal. | |||
As with Confucianism, Taoism provides two insights about the right to vote. On one hand, the right to vote for citizens is a decidedly more emphasized version of the allowance for people’s self-reformation. While this reformation decidedly occurs through the changing of one’s rulers, voting rights allow the people to go their own way, and live according to the ever changing, spontaneous desires and ideas that they hold, and the elected leadership reflects that. | |||
On the other hand, Taoism shows that the right to vote can come from a misguided ambition to change society, usually for unnecessary reasons. It is this discontented impulse which is responsible for the right to vote, and according to Taoism, this impulse brings with it dire consequences. Under this view, voting is unnecessary, and just another expression of man caring for things that are not his business. Of course, voting could also be an act of concession where the voter chooses for what their society already believes and approves of. Voting in this way is not to change anything, but rather to continue what is already present. However, it is arguable that the Taoist would still be against this as this prevents the spontaneous change present in the Tao. | |||
====Stoicism==== | ====Stoicism==== | ||
====Early Indian Philosophy==== | ====Early Indian Philosophy==== | ||
In early Indian philosophy, there is little or no mention of voting rights. However, many ancient scriptures in different civilizations mention representative forms of government. In various regions of ancient India, republican governments existed. During the nineteenth century, research into the Buddhist Pali Canon revealed existing republicanism at the time. (Muhlberger, 1998). The Pali Canon provides a far more complete, though somewhat oblique, account of democratic institutions in Indian Philosophy, confirming and expanding on Panini's vision. The Maha-parinibbana-suttanta, the Mahavagga, and the Kullavagga are three of the Canon's oldest and most revered parts. Taken together, they preserve the Buddha's teachings for the proper operation of the Buddhist monastic community – the Sangha – after his death. (Muhlberger, 1998). They were the most reliable source on voting processes in a corporate body during the early Buddhist period. They also provide some insight into the development of democratic thought. | |||
According to Panini, all northern India's states and territories (janapadas) during his time were founded on the colonization or conquest of a specific area by an identified warrior group who still controlled the political life of that area (Basham, 1959). Some of these peoples (known as janapadins by Panini) were ruled by a king who was, at least in theory, of their own blood and maybe reliant on their support (Muhlberger, 1998). Other than that, the janapadins handled their affairs in a republican fashion. Thus, in both types of state, the government was dominated by persons classed as ksatriyas, or members of the warrior caste, as later times would describe it (Hays, 2015). Another example is a republican federation known as the Kshudrak-Malla Sangha which posed serious resistance to Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC. Many more republican regimes in India have been mentioned by the Greeks, some of which were classified as pure democracies and others as "aristocratic republics” (Muhlberger, 1998). | |||
According to Prakash (2006), a vote was called a 'chhanda,' which literally translates to a 'wish.' This evocative word was used to communicate the concept that voting expresses a member's free will and choice. There used to be multi-colored voting tickets called 'shalakas' (pins) for voting in the assembly . When a division was called, they were handed to members and collected by an officer of the assembly called the ‘shalaka grahak' (collector of pins). This official was chosen by the entire assembly. It was his responsibility to conduct the vote, which may be secret or open. However, Indian republics are beginning to sound extremely undemocratic by our modern standards, with real power concentrated in the hands of a few patriarchs representing the leading lineages of one privileged section of the warrior caste. | |||
References: | |||
Basham, A. L. (1959). India as Known to Pāṇini (A Study of the Cultural Material of the Ashṭādhyāyī). By V. S. Agrawala. pp. xx + 549, 3 maps, plate. Lucknow University, 1953. Rs. 50. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 91(3-4), 181–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00118544 | |||
Muhlberger, S. (1998). Democracy in Ancient India. https://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_muhlb_democra_frameset.htm | |||
Prakash, A. (2006). Law relating to elections: an essential revision aid for law students. Universal Law Pub. | |||
Hays, J. (2015). ANCIENT INDIA IN THE TIME OF THE BUDDHA. Facts and Details. http://factsanddetails.com/india/History/sub7_1a/entry-4105.html | |||
====Miscellaneous Hellenistic Schools (epicureans, academics, skeptics, etc.)==== | ====Miscellaneous Hellenistic Schools (epicureans, academics, skeptics, etc.)==== | ||
====Roman Legal and Political Thought==== | ====Roman Legal and Political Thought==== | ||
The Constitution of Ancient Rome consisted largely of unwritten laws and was commonly enforced according to precedent and tradition. Hence, the right to vote and to participate in the electoral process was not written explicitly within the Constitution of the Roman Republic (Lintott 2015, 3). Greek historian Polybius did explain, however, that “the people had the right to make or rescind any law,” and he emphasized the sovereignty of the Roman people who would validate Roman political decisions (Atkins 2018, 9). Within Ancient Rome, voting assemblies would give their approval of the laws and the magistrates. Such assemblies were referred to as “the people,” and these groups, which excluded women and slaves, would represent the Roman citizens (Atkins 2018, 19). This differed from a system of “one-man, one-vote” as was employed in Athens. The three assemblies of Rome included the Curiate Assembly, the Tribal Assembly, and the Centuriate Assembly. Roman assemblies were formed on the basis of wealth, military status, and sometimes religion (Hall 1964, 270). The election of consuls, the gathering of assemblies, and other voting procedures were not explained within the Constitution or in any specific legislature, however, they were commonly referred to in books from religious colleges, which had some authority at the time (Lintott 2015, 4). | |||
The right to vote was often limited by the fact that not all votes carried the same weight. The successive order in which groups voted could have influenced election outcomes and the speed with which election outcomes reached a majority. Members of the higher class were commonly in assemblies with fewer people, allowing their individual voice and vote to be more impactful than that of someone from a lower class in a larger assembly. Similarly, group decisions dictated the vote, rather than individual votes. It is likely that more powerful men or families within each assembly would have had more power and influence over their assembly (Hall 1964, 270). To this extent, voting blocks could be organized in order to favor certain political agendas (Atkins 2018, 21). The sovereignty of the citizens of Rome was subject to limitations. In Rome, the citizens were limited insofar as the electoral decisions made by voting assemblies had to be approved by the Roman aristocratic council. Citizens taking part in voting assemblies were not given the ability to propose new legislation, rather they were only able to vote for or against legislation introduced by magistrates (Atkins 2018, 19). | |||
Roman historian Titus Livius was more concerned with achieving political ownership rather than equal citizen participation. Livius argued that “equal liberty” for the people meant that they would be able to elect whoever they wanted to the magistrate. To this extent, “equal liberty” meant citizens having complete decision making power over who would govern (Atkins 2018, 51). Gaius Canuleius, like Livius, supported opening up the consulship to allow plebeians to join, though he was more concerned with equal citizen participation, suggesting that all citizens should have an equal vote in order to avoid domination (Atkins 2018, 52). Although Ancient Rome did not necessarily achieve to the fullest extent such political ownership or equal citizen participation, and hence there is some debate over whether Ancient Rome truly was a democracy, Romans did recognize the need for checks and balances in a stable regime. | |||
====Early Christianity==== | ====Early Christianity==== | ||
====Thomism and medieval Christianity==== | ====Thomism and medieval Christianity==== | ||
| Line 597: | Line 728: | ||
====Reformation Christianity==== | ====Reformation Christianity==== | ||
====Hobbesian Thought==== | ====Hobbesian Thought==== | ||
In discussing his argument about the social contract theory and the idea that people must give the government their consent to be ruled, Thomas Hobbes explores the right to vote and what that would look like in a government with absolute authority and power over the people. When it comes to the right to vote, Hobbes would say that every individual has the right to vote on who they consent to govern them, but upon voting for the form of government and its leaders, the existence of right to vote is dependent on the type of government they consent to. | |||
Hobbes claims that individuals have the right to vote and should exercise their right in order to consent to a form of government and therefore leave the warring state of nature. In his book De Cive Hobbes noted that, “for it is not from nature that the consent of the major part should be received for the consent of all, neither is it true in tumults, but it proceeds from civill institution, and is then onely true, when that Man or Court which hath the supreme power, assembling his subjects, by reason of the greatnesse of their number, allowes those that are elected a power of speaking for those who elected them, and will have the major part of voyces, in such matters as are by him propounded to be discust, to be as effectuall as the whole” (Hobbes 1651, 89). Hobbes’ revolutionary idea for his time was the idea that the people consent to being governed and determine the type of absolute government which they consent to. Hobbes’ main concern was how these types of government would be consented to and who would be allowed to run these governments according to the desires of the people. To remedy this question, Hobbes claims that the people should be allowed to vote on who to consent to and because voting is the only way to measure the sentiments of the people. Hobbes views the right to vote in general as the means of consenting to a government that will make decisions in the best interests of the people and without this initial vote, there is not true consent the people can give to a government. Hobbes does notes that the type of government agreed upon after the initial voting determines whether this right to vote stays intact during the life of the individual. | |||
The right to vote is to allow initial consent to be governed by a governing body or group and changes according to the government in place. Throughout De Cive, Hobbes continued this theme writing that, “a Councell of many men, consists either of all the Citizens, (insomuch as every man of them hath a Right to Vote, and an interest in the ordering of the greatest affaires, if he will himselfe) or of a part onely; from whence there arise three sorts of Government: The one, when the Power is in a Councell, where every Citizen hath a right to Vote, and it is call'd a DEMOCRATY. The other, when it is in a Councell, where not all, but some part onely have their suffrages, and we call it an ARISTOCRATY. The third is that, when the Supreme Authority rests onely in one, and it is stiled a MONARCHY. In the first, he that governes is called demos, The PEOPLE. In the second, the NOBLES. In the third, the MONARCH” (Hobbes 1651, 91). Throughout his initial description of the idea of consenting to being governed, Hobbes goes on to describe what voting looks like within each system of government in which the people vote differently. However, despite the differences in the right to vote according to types of government, there is a consistent pattern that if the government were to dissolve and resort to the warring state of nature, then the right to vote for every citizen is restored and the people have the right to consent to a new form of government which they vote on and reestablish consent. The different forms of government have varying levels of voting, but most voting is held in order to re-establish the government and reconsent to a new body because the people have the inherent right to consent to the government that is formed. However, Hobbes makes the point that once the people have used their right to vote to consent to a government, the government uses their absolute power to make the best decisions on behalf of the community and the common good. This feeds into the idea that the right to vote only pertains to giving consent to being governed by a certain government. | |||
Hobbes’ views on voting vary according to the form of government the people consent to. Specifically in his book titled Elements of Law, Hobbes details that within a democracy, “The first in order of time of these three sorts is democracy, and it must be so of necessity, because an aristocracy and a monarchy, require nomination of persons agreed upon; which agreement in a great multitude of men must consist in the consent of the major part; and where the votes of the major part involve the votes of the rest, there is actually a democracy” (Hobbes 1640, 119). Within his democracy the people have the inherent right to vote in which the people decide the direction of the government by a majority rule which is the most fundamental part of the democracy according to Hobbes. He notes that the democratic form of government is not perfect since the decision-making process would have to take time and quick decisions are hard to arrive upon especially in times where quick decisions are needed for the good of the community. It is within this democratic process that power is lost, especially since coming upon a single decision is hard to make when there are various voices with different opinions about the state of the government. The idea of democracy is important to Hobbes when it comes to initially consenting to the government and choosing the type of government that the people will allow themselves to be governed by. | |||
Throughout his work, Hobbes details what each form of government looks like once consented to and his form of aristocracy poses very interesting insights into what the right to vote looks like in this form of government. In his most famous work titled, The Leviathan, Hobbes wrote that, “A Common-wealth is said to be Instituted, when a Multitude of men do Agree, and Covenant, Every One With Every One, that to whatsoever Man, or Assembly Of Men, shall be given by the major part, the Right to Present the Person of them all, (that is to say, to be their Representative;) every one, as well he that Voted For It, as he that Voted Against It, shall Authorise all the Actions and Judgements, of that Man, or Assembly of men, in the same manner, as if they were his own, to the end, to live peaceably amongst themselves, and be protected against other men” (Hobbes 1651, 144). Compared to democracy, the aristocracy is more limited when it comes to the right to vote. Like the democracy there is this inherent right to vote in order to establish the government and the assemblymen, but once given the power, the assembly retains the power and no longer requires the votes from the people to make decisions. They are given absolute power to make decisions for the people according to their thoughts on the state of the community and the state of the government. Each member of the state is allowed to vote on the initial assemblymen and each citizen consents to each member being given power, but after the assembly is responsible for ruling and deliberating on the issues of the state. The people are just expected to follow the rules of this assembly because they consented to being governed by these individuals and only upon returning to the state of nature, is this right to vote restored in order to re-establish consent to the government. One might assume that when a member of the assembly resigns or dies the people get to elect a new member, but according to Hobbes the right to vote is still not granted. Hobbes remedies this situation by claiming that those within the government should elect a new member to replace the others because they have more power and should therefore choose on behalf of the government. Hobbes does not describe how this body would return to the state of nature under an assembly so if the other representatives continue to elect one another, the right to vote may not ever exist for the citizen after they have consented to the larger government. | |||
Finally, Hobbes spoke specifically about the monarchy and what voting would look like when a single ruler had absolute power upon being given consent to govern. When it comes to the right to vote within the monarchy, like the other forms of government, the individual has the right to vote on who they want to govern them, but like the aristocracy, once electing a monarch, the people lose the right to vote. Like the aristocracy, by voting they are consenting to who they want to govern them, thus giving them absolute power over the public and the decisions made on their behalf as well. Like the assembly, the monarch makes decisions for the public based on being given the consent to make decisions for the people. Hobbes argues that this is the best form of government because of the immediate decision made by the monarch that will increase the efficiency of the government for the people. Further discussing the monarchy within The Leviathan, Hobbes continued his argument stating that, “And first, concerning an Elective King, whose power is limited to his life, as it is in many places of Christendome at this day; or to certaine Yeares or Moneths, as the Dictators power amongst the Romans; If he have Right to appoint his Successor, he is no more Elective but Hereditary. But if he have no Power to elect his Successor, then there is some other Man, or Assembly known, which after his decease may elect a new, or else the Common-wealth dieth, and dissolveth with him, and returneth to the condition of Warre. If it be known who have the power to give the Soveraigntie after his death, it is known also that the Soveraigntie was in them before: For none have right to give that which they have not right to possesse, and keep to themselves, if they think good. But if there be none that can give the Soveraigntie, after the decease of him that was first elected; then has he power, nay he is obliged by the Law of Nature, to provide, by establishing his Successor, to keep those that had trusted him with the Government, from relapsing into the miserable condition of Civill warre. And consequently he was, when elected, a Soveraign absolute” (Hobbes 1651, 161). The monarch differs from the aristocracy when it comes to the process of succession in the cases of retirement or death of the monarch. Unlike the aristocracy in which new members are voted in by the current members, the new monarch is either determined by the old king or by the people in the case in which the old leader has not appointed someone new due to his absolute power. Hobbes claims that the monarch has the absolute power and authority to nominate a new successor in the case of his demise, but if he does not appoint someone new, the people have the right to vote in someone new since they are reduced to the state of nature again. Within the monarchy, Hobbes points out that returning to the state of nature is a more frequent phenomenon when the monarch dies and there is no successor to automatically take the position. In the case that there is no clear successor, society returns to the state of nature in which the people must vote and reconsent to being governed by some entity and therefore, their right to vote is restored. | |||
When it comes to rights in general, Thomas Hobbes’ views of the government and the relationship it has with the people is an interesting concept considering how centralized he believes that the power the government should have. His overall belief holds that if the people consent to the government, the government should be allowed to wield unlimited power since the people gave the government permission to rule as they do. What is interesting and important about this perspective is the way that the modern take on rights has built upon the idea of consent but moved away from the absolutist view on government that Hobbes proposes. It is held true today that the government has enough power to protect the people, but not so much that it can infringe on the rights of the people because of their own values and goals. The same holds true for the right to vote today and the way that ultimately the people hold power through the means of voting and electing people rather than allowing the government to have absolute power as Hobbes proposes. The right to vote was and always will be a contested right that varies as people debate the relationship between the government and the people. | |||
Bibliography | |||
Hobbes, Thomas. De Cive. Cambridge University Press. 1998. | |||
Hobbes, Thomas. Elements of Law. Oxford University Press New York. 1994. | |||
Hobbes Thomas. Leviathan. New York: E.P. Dutton and Company, INC. London: J.M. Dent and Sons, Limited. 1950 | |||
====Lockean Thought/English Empiricism==== | ====Lockean Thought/English Empiricism==== | ||
In his second treatise of government, John Locke rejects the divine right of kings, stating that men are, by nature, equal and free. When a political society is therefore formed, it will reflect this state of nature, existing only with the consent of the governed and practiced under majority rule. There is an inherent relationship between the people and the state, wherein citizens give up some of their natural rights with the trust that the government will act in the common good - if the government fails to do so, the people also have the autonomy to choose a new government. Locke therefore, makes the argument that humans naturally govern under the consent of the majority, staunchly supporting political franchise. | |||
In the first two chapters of the treatise, Locke disproves the divine right of kings and establishes the natural state of man to be equal and free. Most of the first chapter addresses Sir Robert Filmer, who made the argument that Adam had authority from God to rule, therefore enshrining the divine right of kings, as his heirs would assume positions of power. Locke states that “Adam had not…any such authority over his children or dominion over the world…[and] if he had, his heirs yet had no right to it…[and] that [even] if his heirs had…the right of succession, and consequently of bearing rule, could not have been certainly determined” (Locke, An Essay, 695). Locke makes the argument that Adam had no such inherent right to rule by distinguishing that “private dominion and parental jurisdiction” (Locke, An Essay, 695) are not the basis of political power; instead, God, as the ruler of all men, created them in “a state of perfect freedom” (Locke, An Essay, 696), where no one individual holds advantages or superiority over another. This natural state of freedom is “not a state of licence” (Locke, An Essay, 696), however, as the law of nature - reason - ensures that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke, An Essay, 697). Freedom and equality, therefore, are the basis of the natural state, governed by reason, and ultimately rejecting absolute rule as a violation of this natural state. | |||
Locke then discusses the formation of political societies, reflecting the natural state, which exists with the consent of the governed. He states that “men being… by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent” (Locke, An Essay, 743), thereby establishing the right of citizens to choose their leaders. Once a civil society is established, it must operate under majority rule, as “the consent of every individual… made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority” (Locke, An Essay, 743). The operation of a political society is the will of the majority, which reflects the consent of each individual to participate within such a society. He claims that majority rule, therefore, is not only naturally assumed, but the most practical form of governance, since “the consent of every individual… next to impossible ever to be had” (Locke, An Essay, 744). Locke claims that this is a phenomenon to be seen throughout all of history, even in the cases of “nations which have no certain kings, but as occasion is offered, in peace or war, they choose their captains as they please” (Locke, An Essay, 745). He uses this to show that even in these cases, there was a mutual agreement between subject and ruler, and that these political societies began “from a voluntary union” (Locke, An Essay, 745). Therefore, Locke asserts the rationale behind the conclusion that “all peaceful beginnings of government have been laid in the consent of the people” (Locke, An Essay, 751). | |||
However, despite the existence of the natural state and natural laws, there is still a purpose for the government. Locke explains that because men do not respect others’ freedoms, the state of nature must be governed by authority. Being “ constantly exposed to the invasion of others… it is not without reason that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates” (Locke, An Essay, 757). He identifies three key traits lacking in the state of nature, that being the relativity of right and wrong, the lack of an impartial judgment, and the inability to enforce punishment (Locke, An Essay, 757). It is for these reasons that the government has a purpose to serve in the common good - safeguarding the life, liberty and property of citizens through the creation of legislation and enforcement of such. In return for this service, citizens can be expected to give up some of their own natural rights, namely the right to self preservation and the right to punishment (Locke, An Essay, 758). Locke states that “both these he gives up, when he joins in a private, if I may so call it, or particular political society, and incorporates into any commonwealth, separate from the rest of mankind” (Locke, An Essay, 758). This is the form of social contract, wherein citizens exchange some of their natural rights for the protection of the state, which is expected to use its powers to act in the common good (Locke, An Essay, 758). | |||
If this social contract is violated by the government, then “the people are at liberty to provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, differing from the other by the change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good” (Locke, An Essay, 809). There are two instances when this may occur: firstly, the dissolution of the government, and the second when the government acts contrary to the trust of the people (Locke, An Essay, 808-810). Locke concludes that the power which individuals hold is given to the government so long as the commonwealth lasts, as “[the people] have given up their political power to the legislative, and cannot resume it” (Locke, An Essay, 823). However, there is a limitation to this power, in that it is only a temporary one, and in the instance of the abuse of power, forfeiture, or completion of term, the people have the right to “erect a new form [of government], or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good” (Locke, An Essay, 823). | |||
Throughout the second treatise, Locke makes the case for universal suffrage. Locke, by establishing the natural state of man, asserts that there is an inherent right to choose a government under majority rule. The government is expected to act in the common good of the people, and if these terms of the social contract are not met, the government can be replaced by the people as well. | |||
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding: with the second treatise of government. Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, 2015. | |||
====Physiocrats==== | ====Physiocrats==== | ||
====Scottish Enlightenment==== | ====Scottish Enlightenment==== | ||
====Modern Capitalism==== | ====Modern Capitalism==== | ||
====Rousseau's Thought==== | ====Rousseau's Thought==== | ||
In Rousseau's Social Contract, he discusses how society is designed to be a give and take between governors and the governed. This relationship is probably most evident in his discussion on elections and democracy. Rousseau believes that democracy is a perfect form of government, as it holds the sovereign to the general will and separates the "maker of laws [from the one] to execute them" (Rousseau 1953, 71). However, there are many flaws with democracy in Rousseau's mind, primarily being born from the inherent flaws of the people within it. People need the government to be governed as they are not perfect; therefore, there will always be problems with the "influence of private interests in public affairs" (Rousseau 1953, 71). This influence of personal interest coupled with the struggle of forming a society "where the people can readily be assembled" for matters of state like a true democracy requires (Rousseau 1953, 72). For both of these requirements to be met, the government must only control a small amount of land with a small population "where each citizen… [is] well acquainted with all the rest" (Rousseau 1953, 72). These criteria allow for a society that can always gather to discuss policy and legislation for each person to cast their vote on each issue presented. However, these criteria, the elimination of personal interest and a small state, are nearly impossible to establish in society sustainably. Inevitably, personal interest, corruption, or any other inhibitor will get in the way, or a city’s population will increase too much and that is why Rousseau believes that "so perfect a form of government is not for men"' (Rousseau 1953, 73). | |||
Having a small and compact state is also a utilitarian view. Rousseau knows that for voters to want to participate, they will need to think that their vote matters, for example: "suppose that this state consists of ten thousand citizens… thus the sovereign is as ten thousand to one; that is to say, every member of the state has, as his own share, only one ten-thousandth part of the sovereign power, although he is subject to the whole" (Rousseau 2004). Therefore, if you make the republic bigger, let us say this time the republic is "composed of one hundred thousand men, the position of the subjects is unchanged, and each continues to bear the whole weight of the laws, while his vote, reduced to the one hundred-thousandth part, has ten times less influence in the making of the laws" (Rousseau 2004). This means that as the republic thrives and grows, it will become more prominent, and therefore less liberty is guaranteed through the republic's own institutions (Rousseau 2004). However, Rousseau's apprehension toward a true democracy does not mean that he does not believe in citizens' right to vote. | |||
Since Rousseau identifies direct or perfect democracies as implausible, he discusses the two main ways magistrates, legislators, and the prince should be appointed. Rousseau agrees with Montesquieu in that "'selection by lot… is natural to democracy'" (Rousseau 1953, 119). This is because a democracy facilitates a community "in which each member can participate unreservedly" (Watt 1981, 719), acting on their right to vote and even having "'a reasonable hope of serving his country'" (Rousseau 1953, 119). However, the act of desiring a political position, as prospective representatives would need to campaign for election, is a personal interest that Rousseau sees as a hindrance to government. Rousseau criticizes Montesquieu by pointing out that in a "democracy, public office is not an advantage but a heavy responsibility" (Rousseau 1953, 119-120). Because of this, Rousseau believes that the Venetian and Athenian system for appointing legislators is better for democracy than vote by lot. Since the "selection of rulers is a function of government, and not of sovereignty," and that "common sense, judgment, and integrity [should be] sufficient" in all candidates, then sortition, which appoints the legislators by random chance, allows for a government without infighting and personal interest influencing the functions of government (Rousseau 1953, 119-120). However, even in this system, Rousseau believes that the public should still have a say when voting to "fill those positions which demand particular talents, such as military officers" (Rousseau 1953, 121). The military is exempt from the duty which is associated with public office as it is a position which does not need to follow the general will. The government must be run by the people and not be diluted by their opinions. Therefore, the military can be elected, while the legislator must be appointed by random chance. This is where Rousseau's concept of the general will come in and starts playing a role in his view on voting. | |||
Whether it is the public voting on a member of the government or legislators voting on policy, there will always be a majority and minority, which will form based on differing opinions about what is best for the republic. Rousseau stresses that within the assemblies of government, "the more agreement there is…, the more also does the general will prevail" (Rousseau 1953, 116). Therefore, the more "long debates, dissensions, and tumult" allowed within the assemblies leads to the "ascendancy of private and particular interests and the decline of the state" (Rousseau 1953, 116). Rousseau's solution to this dissent to the general will is "unanimous consent" (Rousseau 1953, 117). If the general will is being challenged, then the only way to refine it is only to pass legislation on which everyone agrees. While technically still allowing each magistrate to vote on policy, this leaves their votes meaning nothing unless everyone can agree. This dilutes the power of each person's vote even further, making the dissent and long discussion that Rousseau pointed to as the things that made the state's decline necessary. Therefore, while Rousseau believes that there is a right to vote, there are restrictions on the power that each person's vote holds due to the chance of the general will being deteriorated by personal interests and intrigues. | |||
While the people's right to vote is guaranteed in democracies, Rousseau does not believe it is an inherent right in all governments. He is relatively straightforward about monarchies stating that "neither sortition nor election has any place in a monarchical government," going further to say that "the monarch is by right the sole prince and magistrate, the choice of his lieutenants belongs to him only" (Rousseau 1953, 121). Therefore, monarchs have the right to hold the sole authority in the government and do not have to give the people the power to vote due to their monarchical rights. However, even in republics, there are situations in which Rousseau believes the right to vote can be curbed. Taking from the Roman institution of the dictator, Rousseau believes that if "the greatest dangers are great enough to equal the danger of changing the public order," then the rule of law may have to be set aside to remedy the dangers (Rousseau 1953, 136). Therefore, the government must "increase the activity of the government" to counteract the issue, and Rousseau believes that "if the peril is such that the apparatus of law itself is an obstacle to security, then [the state] must appoint a supreme ruler who will silence the law" (Rousseau 1953, 137). This ruler's sole goal would be to see that "the state does not perish," and to do this the dictator will use their authority to ensure that "there is no doubt as to the general will" (Rousseau 1953, 137). The dictator will unify the government citizenry of the republic and enforce his will to save the state. However, the dictator must remove the people's voice in the assemblies and their say as to who will be legislators. They will curb the "long debates, dissensions, and tumult" which lead to the "decline of the state," effectively silencing dissenters and saving the state at the expense of the citizens' rights. Therefore, while Rousseau believes in the right to vote, he only believes that a citizen's vote should hold so much power. Furthermore, in some instances, these votes should hold no power, depending on the threats to the state and the form of government. | |||
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1953. Political Writings. Translated and edited by Frederick Watkins. The University of Wisconsin Press. | |||
Watt, E. D. 1981. “Rousseau Réchaufée-Being Obliged, Consenting, Participating, and Obeying Only Oneself.” The Journal of Politics Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 707-719. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.furman.edu/stable/2130633?seq=13#metadata_info_tab_contents | |||
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 2004. Emile. The Project Gutenberg EBook of Emile. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5427/5427-h/5427-h.htm#link2H_4_0002 | |||
====Kantianism==== | ====Kantianism==== | ||
Kant thought that citizens of a state could only be property-owning male or active members of society, and that they were the only individuals who could vote (Kant, 1991, p.27, para.1). With that in mind, as well as his hypothetical social contract theory, maintaining a just state under Kantianism seems unlikely. This is especially true when victims of the system, such as women, youth, the poor, minorities, and others, do not have a voice in what happens to them or their lives through voting and representation. Kant's system is geared on keeping the property owner and independent, while keeping the rest of society silent and dependent (Glawson, 2016). One might expect from this emphasis that Kant would insist that the proper political system is one that not only allows individuals to think for themselves about political issues, but also contains a mechanism such as voting to translate those well-reasoned opinions into government policy. | |||
In his discussion in “Perpetual Peace” of the traditional division of the types of government Kant classifies governments in two dimensions. The first is the “form of sovereignty” (forma imperii), concerning who rules, and here Kant identifies the traditional three forms: autocracy, aristocracy, and democracy, “the power of a prince, the power of a nobility, and the power of the people” (Kant, 1991, p. 100). The second is the “form of government” (forma regiminis) concerning how those people rule, and here Kant offers a variation on the traditional good/bad dichotomy: either republican or despotic (Kant, 1991, p.101). The term ‘republican’ in Kant’s writings, “could be interpreted to represent what nowadays is generally called parliamentary democracy” (Kant, 1991, p.25, para.2). Despotism is defined as a state of unity in which the same ruler makes and enforces rules, thus transforming an individual's private will into the public will. Kant differentiates between a republicanism and despotism emphasizing that a ‘republican’ form of government is “where the executive is separated from the legislature, and the despotic, where it is not” (Kant, 1991, p.29, para.1) | |||
Republics require representation to guarantee that the executive authority exclusively executes the will of the people by requiring the executive to enforce only laws enacted by representatives of the people, not the executive itself. However, a republic may function with just one lawmaker if other people serve as executives (Rauscher, 2016). Kant warns from the danger of a monarch becoming a tyrant. A monarch would enact laws in the name of the people, but the monarch's ministers would oversee enforcing them. Thus, like Rousseau, Kant is convinced that the adage of a republican government is the respect of law by the people and also by the ruler and the sovereign. (Kant, 1991, p.30, para.2). Kant's argument that such a government is republican demonstrates his belief that a republican government does not need real participation of the people in creating laws, even though elected representatives, as long as the laws are issued with the people's entire united will in mind. | |||
When Kant addresses voting for representatives, he conforms to many of the time's prevalent biases. The right to vote necessitates, in Kant’s words, "being one's own master," (Kant, 1991, p.27), which entails owning property or having a talent that can sustain oneself. Kant classes those who are independent as ‘active’ citizens and those who are not as ‘passive’. He also excludes women from voting, claiming that “ [Women] are, on principle, disqualified. But any legislation should always be enacted and carried out as if the passive citizens too were participating” (Kant, 1991, p.27). His thesis is that these people are unsuitable to vote because they lack the ability to reason and have no free choice “being one’s own master” (Kant, 1991, p. 27). The mentally sick and the elderly who are unable to function are further instances of people who lack reason and are not their own masters. According to Kant, the presumption of being "one's own master" is essential for citizenship eligibility. For example, at least in Kant’s time, when a woman got married, her possessions became her husband's, and she is expected to completely rely on him, thus she does not own property and consequently excluded from voting (Glawson, 2017). To summarize, Kant did not believe that married women could be active members of a state or citizens since they are incompetent and dependent by their very nature as women (Glawson, 2017). Thus, Kant believes that just by adopting the people's point of view, a single individual or small group may properly represent the people at large. Insistence on a representative system is not the same as insisting on a representative system that is elected. | |||
Regardless, Kant clearly believes that an elective representational democracy is preferable. Republican constitutions, he says, are more likely to prevent war because, when the people's permission is required, they will weigh the costs of war (fighting, taxes, property damage, and so on), but a non-republican ruler may be immune to such considerations. He also mentions in the "Doctrine of Right" that a republican government represents the people "by all the citizens united and acting via their delegates" (Rauscher, 2016). | |||
References: | |||
Glawson, J. D. (2017, November 24). Immanuel Kant on Suffrage: With a Libertarian Disagreement. Medium. https://medium.com/@JoshuaGlawson/immanuel-kant-on-suffrage-with-a-libertarian-disagreement-d6f149df3658 | |||
Kant, I. (1991). Kant: political writings. Cambridge University Press. | |||
Rauscher, F. (2016, September 1). Kant's social and political philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/ | |||
====German Idealism==== | ====German Idealism==== | ||
====Benthamite Utilitarianism==== | ====Benthamite Utilitarianism==== | ||
| Line 612: | Line 815: | ||
====Pragmatism==== | ====Pragmatism==== | ||
====Weberian Thought==== | ====Weberian Thought==== | ||
Weberian Thought (3.1.31) | |||
Through the democratic process in which citizens elect their representatives to government, Weberian Thought held the promise that it would be possible to rewrite the historically authoritarian regime of Prussia (Germany at Weber’s time) perpetuated by Junkers, wealthy conservative landowners, and monarchists before the war. (Maley, 2011, p.76). Weber envisioned his model as a counterpoint to both the left's Social Democrats and the right's monarchists and Junkers. | |||
According to Weber, equal suffrage meant equal universal voting rights for working classes who had historically been barred from voting. In his writings on equal suffrage in modern citizenship, he clearly states that equal suffrage is “closely related to the equality of certain fates which the modern state as such creates” (Weber, 1994, p. 105). He explicitly focuses on returning soldiers’ rights, and argues that the equality of the modern state functions in the way that people are equal before death, because the | |||
“most basic needs [of physical existence] on the one hand and, on the other, that most solemn and lofty fact of all are encompassed by those equalities which the modern state offers all its citizens in a truly lasting and undoubted way: sheer physical security and the minimum for subsistence, but also the battlefield on which to die” (Weber, 1994, p.105, para.2) | |||
Weber does not emphasize on women’s suffrage, he does, however, say that women should have the right to vote as long as “they too are ‘fighting’ the war if they do their duty” (Weber, 1994, p.78, line.14). Moreover, in “Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology”, Weber notes that “the woman is dependent because of the normal superiority of the physical and intellectual energies of the male” (Weber, 1978, p.1007). The Weberian Thought on voting was aiming to correct historical gender and class inequities or might at least mitigate the most severe exclusions of women, the urban working class, and the rural peasantry from power and government. | |||
Weber's ideas for equal suffrage might be viewed as a partial erasing of historical discriminatory markings. Weber's suggestions have a deeper element to them than the more neutral sounding ‘counterweight’ to bureaucratic dominance (Weber, 1994, p.104). Equal suffrage emerged as a valuable counterbalance to both types of inequity. Weber saw that the inequities created by capitalism might be just as persistent as those created by prior, more feudal social systems. Against both, Weber advocated for a ‘positive politics’ in which “equal voting rights” means that the individual “is not considered in terms of the particular professional and family position he occupies, nor in relation to the differences of material and social situation, but purely and simply as a citizen” (Weber, 1994, p.103). | |||
During the Russian revolution, enraged workers, students, and returning soldiers took to the streets in protest of the existing regime's ruler, Tsar Nicholas II, who had obstructed their enfranchisement and rights prior to the war and then ordered mass slaughter on the battlefield. Weber recognized their outrage at the collapsing regime, but he dismissed their demands for more revolutionary, far-reaching reform as immature. Although Weber understood the anger of Russian revolutionists against the crumbling regime, he saw it as immature and ‘childish’ (Maley, 2011, p. 99). Weber was concerned that under the Russian revolutionary circumstances of 1918–19, people would respond out of anger and rage, which would be doubly harmful. In “Parliament and Government in Germany under a New Political Order”, Weber had already wondered “whether such explosions unleash yet again the familiar and usual fear of the propertied classes; in other words, it depends on whether the emotional effect of undirected mass fury produces the equally emotional and equally undirected cowardice of the bourgeoisie” (Weber, 1994, p. 232) | |||
In his wartime newspaper writings, Weber made a strategic case for the Social Democratic Party's participation as a disciplined working-class party. Though Weber considered the working class to be too “immature” to take on the role of a ruling class, he praised the discipline and self-control of the Social Democrats' political partners, the trade unions. He said approvingly that “organizations like the trade unions, but also the Social Democratic Party, create a very important counterbalance [not only against the right, but] to the rule of the street which is so typical of purely plebiscitary nations and so prone to momentary and irrational influences” (Weber, 1994, p. 231). | |||
References: | |||
Maley, T. (2011). Democracy and the Political. In Democracy & the Political in Max Weber's Thought (pp. 77-120). Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press. Retrieved July 16, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctt2ttgq2.7 | |||
Weber, M. (1994). Weber: Political Writings. United States: Cambridge University Press. | |||
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press. | |||
====Process Philosophy==== | ====Process Philosophy==== | ||
Process philosophy is a philosophical tradition that describes reality as primarily being made up of processes or events, rather than objects (Rescher, 2000, pg. 4). This means that when we look at supposedly static objects in our world, we are actually seeing a constantly changing event or an action taking place, and things that seem like they are static are just processes that are relatively more stable than others. Nicholas Rescher describes the main claim succinctly: “Even on the surface of it, verbs have as good a claim to reality as nouns. For process theorists, ''becoming'' is no less important than ''being''…The phenomenology of change is stressed precisely because the difference between a museum and the real world of an ever-changing nature is to be seen as crucial to our understanding of reality” (pg. 4). | |||
While a political connection to Process Philosophy’s metaphysical and ontological claims seems far-fetched, Alfred North Whitehead—perhaps the most rigorous and defining theorist for Process Philosophy in the 20th century—claimed that the goal of philosophy is to “…voyage towards the larger generalities” of human life and behavior (Whitehead, 1979, pg. 94). This meaning that an understanding of the nature of reality will then give you access to insights of psychology, aesthetics, ethics, sociology, language, and virtually every other human enquiry and experience. | |||
The majority of political history, static roles were assigned to rulers and their subjects. A king and his identity were stamped definitively, and this title was described as chosen by God; the king’s unchanging identity was a thing ''in'' the universe. The Process Philosophy critique of this type of conception is decidedly an aesthetic one: “People instinctively dislike being described in thing-classificatory terms…Such object-property attributions indicate a fixed nature that we naturally see as repugnant to ourselves” (pg. 14). This is to say, a political system which tries its hardest to stay the same and not go through changes in power and interactions goes against how reality is presented and organized to us, as well as what we value in ourselves and others. | |||
With this analysis, the right to vote can clearly be understood. After thousands of years of static politics, people began to advocate for a political system which would better reflect the dynamism, novelty, and change seen in reality. The right to vote allows for processes like changes in leadership, as well as changes in the law and governance. Due to the ever-changing opinions and contexts that individuals go through, the right to vote allows for a reflection of this novelty. Such a system is empowering due to it allowing individuals to express themselves as ever changing processes themselves as opposed to static objects and it is metaphysically accurate according to our natures and the nature of reality. Also, it is telling that such political ideals came about during the Enlightenment, a period of time where understanding of the world without appeal to philosophical and religious tradition was given major emphasis. As we learned more about the world, we learned about the ideal political system. | |||
====Social Darwinism==== | ====Social Darwinism==== | ||
Social Darwinism held that human life in society was a fight for survival guided by the principle of "survival of the fittest", proposed by British philosopher and scientist Herbert Spencer. In his later publications, Spencer's devotion to the right of universal suffrage waned. While he views universal suffrage in Social Statics (1851) as a reliable way of keeping government from overstepping its bounds in safeguarding moral rights, he concludes in Principles of Ethics that universal suffrage fails to do so successfully, and therefore abandons his support for it. He subsequently came to the conclusion that universal suffrage posed more of a danger to moral rights than it did to defend them (Spencer on Voting, 1879). Over-legislation was promoted by universal suffrage, especially when it was extended to women, as it allowed the government to take on tasks that were not its responsibility. | |||
Spencer understood that liberalism's fundamental objective has never been to grant people the right to vote, but rather to limit government authority. In Social Statics (1981), he states that “The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of Parliaments” (Spencer, 1981, p. 166). The primary motivation for expanding suffrage is to limit or prevent the government's role from expanding. When this aim is challenged, the law of equal freedom may be jeopardized less by suffrage restrictions than by their removal, according to Social Statics (Miller, 1982, p. 492). | |||
Spencer's work emphasizes the importance of changes in the pattern of interrelationships between the individual and the state in social evolution. The gradual decline of government's function in people's lives, according to Spencer, is the key to optimal social evolution in the future (Miller, 1982, p. 493). Before the publication of Social Statics in 1851, Spencer thought that universal suffrage would eliminate class legislation and protect the interests of the entire community. He even criticized the association of ignorance to the working class saying that “it is a great error to suppose that ignorance is peculiar to the unenfranchised.” (Spencer, 1851, p.232, para. 4). In 1860, Spencer emphasized once more that extending suffrage is only justifiable when it is utilized to preserve or extend individual liberty. However, he praised the suffrage expansion brought about by the Reform Bill of 1867, a good example of the triumph of feeling over intellect. | |||
Spencer's views on women's suffrage are similar to his views on allowing workers to vote. Spencer calls for unlimited political equality for women in Social Statics (1851). He portrays women as being cognitively and physically inferior to men in this book, despite the fact that history shows that some women are equal to men in both regards. They have thrived as rulers, scientists, authors, and artists despite institutional constraints (Miller, 1982, p. 494). If many women are inferior, then many men are as well. In either case, the inferior should not be denied the chance to use the faculties they have. However, Spencer had concluded by 1892 that women could not be trusted with unfettered franchise. His rationale was that women are less capable of abstract thinking than males and are more influenced by emotional appeals. Spencer does not give explicit reasoning as to why this is the case. He simply notes in Social Statics (1851) that “[a woman’s] faculties are less powerful [..] because woman is mentally inferior to man she has less extensive rights, amount to ? Just this,--that because woman has weaker faculties than man, she ought not to have like liberty with him to exercise the faculties she has!” (Spencer, 1851, p.158). In addition, “A further difference between men and women is due to the fact that men are liable to military service for the defense of the country in time of war. Since this burden does not fall upon women, they are not entitled to the franchise, until a state of permanent peace has been attained” (Elliot, 2019, p. 205). | |||
References: | |||
Elliot, H., Williams, B. (2019). Makers of the Nineteenth Century Herbert Spencer. United States: Creative Media Partners, LLC. | |||
Miller, W. (1982). HERBERT SPENCER'S DRIFT TO CONSERVATISM. History of Political Thought, 3(3), 483-497. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26212267 | |||
Spencer on voting as a poor instrument for protecting our rights to life, liberty, and property (1879). Online Library of Liberty. (n.d.). https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/spencer-on-voting-as-a-poor-instrument-for-protecting-our-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property-1879. | |||
Spencer, H. (1851). Social Statics . Online Library of Liberty. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/spencer-social-statics-1851 | |||
Spencer, H. (1981). The Man versus the State, with Six Essays on Government, Society and Freedom (LF ed.). Online Library of Liberty. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/mack-the-man-versus-the-state-with-six-essays-on-government-society-and-freedom-lf-ed#Spencer_0020_330 | |||
====British Idealism (19th cen.)==== | ====British Idealism (19th cen.)==== | ||
====Continental Philosophy/Frankfurt School==== | ====Continental Philosophy/Frankfurt School==== | ||
====Behaviorism==== | ====Behaviorism==== | ||
The understanding of how and why human beings act was and still is often described as a dualistic interaction between mind and body. Usually this is described in terms of feelings. We feel a certain way, and that feeling prompts us to act. We eat because we feel like eating. We attack others because we feel angry. This causal explanation for behavior is taken for granted, but in the 19th century, a group of psychologists believed that behavior could be studied, not as an effect of the non-observable, ethereal mind, but rather as the outcome of changes from the environment. This was behaviorism, and William Baum states: “the central idea in behaviorism can be stated simply: ''A science of behavior is possible''” (Baum, 2017, pg. 3). | |||
One of the most influential behaviorists, BF Skinner, was a radical behaviorist where instead of merely positing that only behavior could be objectively observed, went one step further in saying that all interior phenomena was a behavior like any other, and was subject to and created by the same environmental pressures as external behavior. | |||
According to Skinner, all of our behavior and dispositions are determined by our environment. What we call freedom is merely the ability to free ourselves from “harmful contacts” (Skinner, 1971, pg. 32). Slavery is when we are unable to escape of avoid harm, and what Skinner calls the “literature of freedom”—philosophical and political traditions based around rights, emancipation, and the immorality of oppression—are merely ways to “..induce people to escape from or attack those who act to control them aversively” (pg. 35). The idea of freedom as an inherent right towards autonomy in one’s actions and beliefs is wholeheartedly rejected by Skinner, and instead is reduced to being able to do what one desires when the desire arises; a desire whose arising the individual has nothing to do with. | |||
Dignity is an attribute that we use to describe someone’s character—character of course meaning a quality essential to someone’s internality, something that a radical behaviorist is very skeptical of. We do not respect someone’s action if it is done automatically, instead we value the individual who does a particular action ''despite'' whatever the environment compels them to do: “We give credit generosity when there are no obvious reasons for behaving differently…” (pg. 72). Our caring towards dignified action and character then reveals a blind spot that we have towards reality—if every behavior we do is determined and selected by the environment, no one deserves any credit towards their action, and no one is dignified for acting in a certain way. | |||
Democracy and the right to vote for behaviorists like Skinner are then merely an expression of the fundamental biological mechanism of avoiding or escaping harmful contacts. If it weren’t for the aversive state of affairs that were present in the past, the right to vote would have never come about. Voting rights came about as a way to justify the public’s resistance to the restrictors, and this is in great contrast with the “literature of freedom’s” claim that the right to vote is a way to uphold god given rights. Voting, at base, was a way to control the behavior of those in power. | |||
====Feminist Thought==== | ====Feminist Thought==== | ||
====Postmodernism==== | ====Postmodernism==== | ||
| Line 629: | Line 898: | ||
===Are there any philosophical or moral traditions that dispute the classification of this right as a fundamental right?=== | ===Are there any philosophical or moral traditions that dispute the classification of this right as a fundamental right?=== | ||
===What do the major legal theories (positive law, natural law, critical legal studies, etc.) say about this right?=== | ===What do the major legal theories (positive law, natural law, critical legal studies, etc.) say about this right?=== | ||
Natural Law: | |||
Perceptions of voting as a right under natural law theory have evolved over time. In early natural law theory, the right to vote was not explicitly considered a necessary component of the fundamental goods on which rights and law are founded. Notably, suffrage was not an intrinsic element of Aquinas’s or philosopher John Finnis’s seven fundamental goods–“life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, friendship, practical reasonableness, and religion” (Britannica). While Aquinas posited that “the supreme power belongs to the multitude as a whole, or to that one who represents the multitude,” he never emphasized the importance of expressing the power of the multitude through voting, specifically (Shepard 1913, 114). Additionally in the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke finds that, while natural law and reason compel humans beings to create civil governments to protect their property and grant powers to sovereign individuals and institutions as a “common superior on earth to appeal to for relief,” widely-recognized suffrage is not a natural prerequisite for this tendency (Locke 1689, 15). | |||
Over time, however, suffrage has received more consideration as intrinsic to natural law. Walter James Shepard describes this shift as part of the “theory of the early constitutional regime,” which moved beyond feudal interpretations of political representation and brought about the notion “that voting is an abstract right, founded in natural law, a consequence of the social compact, and an incident of popular sovereignty” (Shepard 1913, 108). The American Civil Rights Movement also brought about more explicit connections between the right to vote and natural law theory. Martin Luther King Jr., widely considered to have based his political philosophy on the tenets of natural law, often rhetorically framed the right to vote as part of the “eternal moral issue” of the Civil Rights Movement, stating that “the denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition” (King 1957). King’s commentary on de facto denial of African Americans’ right to vote echoes later writings by King that more explicitly outline the natural law tradition: “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (King 1963). | |||
Legal Positivism: | |||
Legal positivist interpretations of suffrage prioritize the systems that define, carry out, and protect suffrage and the voting process. Unlike natural law, the right to vote is not intimately connected or not connected to the pursuit of human goodness. Instead, it is a product of positive norms in a given society, and can be codified as a right as long as society and its legislators view it as something worth protecting. According to legal positivist H.L.A. Hart, the right to vote constitutes a “secondary rule”–a rule that regulates how laws in the conventional sense are “ascertained, introduced, eliminated” and enforced (Hart 1961, 92). Whereas “primary rules” control individual action such as speed limits, environmental regulations, or criminal law, the right to vote as a secondary rule regulates the process by which primary rules are created by incorporating some level of public input on who makes the law. Positivist Jeremy Waldron emphasizes the necessity of governmental and legal systems for suffrage, stating that “one has the right to vote only if one’s vote is counted and given effect in a system of collective decision that determines policy, leadership and authority” (Waldron 1999, 233). While positivists emphasize the importance of systems in the creation and validation of voting rights, voting as a right can also be conferred “as criteria of legal validity” in “conformity with moral principles or substantive values” (Hart 1961, 250). Waldron’s discussion of the inherent connection between individuals and the legal systems that dictate large parts of their lives serves as a positivist articulation of voting as a right: “since it is my duties (among others’) whose performance the state is orchestrating, I have a right to a say in the decision-mechanisms which control their orchestration” (Waldron 1998, 310). | |||
Critical Legal Theory: | |||
Some critical legal theorists maintain critiques against rights-based legal philosophies and methodologies altogether, including voting rights. These critiques include notions that rights-based legal thought “produces a kind of isolated individualism that hinders social solidarity and genuine human connection,” that “the use of rights discourse stunts human imagination and mystifies people about how law really works,” and that “legal rights are in fact indeterminate and incoherent” (Harvard). Drawing on historical precedent, critical legal theorists such as Robert Gordon argue that overreliance on rights-based legal strategy can make modest social gains for individuals, but simultaneously impose a limit on the extent to which individuals can make use of such rights and push back against entrenched power structures. Similarly, Cass Sunstein argues that the right to vote is not meaningfully enforced in the United States due to its strict limitation to the public sector: | |||
“The legal system purports to promote democracy through protecting the right to vote | |||
and the traditional freedom of expression; but those rights do not allow for democracy in the private sector, where critical decisions are also made. By safeguarding rights in the public arena and ignoring the private sphere, the legal system has eroded rather than promoted democracy” (Sunstein 1983, 128). | |||
Under this framework, limiting suffrage to a matter of individual rights imposes unnecessary restrictions on when and where it can be enforced. | |||
Not all critical legal theorists agree with the rejection of rights-based frameworks for suffrage. Critical race theorists such as Kimberle Crenshaw believe that “rights can be defended and reconstructed; the critique of rights neglects the historical potential of rights in the real lives of people of color and women” (Harvard). Framing voting as a right can also empower marginalized groups and mobilize individuals to push back against the existing legal status quo: | |||
“The vast majority are able to sustain a ‘dual consciousness’ – recognizing and capitalizing on the revolutionary potential of legal rights while remaining skeptical of the overall social and political order in which rights are currently embedded” (Harvard). While there is broad consensus in critical legal theory that existing legal systems favor historically dominant hierarchies and do not equally protect all citizens’ ability to vote, there is ongoing debate as to whether framing the issue as a matter of voting “rights” is the best course of action. | |||
==Culture and Politics== | ==Culture and Politics== | ||
===Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively=== | ===Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively=== | ||
| Line 650: | Line 943: | ||
===Does public polling reveal insights about the right as experienced in different countries?=== | ===Does public polling reveal insights about the right as experienced in different countries?=== | ||
''Electoral Rights and Europe'' | |||
Being a part of the European Union, a citizen of a European country has electoral power in European, national, regional, and municipal levels, though that can bring confusion as to whether or not a European citizen can participate in all of the elections of a particular EU country. EU citizens can vote for European Parliament and municipal elections in any EU country that they live in, though they cannot vote in elections for national parliament nor in regional elections ('Flash Eurobarometer 485 - European Union Citizenship and Democracy', 2020, p. 3). | |||
According to the Flash Eurobarometer 485 of July 2020, 71% European citizens were aware that a citizen of the EU that lives in their country has the right to vote for European Parliament (p. 5). 53% correctly stated that it is false that EU citizens living in their country can vote for national elections. A similar fifty percent split was found with European citizen’s belief of whether other EU citizens not from their country could vote for municipal and regional elections (p. 5). | |||
This data implies that most Europeans recognize their own and others’ right to vote, and that their voting is done in conjunction with European voters from different countries and cultures. This creates an experience of voting that is decidedly international, both in the power that a European has with their vote and also the effects they feel from the votes of others. Voting power is much more expansive than just their own locality, and is instead affecting a much larger trans-national federation. | |||
Later in the report, it shows that 63% of Europeans believe that a citizen of the US is justified in having the right to vote in the national elections of the country that the foreign citizen resides in (p. 6). The countries with the highest number of citizens who thought it justified was Ireland with 77% and Portugal with 74%. The lowest was Denmark with 40% and Sweden with 35%. | |||
With the countries with more citizens that believe it is justified like Portugal and Ireland, the data implies that the right to vote should be expansive and farther reaching, with less importance placed on nationality and more on where someone lives. Moreover, the citizen’s desire for a wider net of participation implies an experience of voting that is too restricted, and far away from being universal. | |||
With countries on the lower end with citizens that believe it to not be justified like Denmark and Sweden, the data implies that their conception of the right to vote is one that should be kept close with the ethnic and cultural natives of the country. The electoral net is too wide, and there would be a greater benefit if voting access were to be restrained and more controlled. This is further supported by the report later on which states that 49% of Danes and 56% of Swedes (the highest percentage) believe that European citizens should only vote in their country of origin (p. 21). | |||
''Encouraging Others to Vote'' | |||
The World Values Survey in their 2020 report asked more than 70,000 citizens from 50 countries about what political activism they would consider taking, particularly whether they would encourage others they know to vote in an election. | |||
The results: | |||
* 22% said they have encouraged others to vote | |||
* 26% said they might encourage others to vote | |||
* 48% said they would never encourage others to vote ('World Values Survey Wave 7', 2017, p. 333). | |||
The countries with the highest percentage of those that have encouraged others were Germany with 64%, the United States with 63%, and New Zealand with 62%. The countries with the highest percentage of those that would never encourage others were Myanmar with 79%, Ethiopia and Kyrgyzstan with 76%, and Jordan with 69% (p. 333). | |||
For the countries like Germany and New Zealand with a high percentage of vote encouragers, the act of voting is likely experienced as an important, effective, and social phenomenon where political accomplishments can be reached if there is enough support. Voting is a statement made about the beliefs a citizen has over the contemporary political process, and pride is taken in its expression and public participation. The right to vote is something citizens should both have and take advantage of. | |||
For the countries like Myanmar and Ethiopia with a high percentage of “never encourage” voters, their experience of voting is likely one where voting is unimportant and ineffective, and as a result is either a private or non-existent affair. Likely, the experience of voting is one of pessimism and disillusionment. The political goals of the public are not taken into account and the act of voting is political theater. On the other hand, it is possible also that voting is actively discouraged in these countries in order to uphold the current status quo, and in that case the right to vote is seen as a threat to established power. | |||
==Conflicts with other Rights== | ==Conflicts with other Rights== | ||
Latest revision as of 13:47, 4 January 2023
History
What is the oldest source in any country that mentions this right?
Multiple 5th-Century BC sources outline the importance of citizen voting to early Athenian democracy. Thucydides’s The History of the Peloponnesian War includes several allusions to the importance of citizen participation in democracy. The first instance comes in Chapter VI, the funeral oration of Pericles:
"Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy…instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of action, we think it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all." (Thucydides, VI)
The description of participatory democracy as “indispensable” evokes an importance that moves beyond simply advocating for the benefits of democracy. Rather, it implies an intrinsic importance that more closely mirrors that of a political right. The early political foundations of democracy appear again in Chapter XIX during a speech from Athenagoras:
"It will be said, perhaps, that democracy is neither wise nor equitable, but that the holders of property are also the best fitted to rule. I say, on the contrary, first, that the word demos, or people, includes the whole state, oligarchy only a part; next, that if the best guardians of property are the rich, and the best counsellors the wise, none can hear and decide so well as the many; and that all these talents, severally and collectively, have their just place in a democracy." (Thucydides, XIX)
Aristotle also outlines the inner workings of early Athenian democracy after the reforms of Solon and includes several allusions to the intrinsic importance of suffrage in The Constitution of the Athenians, most likely written between 328 and 322 BC. In his discussion of the importance of individuals’ right to appeal grievances in Athenian court, Aristotle states that “when the democracy is master of the voting-power, it is master of the constitution,” and that “the masses have owed their strength” to Athens’s democratic institutions (Avalon Project). While there is no explicit mention of suffrage as a “right” per se, Aristotle’s emphasis on “voting-power” as a fundamental element of Athenian civil society serves as one of the older examples of voting as a “right.” However, it is important to note that voting in Ancient Athens, while highly valued and perceived as a right for some, was not universal, and only free adult men, whose parents were also Athenian, were granted the right to vote. Athenian democracy was also significantly more participatory and direct than contemporary democratic institutions, as all adult Athenian men were compelled to serve in local governmental assemblies where they would then vote on decrees and other forms of legislation (Blackwell).
While there is not much explicitly-written, primary evidence for the existence of voting rights before the Athenians, previous forms of government that predate democracy also played important roles in the conception of suffrage as a right, particularly in Mesopotamia. For example, “when Mesopotamian elders were unable to agree” on governmental decisions, “they opened their assembly to junior aristocrats and commoners” (Schemeil 104). Additionally, Assyrian merchant colonies’ judicial systems were “not vested in any one individual but resided in a general assembly of all colonists” and were called at the discretion of senior colonists (Jacobsen 161). Early conceptions of proto-democratic political institutions from all parts of the world often arose out of the need to maintain peace and political stability after prolonged conflict between various sects and social groups.
What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right? BUILD IN COLLAPSE EXPAND TOGGLE
Afghanistan
The earliest Afghan constitution was written during the reign of Emir Abdur Rahman Khan in the 1890s followed by the 1923 version. The 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan turned Afghanistan into a modern democracy, and the right to vote was established in Article 46. The 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan granted women equal rights including universal suffrage and the right to run for office (University of Nebraska, "Constitution of Afghanistan").
Albania
Article 45 of the Republic of Albania’s 1998 Constitution guarantees the right to vote to the People of Albania so they can exercise their power through their elected representatives in the Parliament (Berhani, I. "Elections and Implementation of the Law of Elections in Albania").
Algeria
Algeria gained independence from France in 1962 and a new Constitution was passed the following year. In the 1989 Constitution under Article 62, all people meeting the legal requirements have the right to vote and to be elected (Constitute Project, "Algeria 1989").
Andorra
Article 24 of the 1993 Constitution states that all citizens of age and in full use of their rights are guaranteed suffrage (Constitute Project, "Andorra 1993").
Angola
The constitution of 1975 established a one-party state headed by a president who was also chairman of the MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola), which declared itself a Marxist-Leninist party in 1977. Under Article 54 of the Angolan Constitution every citizen of age has the right to vote (Britannica, "Angola").
Antigua and Barbuda
Universal suffrage was introduced in Antigua and Barbuda in 1951 (National Encyclopedia, "Antigua and Barbuda- Politics, government, and taxation").
Argentina
In 1983, Argentina returned to democracy after almost eight years of authoritarian rule. In April 1994 elections were held to form a Constituent Assembly because of the provisions made to the 1853 Constitution. Under the new Constitution the president is directly elected for a four-year term by universal adult suffrage (ACE Project, “Electoral Systems- Argentina").
Armenia
Article 48 of the 1995 Constitution grants the people the right to vote and the right to participate in a referendum (Constitute Project, "Armenia’s Constitution of 1995 with Amendments through 2015").
Australia
In the 1850s under the Constitutions of Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, Aboriginal men had the same right to vote as other male British subjects aged over 21. The first federal electoral Act, the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902, granted men and women of all states the right to vote (National Museum Australia, “Australians’ right to vote”).
Austria
In Austria, universal suffrage for men was introduced by the Voting Rights Act of 1907 and the country was one of the first in Europe to introduce women’s suffrage in 1918 (Metropole, “Your Right to Vote in Austria”).
Azerbaijan
Section 3 of the Constitution of Azerbaijan established the major rights and freedoms of citizens of Azerbaijan, including human rights, property rights, equality rights, the right to vote and freedom of speech. According to the Law passed in the parliament, in 1919, Azerbaijan all citizens of the Republic who had reached the age of 20 were granted voting rights (Azerbaijan, “Interesting Facts”).
The Bahamas
The Bahamas Parliamentary Elections Act of 1992 specifies the registration of voters, how the electoral broadcasting council shall conduct its work, how elections are performed and how nominations are seeked (Political Database of the Americas, “Bahamas: Parliamentary Elections Act, 1992”).
Bahrain
Under Chapter I, Article 1 of the 2002 Constitution all citizens are able to participate in public affairs and political rights such as voting (Constitute Project, "Bahrain's Constitution of 2002").
Bangladesh
The Constitution of 1972, under section VII, states the Qualifications for registration as voter and grants the right to people who are eligible to vote (Laws of Bangladesh, “The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh”).
Barbados
Barbados Independence Order of 1966 and the Constitution of Barbados established the right to vote for all citizens (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Barbados”).
Belarus
Article 38 of the 1994 Constitution of the Republic of Belarus states that citizens have the right to vote freely and officials must be elected through a secret ballot (Constitute Project, Belarus's Constitution of 1994 with Amendments through 2004).
Belgium
Beglain citizens are automatically registered on the electoral rolls when reaching the age of 18 and are subject to compulsory voting under Article 62 of the Belgian Constitution (Legislationline, “The Belgian Constitution”).
Belize
The 31 members of the House of Representatives are directly elected to five-year terms and the Senate has 12 seats. The ruling party, the opposition, and several civil associations select the senators, who are then appointed by the governor general. (Freedom House, “Belize”).
Benin
The president is elected by popular vote for up to two five-year terms and Delegates to the 83-member, unicameral National Assembly serve four-year terms and are elected by proportional representation. The April 2019 legislative elections were not free or fair, as the implementation of new electoral rules effectively prevented all opposition parties from participating (Freedom House, “Benin”).
Bhutan
The Constitution provides for a bicameral Parliament, with a 25-seat upper house, the National Council, and a 47-seat lower house, the National Assembly. Members of both houses serve five-year terms. The king appoints five members of the nonpartisan National Council, and the remaining 20 are popularly elected as independents, while the National Assembly is entirely elected (Freedom House, “Bhutan”).
Bolivia
Section 2 Article 26 of the Constitution grants the right for universal suffrage for all people (Constitute Project, “Bolivia’'s Constitution of 2009”).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In accordance with Article II 1, Article IV 1.2 and 4.a and the Article V 1.a of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article V of the Annex 3 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Election Law Of Bosnia And Herzegovina was developed in 2001 to promote free and fair elections (Legislationline, “Election Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina”).
Botswana
Botswana has a unicameral, 65-seat National Assembly. Voters directly elect 57 members to five-year terms, while 6 members are nominated by the president and approved by the National Assembly (Freedom House, “Botswana”).
Brazil
Chapter IV, Political Rights, Article 14 of the Brazilian Constitution grants universal suffrage with compulsory voting to those over the age of 18 (Constitute Project, “Brazil's Constitution of 1988 with Amendments through 2017”).
Brunei
The unicameral Legislative Council has no political standing independent of the sultan, who appoints most members. Brunei has not held direct legislative elections since 1962 (Freedom House, "Brunei").
Bulgaria
Under the 1991 Constitution Article 42, every citizen above the age of 18 is free to participate in elections of state and local authorities and in referendums (Constitute Project, "Bulgaria's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2015").
Burkina Faso
Under Article 33 of Title II in the Constitution of Burkina Faso, suffrage is direct or indirect and is universal, equal and secret (Constitute Project, “Burkina Faso's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2015”).
Burundi
Under Article 8 of Title I, of The State and of The Sovereignty of The People, all Brudians are granted universal suffrage if they are 18 years of age (Constitute Project, “Burundi's Constitution of 2005”).
Cambodia
Khmer citizens 18 years or older are granted the right to vote through universal suffrage under Article 34 of the Constitution (Constitute Project, “Cambodia's Constitution of 1993 with Amendments through 2008”).
Cameroon
Under Part I, The State and Sovereignty, Article 2 of the Cameroon Constitution, voting is equal, secret and by universal suffrage. It is granted to every citizen 20 years of age and older (Constitute Project, “Cameroon's Constitution of 1972 with Amendments through 2008”).
Canada
In 1876, only men who were 21 years of age or older, and who owned property were able to vote in federal elections. In 1918 Canadian women were given the right to vote in federal elections if they met the same eligibility criteria as men. The 1982 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms affirms the right of every Canadian citizen to vote and to stand as a candidate (Elections Canada, “A Brief History of Federal Voting Rights in Canada”).
Cape Verde
Under Chapter II, Rights, Liberties and Guarantees in Political Participation, Article 54 of the Cape Verde Constitution all citizens at least 18 years of age have the right to vote and participate in political life directly and through freely elected representatives (Constitute Project, “Cape Verde's Constitution of 1980 with Amendments through 1992”).
Central African Republic
The Constitution of the Central African Republic states under Title II, Of the State and Of Sovereignty, Article 19 that universal suffrage may be direct or indirect as every citizen over 18 has a duty to vote (Constitute Project, “Central African Republic's Constitution of 2004 with Amendments through 2010”).
Chad
Universal suffrage is granted directly or indirectly and is equal and secret for those 18 years of age or older under Title I, Of the State and Of Sovereignty, Article 6 of the Constitution of Chad (Constitute Project, “Chad's Constitution of 1996 with Amendments through 2005”).
Chile
The Constitution of Chile, Chapter II, Nationality and Citizenship, Article 13 grants Chileans who have reached 18 years of age voting rights. (Constitute Project, “Chile's Constitution of 1980 with Amendments through 2015”).
China
Under Chapter II, The Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens, Article 34 all citizens 18 years of age have the right to vote and stand for election without discrimination. (Constitute Project, “China (People’s Republic of)'s Constitution of 1982 with Amendments through 2018”).
Colombia
Under Title III, Chapter II, all citizens 18 years of age have the right to vote in all elections. In addition, an Act may grant Alien’s who reside in Colombia the right to vote in municipal and district level elections. (Constitute Project, “Colombia’s Constitution of 1991 with revisions through 2015”).
Comoros
According to Title I, Article 4, suffrage can be indirect or direct and is universal, equal and secret. All Comorians of either sex who are in possession of their civi and political rights may vote as provided for by the statute. (Constitute Project, "Comoros's Constitution of 2001 with Amendments through 2009").
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Section II Sovereignty, Article 5 establishes the conditions of organization of the elections and of the referendum. Suffrage is universal, equal, secret and can be direct or indirect. Without prejudice to the provisions of article 70, 102 and 106 all Congolese of both sexes, of 18 years of age, and enjoying their civil and political rights are electors and eligible. (Constitute Project, “Congo (Democratic Republic of the)'s Constitution of 2005 with Amendments through 2011”).
Republic of the Congo
Under Title I, Of The State and Of Sovereignty, Article 6, suffrage is direct or indirect and is free, equal and secret. Established by the law all Congolese 18 years of age, enjoying their civil and political rights are electors. (“Congo (Republic of the)'s Constitution of 2015”).
Costa Rica
According to Title VIII, Chapter II, all birthright citizens 18 years or older and naturalized citizens, 12 months or greater after naturalization, have the right to suffrage facilities. (Constitute Project, “Costa Rica’s Constitution of 1949 with revisions through 2020).
Croatia
Under Title II, Article 45, all birthright citizens 18 years or older, have access to universal, and equal suffrage through secret and direct ballots to determine the Croatian Parliament, President of the Republic of Croatia, and the European Parliament. (Constitute Project, “Croatia’s Constitution of 1991 with revisions through 2013).
Cuba
Article 205 of Cuba’s Constitution states that voting is the right of all Cuban citizens over the age of 16 unless they have been judicially disqualified to vote. Article 104 states that the National Assembly of the People’s Power is made up of representatives elected via direct, free, and secret elections. Additionally, Article 126 states that the President is elected by similar principles. (Constitute Project, “Cuba’s Constitution of 2019).
Cyprus
Under Article 63, Part II, all birthright citizens at the age of 18 years or older are eligible to be electors in either the Greek or Turkish electoral list based on their own nationality. Within each list the elector may vote for their respective representative. (Constitute Project, “Cyprus’ Constitution of 1960 with revisions through 2013).
Czech Republic
According to Chapter I, Article 56, all citizens at the age of 18 years or older have a right to direct and universal voting. Under Chapter 2, this voting is done by secret ballot and is based on proportional representation. (Constitute Project, “Czech Republic’s Constitution of 1993 with revisions through 2013).
Denmark
Under Part 4, all citizens who are permanent residents of Denmark and are at the age of suffrage, which is set by referendum, can vote in Folketing elections. (Constitute Project, “Denmark’s Constitution of 1953).
Djibouti
Under Title I, Article V, all Djiboutian nationals of majority have a right to Suffrage regardless of gender. (Constitute Project, “Djibouti’s Constitution of 1992 with revisions through 2010).
Dominica
Under Chapter III, Part 1, any resident who is a birthright citizen or naturalized citizen of Dominica and is over the age of 18 has a right to suffrage via a secret and unimposed ballot unless this right has been taken away by Parliament. (Constitute Project, “Dominica’s Constitution of 1978 with revisions through 2014).
Dominican Republic
Article 208 in the Dominican Republic’s constitution grants the right of universal, direct, free, and secret suffrage to all citizens over the age of 18, with the exceptions of Members of the Armed Forces and individuals whose rights have been revoked by courts. (Constitute Project, “Dominican Republic’s Constitution of 2015).
East Timor
Article 47 of the Constitution grants those over the age of 17 the right to vote. Voting constitutes a civic duty and is personal (Constitute Project, “Timor-Leste's Constitution of 2002”).
Ecuador
Under Article 62 of the Constitution of Ecuador voting is mandatory for those over the age of 18. Voting is optional for those between the ages of 16-18 and elderly persons 65 years of age and older (Constitute Project, “Ecuador's Constitution of 2008”).
Egypt
Part II, Rights and Freedoms, Article 55 of the Egyptian Constitution grants universal suffrage and compulsory voting for every Egyptian citizen over 18. If one fails to vote, they can receive a fine or even imprisonment, but a significant percentage of eligible voters do not vote (Constitute Project, “Egypt's Constitution of 2012”).
El Salvador
The Constitution of El Salvador grants its citizens political rights under Chapter III, Citizens, Their Political Rights and Duties in The Electoral Body. Article 71 allows those over the age of 18 to vote and Article 72 secures the exercise of suffrage (Constitute Project, “El Salvador's Constitution of 1983 with Amendments through 2014”)
Equatorial Guinea
Under the First Title, Fundamental Principles of the State, Article 2 of the Constitution of Equatorial Guinea grants the people with sovereignty to be exercised by way of universal suffrage (Constitute Project, “Equatorial Guinea's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2012”).
Eritrea
Eritrea is a militarized authoritarian state and there has not been a national election since the independence from Ethiopia in 1993 (Freedom House, “Eritrea”).
Estonia
Chapter III, The People, Article 56 allows for the supreme power of state to be exercised by the people through citizens with the right to vote. Article 57 grants the right to vote to those of the age of 18 (Constitute Project, “Estonia's Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2015”).
Eswatini
Under Chapter VII, The Legislature, Section 88, Qualifications as a Voter, a person is qualified to vote if they are of the age of 18 and a citizen or ordinarily resident in Swaziland (Constitute Project, “Eswatini Constitution of 2005”).
Ethiopia
Article 38 of the Ethopian Constitution grants every Ethiopian national that is 18 years of age, without any discrimination, to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly and through freely chosen representatives through universal and equal suffrage (Constitute Project, “Ethiopia's Constitution of 1994”).
Fiji
According to Chapter 3, Parliament, Part B, Composition, Section 55, Voter Qualifications and Registration, of the Constitution of Fiji every citizen who is 18 years of age has the right to be registered as a voter, in the manner and form prescribed by a written law governing elections or registration of voters. (Constitute Project, “Fiji's Constitution of 2013”)
Finland
Section 14 of the Finish Constitution grants universal suffrage to every Finnish citizen who has reached 18 years of age and has the right to vote in national elections and referendums (Constitute Project, “Finland's Constitution of 1999 with Amendments through 2011”).
France
Under Article 3 of the French Constitution suffrage may be direct or indirect and will always be universal, equal and secret. (Constitute Project, “France's Constitution of 1958 with Amendments through 2008”)
Gabon
Under Title I, Article 4, Suffrage can be direct or indirect, is universal and secret. Gabonese citizens must be at least 18 years of age to vote. (Constitute Project, “Gabon’s Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2011”).
The Gambia
According to Chapter 5, Article 39, every citizen over the age of 18 and of sound mind is eligible to vote in universal elections through a secret ballot to freely elect representatives. (Constitute Project, “Gambia’s (The) Constitution of 1996 with Amendments through 2018”).
Georgia
Under Article 37 and Article 74 of Georgia’s Constitution, citizens have the right to vote in local elections and for members of Parliament in fair and free elections by secret ballots. (Constitute Project, “Georgia’s Constitution of 1995 with revisions through 2018”).
Germany
Under Article 37 of Germany’s constitution, every citizen over the age of 18 is allowed to vote in elections. Members of the German Butdestag are elected every four years via free, equal, direct, and secret elections (Constitute Project, “Germany’s Constitution of 1949 with Amendments through 2014”).
Ghana
Under Chapter 7, Article 42, every citizen over the age of 18 and of sound mind is eligible to vote in public elections and referendum via secret ballot. (Constitute Project, “Ghana’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 1996”).
Greece
Under Section III, Article 51, every citizen who has met the minimum age requirement of 18, is not legally incapactiated, and has not had the right revoked for criminal actions must vote for members of Parliament via direct and secret ballots.(Constitute Project, “Greece’s Constitution of 1975 with Amendments through 2008”).
Grenada
Under Chapter III, Part I, any citizen who is 18 years of age or older may vote for his/her district representative for the House of Representatives unless that right has been legally revoked by Parliament. (Constitute Project, “Grenada’s Constitution of 1973, Reinstated in 1991 and with Amendments through 1992”).
Guatemala
Under Chapter II, any citizen, by definition over 18 years of age, has the freedom of suffrage. Citizens may cast secret ballots to elect the Congress of the Republic, President, and Vice-President. (Consitute Project, “Guatemala’s Constitution of 1985 with Amendments through 1993”).
Guinea
Under Guinea’s Constitution, the President and members of the legislature are elected via free, equal, direct, and secret elections. All citizens are allowed to vote as long as they are over 18 and meet citizenship requirements. (Constitute Project, “Guinea’s Constitution of 2010”).
Guinea-Bissau
According to Section II, Article 63, The President of the Republic is elected through universal, secret suffrage of the electing citizens. Electing citizens must be 18 years or older. (Constitute Project, “Guinea-Bissau’s Constitution of 1984 with Amendments through 1996”).
Guyana
According to Title II, persons 18 years or upwards and either a citizen of Guyana or a commonwealth citizen who has also been a Guyana resident for 1 year may vote in elections for Parliament. (Constitute Project, “Guyana’s Constitution of 1980 with Amendments through 2016”).
Haiti
Under Article 17, Haitians 21 years or older may participate in universal voting regardless of sex or marital status. (Constitute Project, “Haitian Constitution of 1987 with Amendments through 2012”).
Honduras
According to Article 5, voting is seen as a public duty. All Honduras citizens, by definition over the age of 18, are obligated to vote in universal, egalitarian, direct, free, and secret elections. (Constitute Project, “Honduras’ Constitution of 1982 with Amendments through 2013”).
Hungary
Under Articles 2 and 35, members of the National Assembly and of Local government are elected via fair and equal elections. (Constitute Project, “Hungry’s Constitution of 2011 with Amendments through 2016”).
Iceland
Under Article 33, all Icelandic citizens of the age of 18 or older have the right to vote in Althingi. Permanent naturalized Icelandic citizens is a requirement for non-birthright persons who wish to vote. Under Article 5, such persons may also vote for president. (Constitute Project, “Iceland’s Constitution of 1944 with Amendments through 2013”).
India
Article 326 of the Constitution provides that the elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. The Constitution Act of 1988, the Sixty-first Amendment changed the age of voting to 18 (Government of India, “The Constitution (Sixty-first Amendment) Act, 1988”).
Indonesia
Citizens of Indonesia vote for members of the People’s Representative Council as long as they are over 17 and have a valid voter ID card. (Constitute Project, “Indonesia’s Constitution of 1945, reinstated in 1959 with Amendments through 2002”).
Iran
Under Article 62, the Islamaic Consultative Assembly is elected directly by the people through a secret ballot. Eligible voters must either be birthright citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran or naturalized citizens and of an age dictated by referendums and law. Under Article 6, the President and referendums must also be voted on by the public. (Constitute Project, “Iran’s (Islamic Republic of) Constitution of 1979 with Amendments through 1989”).
Iraq
In Article 20, the Iraqi Constitution states that all citizens shall have the right to vote, elect, and run for office. The voting age in Iraq is 18 years old. (Constitute Project, “Iraq’s Constitution of 2005”).
Republic of Ireland
Under Article 16, all Irish citizens over the age of 18 have the right to universal elections of the Dáil Éireann. Under Article 12, all Irish citizens who have the right to vote for the Dáil Éireann have the right to vote for the President through Single Transferable Vote elections. (Constitute Project, “Ireland’s Constitution of 1937 with Amendments through 2019”).
Israel
Under Article 5, all Israeli Nationals over the age of 18 have the right to vote in elections to the Knesset, unless a court has deprived them of that right. (Constitute Project, “Israel’s Constitution of 1958 with Amendments through 2019”).
Italy
Under Article 48, any citizen, regardless of gender, who has attained majority is entitled to vote. The vote is free, secret, and a civic duty. The Chamber of Deputies is elected via universal suffrage, the Senate of the Republic is elected via regional voting, (Constitute Project, “Italy’s Constitution of 1947 with Amendments through 2020”).
Ivory Coast
Under Article 48, any citizen, regardless of gender, who has attained majority is entitled to vote. The vote is free, secret, and a civic duty. The Chamber of Deputies is elected via universal suffrage, the Senate of the Republic is elected via regional voting, (Constitute Project, “Italy’s Constitution of 1947 with Amendments through 2020”).
Jamaica
According to Article 37, any Jamaican citizen 21 years or older may be an elector in elections for the House of Representatives. Any naturalized citizen may also vote in elections for the House of Representatives as long as they have been naturalized for at least 12 months prior to registering to vote. (Constitute Project, “Jamaica’s Constitution of 1962 with Amendments through 2015”).
Japan
According to Article 15, Japanese citizens have an inalienable right to elect their public officials, both local and to the house of representatives. Universal adult suffrage is guaranteed to all citizens above an age set by referendum. (Constitute Project, “Japan’s Constitution of 1946 with Amendments”).
Jordan
According to Article 67, the House of Representatives shall be composed of members elected by general, secret and direct elections by the citizens of Jordan which will be defined by law. (Constitute Project, “Jordan’s Constitution of 1952 with Amendments through 2016”).
Kazakhstan
According to Article 86, local representatives shall be elected by the of-age population through universal, secret suffrage for a five year term. In addition, under Article 41, the President of the Republic shall also be elected by the of-age population through universal suffrage via a secret ballot. (Constitute Project, “Kazakhstan’s Constitution of 1995 with Amendments through 2017”).
Kenya
Under Article 38, every citizen has the right to free and fair elections based on universal suffrage. Every citizen over the age of 18 can register as a voter, vote by secret ballot or in a referendum, and run for elected office. (Constitute Project, “Kazakhstan’s Constitution of 2010”).
Kiribati
Under Article 64, every citizen of Kiribati who is over 18 and is a resident of one of the electoral districts established by the Kiribati constitution is entitled to be an elector in the district in which he is a resident. The person may then vote for his representative in the Maneaba ni Maungatabu. (Constitute Project, “Kiribati’s Constitution of 1979 with Amendments through 2013”).
Kuwait
Under Article 87, citizens have a right to elect members of The National Assembly every 4 years or if the Emir calls for a special election after dissolving The National Assembly. (Constitute Project, “Kuwait’s Constitution of 1979, reinstated in 1992”).
Kyrgyzstan
Under Article 2, all citizens over the age of 18 are entitled to universal suffrage by equal and direct elections with secret ballots. Citizens vote for the President of the country and members of the Jogorku Kenesh. (Constitute Project, “Kyrgyzstan’s Constitution of 2010, with Amendments through 2016”)
Laos
Under Article 4, members of the National Assembly and the Local People’s Assemblies are voted into office via equal and direct voting with secret ballots. The voting age in Laos is 18 years old. (Constitute Project, Laos’s Constitution of 1991, with Amendments through 2015)
Latvia
Under Chapter II, Article 6, The Saeima shall be elected in general, equal, and direct elections and by secret ballot through proportional representation by Latvian citizens over 18 years of age. Citizens who are eligible to vote for The Saeima are also eligible to vote in national referendums according to Chapter III, Article 80 of the Latvian Constitution. (Constitute Project, “Latvia’s Constitution of 1992, reinstated in 1991, with Amendments through 2016”).
Lebanon
Under Article 21, every Lebanese citizen twenty-one years or older has the right to vote in public elections. Elections elect members to the Board of Deputies. (Constitute Project, Lebanon’s Constitution of 1926 with Amendments through 2004”).
Lesotho
Under Article 57, Citizens of Lesotho who are 18 years of age or older and reside in Lesotho may vote in elections to The National Assembly, which is the first chamber of the Lesotho government. (Constitute Project, “Lesotho’ Constitution of 1993 with Amendments through 2018”).
Liberia
Under Article 83, Citizens of Liberia may vote for the President, Vice-President, members of the Senate, members of The House of Representatives, and referendum once they meet the legal adult age as dictated by law. (Constitute Project, Liberia’s Constitution of 1986”).
Libya
Under Article 18, The National Transitional Council is the electoral body responsible for electing the President of Libya. This council consists of members of the local councils throughout the country. (Constitute Project, Libya’s Constitution of 2011 with Amendments through 2012”).
Liechtenstein
According to Article 46, Parliament shall consist of 25 publicly selected representatives that will be elected through secret, universal, and direct suffrage by Liechtenstein citizens over the age set by law. (Constitute Project, “Liechtenstein’s Constitution of 1921 with Amendments through 2011”).
Lithuania
According to Article 78, any citizen who has reached the age of 18 by election day has a right to vote in public, direct, and secret elections for the President of the Republic. Under Article 34, those who are eligible to vote for the President of the Republic may also participate in the elections of the Seimas. (Constitute Project, “Lithuania’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2019”).
Luxembourg
Under Article 32bis, The Deputies of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by universal suffrage following the rules of proportional representation. Any Luxembourg citizen of the age of 18 or older is eligible to vote in these elections according to Article 52. (Constitute Project, “Luxembourg’s Constitution of 1868 with Amendments through 2009”).
Madagascar
Under Article 5, Madagascar’s Constitution grants universal suffrage via direct and indirect elections. The voting age in Madagascar is 18 years old. Additionally, Article 45 states that the President of the Republic is voted into office every 5 years by universal direct suffrage. (Constitute Project, “Madagascar's Constitution of 2010 ”).
Malawi
Under Article 77, an eligible voter must be a citizen of Malawi or a Malawi resident of at least 7 years, 18 years of age or older, and a resident of the constituency of which they are trying to vote. If all of these are true, the voter may participate in general elections, by-elections, presidential elections, local government elections, and referendums. (Constitute Project, “Malawi’s Constitution of 1994 with Amendments through 2017”).
Malaysia
Under Article 119, every citizen of Malaysia who is the age of 21 years or older, is a resident in a constituency, and is registered as an elector in the constituency in which he/she resides is eligible to vote in elections to the House of Representatives or the Legislative Assembly. (Constitute Project, “ Malaysia’s Constitution of 1957 with Amendments through 2007”).
Maldives
According to Article 26, every citizen over the age of 18 has the right to vote in elections and public referendums via secret ballots and run for office in the Maldives. According to Article 10, the President is elected by universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “Maldives’s Constitution of 2008 ”).
Mali
According to Article 27, suffrage is granted to all citizens of Mali over the age of 18 to participate in universal, equal, and secret elections. The President of Mali is elected every 5 years by an absolute majority of votes. Additionally, under Article 61, the Deputies are elected every 5 years via universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “Mali’s Constitution of 1992 ”).
Malta
According to Article 57, a citizen of Malta over the age of 18 and currently residing in Malta may vote in secret elections via transferable voting. These public elections are used to determine the members of the House of Representatives through proportional representation. (Constitute Project, “Malta’s Constitution of 1964 with Amendments through 2016”).
Marshall Islands
According to Section 3, elections of the members of Nitijela shall be conducted via a secret ballot system based on universal suffrage of those who have attained the age of 18 years or greater unless they are certified insane or are currently serving time for a felony. (Constitute Project, “Marshall Islands’ Constitution of 1979 with Amendments through 1995”).
Mauritania
Under Article 3, suffrage, both indirect and direct, must be universal, equal, and secret and is a right provided to everyone who has met the legal age requirement regardless of gender. Article 26 states that The President is elected by universal suffrage. Under Article 47, the Deputies to the National Assembly are elected via direct suffrage, however the senators are elected via indirect suffrage in order to represent the all territories of The Republic. (Constitute Project, “Mauritania’s Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2012”).
Mauritius
Under Article 42, a person may be an elector if they are a citizen of at least 18 years of age and reside in the constituency in which they wish to vote. Electors shall elect members of The Parliament of Mauritius which consists of 70 members and elects the President. (Constitute Project, “Mauritius’ Constitution of 1968 with Amendments through 2016”).
Mexico
Under Article 52, Mexicans of 18 years of age or older may participate in public elections. The House of Representatives shall be elected 1/3rd through uninominal voting and 2/3rds through proportional representation. All 128 senators shall be elected via majority voting by their own state. Under Article 41, elections of the legislative branch and executive branch shall be free, authentic, and periodical through universal and direct voting. (Constitute Project, “Mexico’s Constitution of 1917 with Amendments through 2015”).
Federated States of Micronesia
Under Article VI, a citizen of 18 years of age or greater may vote in secret national elections to the Senate. Law shall determine the length of time one must be a resident to register to vote. Conviction of a crime and insanity remove ones ability to vote. (Constitute Project, “Micronesia’s (Federal States of) Constitution of 1978 with Amendments through 1990”).
Moldova
Under Article 38, all citizens who have attained 18 years of age have a right to suffrage unless prevented by law. Article 61 states that elections for the Parliament shall be elected by universal, direct, equal, secret, and freely expressed suffrage. Under Article 78, the President shall be elected by similarly run elections with a majority needed to become elected. If a majority is not found after the first ballot, a second ballot will be voted upon with the top two candidates to determine the winner. (Constitute Project, “Moldova’s (Republic of) Constitution of 1994 with Amendments through 2016”).
Monaco
According to Article 53, the 24 members of The National Council are elected by direct universal suffrage. Electors are Monegasque citizens, of either gender, who have reached 18 years of age. (Constitute Project, “Monaco’s Constitution of 1962 with Amendments through 2002”).
Mongolia
According to Article 21, members of The State Great Hural shall be elected by citizens who are qualified to vote, via universal, free, and direct voting. Under Article 31, each political party in The State Great Hural may provide one nominated presidential candidate which the citizens may vote on. (Constitute Project, “Mongolia’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2001”).
Montenegro
The Constitution of Montenegro states that citizens (age 18 or older) are entitled to vote in national elections for members of Parliament and for the President. (Constitute Project, “Montenegro’s Constitution of 2007 with Amendments through 2013”).
Morocco
Article 2 of Morocco’s Constitution states that representatives are elected by the people via principles of universal and free suffrage. Article 30 expands on the claim to universal suffrage stating that voting is a “personal right and national duty” granted to Moroccan citizens (age 18 and older). (Constitute Project, “Morocco’s Constitution of 2011”).
Mozambique
Under Article 73, citizens of Mozambique are granted the right of universal, direct, and equal suffrage by secret ballot. Citizens of Mozambique can vote once they are 18 years old. (Constitute Project, “Mozambique’s Constitution of 2004 with Amendments through 2007”).
Myanmar
Article 391 of Myanmar’s Constitution states that citizens at least 18 years old have the right to vote for each Hluttaw of their constituency. The only individuals that are not allowed to vote are those 1) “members of religious orders,” 2) those serving sentences, 3) incompetent individuals, 4) individuals otherwise disqualified by law. (Constitute Project, “Myanmar’s Constitution of 2008 with Amendments through 2015”).
Namibia
Under Article 17, every citizen of Namibia, who has reached the age of 18, has a right to suffrage. Article 28 states that the President shall be elected under direct, universal, and equal suffrage. The National Assembly, under Article 46, shall be composed of 96 members who are elected by general, direct, and secret ballot. 8 other members shall be appointed by the President. (Constitute Project, “Namibia’s Constitution of 1990 with Amendments through 2014”).
Nauru
Article 84 states that citizens of Nauru can vote for members of Parliament and for referendums based on the principles of universal suffrage. The voting age in Nauru is 20 years old. (Constitute Project, “Nauru’s Constitution of 1968 with Amendments through 2015”).
Nepal
Under Article 84, any Nepali citizen who has attained the age of 18 years has a right to suffrage. The House of Representatives consists of 165 members to be elected through the post electoral system and 110 elected through a proportional representation electoral system. The National Assembly is voted upon by local elected leaders according to Article 86. According to Article 62, members from The National Assembly and The House of Representatives make up an electoral college to elect the President. (Constitute Project, “ Nepal’s Constitution of 2015 with Amendments through 2016”).
Kingdom of the Netherlands
Article 4 of the Dutch Constitution states that every Dutch citizen has the right to elect members of Parliament and run for office, so long as they are over the age of 18. The voting age is set by Parliament. (Constitute Project, “ Kingdom of the Netherland's Constitution of 1814 with Amendments through 2008”).
New Zealand
Article 12 of New Zealand’s Constitution grants citizens over the age of 18 the electoral rights of voting for members of the House of Representatives by secret ballot and to run to be a member of the House of Representatives. (Constitute Project, “New Zealand’s Constitution of 1852 with Amendments through 2014”).
Nicaragua
Under Article 2 of Nicaragua’s Constitution, Nicaraguan citizens are granted the right of “sovereign power through their representatives” via equal, direct, universal and secret suffrage. Articles 132, 146, and 178 grant the right for citizens to vote for the President, legislators in the National Assembly, and local officials. (Constitute Project, “ Nicaragua’s Constitution of 1987 with Amendments through 2014”).
Niger
Article 7 of Niger’s Constitution grants Nigerian citizens over the age of 18 or “emancipated minors the right to direct and indirect suffrage via equal, free, and secret ballots. Articles 47 and 84 states that the President and The Deputies are elected via universal suffrage (Constitute Project, “ Niger’s Constitution of 2010 with Amendments through 2017”).
Nigeria
Article 4 of Nigeria’s Constitution grants citizens the right to vote for members of the House of Assembly. Article 117 states that any citizen over the age of 18 that is registered to vote may do so in these elections. (Constitute Project, “ Nigeria’s Constitution of 1999 with Amendments through 2011”).
North Korea
Under Article 6, citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are granted the right of universal, equal and direct suffrage. Citizens over the age of 17 can vote for members of the Supreme People’s Assembly according to Article 89 and the local People’s Assembly under Article 138. (Constitute Project, “ North Korea’s Constitution of 1972 with Amendments through 2016”).
North Macedonia
Article 22 in the Constitution of North Macedonia grants citizens over the age of 18 the right to vote in universal and direct elections with secret ballots. If a person is “deprived of the right to practice their profession by a court verdict,” they lose their right to vote. Citizens vote for the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia under Article 62 and the President of the Republic under Article 81. (Constitute Project, “North Macedonia (Republic of)'s Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2011”).
Norway
Article 50 of Norway’s Constitution grants nearly all citizens over the age of 18 the right to vote. Citizens residing outside Norway during the election or who “Suffer from a seriously weakened mental state” are subject to the determination of law on whether or not they may vote. (Constitute Project, “Norway's Constitution of 1814 with Amendments through 2014”).
Oman
Under Article 58bis 9 of Oman’s Constitution, members of the Majlis Al Shura are elected through direct and secret votes. Citizens of Oman must be 21 or older to vote for these members. (Constitute Project, “ Oman’s Constitution of 1996 with Amendments through 2011”).
Pakistan
Article 51 states that an individual in Pakistan may vote if they are a citizen, are over the age of 18, are registered to vote, and have a sound mind. Members of the National Assembly are elected via direct and free suffrage. (Constitute Project, “ Pakistan’s Constitution of 1973, reinstated in 2002 with Amendments through 2018”).
Palau
Article 7 of the Constitution of Palau grants citizens over the age of 18 the right to vote in National and state elections. The Olbiil Era Kelulau (the legislative body) determines the residency requirements of voting in these elections. (Constitute Project, “Palau’s Constitution of 1981 with Amendments through 1992”).
Panama
Article 135 states that it is the right and duty of all citizens of Panama to vote in their free, universal, direct, and secret elections. The voting age in Panama is 18. Article 150 states that the members of the National Assembly of Panama are voted into office. (Constitute Project, “ Panama’s Constitution of 1972 with Amendments through 2004”).
Papua New Guinea
Under articles 50 and 126 all citizens over the age of 18 may vote unless they are serving a sentence over 9 months, have been convicted of a crime or have dual citizenship. Voters elect the members of Parliament via universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “ Papua New Guinea’s Constitution of 1975 with Amendments through 2016”).
Paraguay
Article 118 of Paraguay’s Constitution states that it is the right and duty of citizens to vote in their universal, direct, equal and secret elections. Article 120 states that the voting age is 18 and that Paraguayan citizens living abroad may also vote. (Constitute Project, “ Paraguay’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2011”).
Peru
Under articles 111 and 191 the President and the Regional Governors are elected through universal suffrage. The voting age in Peru is 18 years of age. (Constitute Project, “ Peru’s Constitution of 1993 with Amendments through 2021”).
Philippines
Article 5 of the Constitution of the Philippines concerns suffrage, stating that citizens over the age of 18 that have resided in the country for the previous year are entitled to vote. Article 6 states that the members of the Senate, House of Representatives, and the President are elected to office by universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “ Philippines’s Constitution of 1987”).
Poland
Article 62 of the Polish Constitution grants citizens over the age of 18 the right to vote for the President and representatives of the Sejm and Senate and participate in referendums. Article 127 states that the President of the Republic is elected by the people every 5 years via universal, direct, and secret voting. (Constitute Project, “ Poland’s Constitution of 1997 with Amendments through 2009”).
Portugal
Article 10 states that political power is exercised via universal, direct, and secret suffrage granted to citizens of Portugal (over 18 years of age). Article 121 states that the President of the Republic is elected via universal, direct, and secret suffrage. (Constitute Project, “ Portugal’s Constitution of 1976 with Amendments through 2005”).
Qatar
Under article 93 of Qatar’s Constitution the President is elected via secret ballot by the majority of votes from attending members of the Council. Qatar is not a democracy and therefore citizens have not traditionally had the right to vote for political officials. (Constitute Project, “ Qatar’s Constitution of 2003”).
Romania
Article 36 of Romania’s Constitution grants citizens over the age of 18 who are mentally sound and have not had voting privileges revoked in court may vote. Articles 62 and 81 state that The Chamber of Deputies and the President are elected via universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage (Constitute Project, “ Romania’s Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2003”).
Russia
Article 81 states that the President is elected every 6 years via universal, equal, and direct suffrage by a secret ballot. The voting age in Russia is 18 years of age. (Constitute Project, “ Russia’s Constitution of 1993 with Amendments through 2014”).
Rwanda
Article 2 grants universal and equal suffrage to all Rwandan citizens via direct and indirect elections. The voting age in Rwanda is 18 years old. Article 75 states that the Chamber of Deputies is elected to office via direct universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “ Rwanda’s Constitution of 2003 with Amendments through 2015”).
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Under article 29 of the Constitution all citizens over the age of 18 are entitled to universal suffrage by secret ballot for the purpose of electing Representatives. Article 38 also grants these same individuals the right to vote in referendums. (Constitute Project, “ Saint Kitts and Nevis’s Constitution of 1983”).
Saint Lucia
Article 33 grants citizens (over the age of 18) the right to vote for members of the House of Representatives via universal suffrage by secret ballot. (Constitute Project, “ Saint Lucia’s Constitution of 1978”).
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Under article 27 all citizens who are over the age of 18 and meet proper residence requirements are entitled to vote for representatives based on the principles of universal suffrage by secret ballot. (Constitute Project, “Saint Vincent and the Grenadines’s Constitution of 1979”).
Samoa
The Constitution of Samoa has little mention of universal and direct suffrage because the Head of State is appointed by the Legislative Assembly. Members of the Legislative Assembly are elected to represent the 41 territorial villages, however the specifics of voter laws and processes are not described. It is known, however, that the voting age is 21. (Constitute Project, “Samoa’s Constitution of 1962 with Amendments through 2017”).
San Marino
According to Article 7, suffrage is universal, secret, and direct and is granted to all citizens of the country over the legal voting age of 18. (Policing Law, “San Marino’s Constitution of 1974”).
São Tomé and Príncipe
Article 58 of the Constitution grants all citizens over the age of18 the right to vote as long as they are competent. Article 78 states that the President of the Republic is elected by universal, free, direct, and secret suffrage. (Constitute Project, “São Tomé and Príncipes’s Constitution of 1975 with Amendments through 2003”).
Saudi Arabia
Citizens of Saudi Arabia do not typically have the consistent and direct right to vote in elections, especially for national offices. Elections have been held intermittently in recent history. (Constitute Project, “Saudi Arabia’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2013”).
Senegal
Article 3 of Senegal’s Constitution grants Senegalese citizens over the age of 18 the right to direct and indirect suffrage by equal and secret ballot. Articles 26 and 59 state that the President and the representative assembly are elected via universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “ Senegal’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2013”).
Serbia
Under article 52 of Serbia’s Constitution all individuals of the proper age (18 years old) and working status are entitled to universal, free, and direct voting by secret ballot. (Constitute Project, “Serbia’s Constitution of 2006”).
Seychelles
Under article 24 of the Constitution of Seychelles all citizens over the age of 18 have the right to be registered as a voter as well as to participate in public affairs and run for office. Both the President and members of the National Assembly are elected into office. (Constitute Project, “Seychelles’s Constitution of 1993 with Amendments through 2017”).
Sierra Leone
According to article 31 of Sierra Leone’s Constitution, citizens over the age of 18 with a sound mind of the right to register to vote. Article 42 states that the President of Sierra Leone is voted on by these electors. (Constitute Project, “Sierra Leone’s Constitution of 1991, reinstated in 1996 with Amendments through 2013”).
Singapore
According to the Constitution of Singapore, citizens vote in two types of elections, parliamentary and presidential. Citizens of Singapore can vote once they are 21 years of age. (Constitute Project, “Singapore’s Constitution of 1963 with Amendments through 2016”).
Slovakia
Article 30 of Slovakia’s Constitution states that the right to vote granted to Slovakian citizens is universal, equal and direct. Additionally, it states that citizens have the right to vote for their national representatives and in municipal elections. The voting age in Slovakia is 18 years old. (Constitute Project, “Slovakia’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2017”).
Slovenia
Under Article 43, all citizens over the age of 18 can vote in the universal and equal elections. Additionally, in some cases, aliens of Slovenia may vote as determined by the law. Article 80 states that the members of the National Assembly are elected via these universal and equal elections. (Constitute Project, “Slovenia’s Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2016”).
Solomon Islands
The Preamble to the Constitution of the Solomon Islands states that their government is based on the principles of universal suffrage. Article 56 explands on this notion, stating that citizens must be registered to vote. The voting age is 18 years old. (Constitute Project, “Solomon Islands’s Constitution of 1978 with Amendments through 2018”).
Somalia
Under article 141 of Somalia’s Constitution eligible voters have the right to vote in referendums and by secret ballot in elections. The voting age in Somalia is 18 years old. (Constitute Project, “ Somalia’s Constitution of 2012”).
South Africa
Articles 1 and 19 of South Africa’s Constitution make note of adult citizens’ right to universal, equal, and fair elections as well as to run for political office. Article 47 states that these adult citizens have the right to elect the members of the National Assembly.(Constitute Project, “South Africa’s Constitution of 1996 with Amendments through 2012”).
South Korea
According to Article 24 of South Korea’s Constitution, all citizens (over the age of 19) are allowed to vote in elections. Article 67 states that the President of South Korea should be elected based on the principles of universal and direct suffrage. (Constitute Project, “South Korea’s Constitution of 1948 with Amendments through 1987”).
South Sudan
Article 56 of South Sudan’s Constitution states that members of the National Legislative Assembly are voted into office based on the principles of universal and fair suffrage by adult citizens of the nation, age 17 and older. (Constitute Project, “South Sudan’s Constitution of 2011 with Amendments through 2013”).
Spain
Under article 23 of Spain’s Constitution adult citizens (over the age of 18) have the right to participate in public affairs and elect their representatives through universal and free elections. (Constitute Project, “ Spain’s Constitution of 1978 with Amendments through 2011”).
Sri Lanka
Under Article 88 of Sri Lanka’s Constitution, all adult citizens have the right to elect the President and Members of the Parliament, as well as vote on a referendum, as long as they are registered to vote and are over the age of 18. (Constitute Project, “Sri Lanka’s Constitution of 1978 with Amendments through 2015”).
Sudan
Sudan’s Constitution grants citizens the right to vote for the President as well as members of the National Legislature. Citizens of Sudan can vote in these elections once they are 17 years old. (Constitute Project, “Sudan’s Constitution of 2019”).
Suriname
Article 54 of Suriname’s Constitution gives adult citizens over the age of 18 the right to vote as long as they are registered voters. Articles 57 and 58 states that citizens have the right to vote for the members of the National Assembly barring their right to vote has not been revoked by the courts (Constitute Project, “Suriname’s Constitution of 1987 with Amendments through 1992”).
Sweden
The Preamble of Sweden’s Constitution notes that their democracy is founded upon the principles of universal suffrage. Article 4 expands on this notion stating that all citizens (at home or abroad) over the age of 18 can vote for the members of the Riksdag. (Constitute Project, “Sweden’s Constitution of 1974 with Amendments through 2012”).
Switzerland
Article 136 of the Swiss Constitution lays out the political right for Swiss citizens, stating that all Swiss citizens over the age of 18 (unless they are mentally incapable of doing so) may vote in their free elections. The Swiss legislature can create mandatory and optional referendums. (Constitute Project, “Switzerland’s Constitution of 1999 with Amendments through 2014”).
Syria
Under Article 59 of Syria’s Constitution all citizens over the age of 18 and meet the proper “conditions” have the right to vote in elections. Article 57 states that the members of the People’s Assembly are elected by these voters.(Constitute Project, “Syria’s Constitution of 2012”).
Tajikistan
Under Articles 49 and 65, members of the Majlisi Namoyandagon and the President of Tajikistan are elected in universal and free elections by secret ballot. Citizens in Tajikistan can vote if they are over the age of 18. (Constitute Project, “Tajikistan’s Constitution of 1994 with Amendments through 2016”).
Tanzania
Article 5 in Tanzania’s Constitution grants all citizens over the age of 18 the right to vote in any election. Members of Parliament and the President are elected by the people. (Constitute Project, “Tanzania’s Constitution of 1977 with Amendments through 2005”).
Thailand
Article 95 of the Thai Constitution grants Thai citizens of 5 years or more that are registered and are at least 18 years old the right to vote. Article 85 states that members of the House of Representatives of Thailand are elected via direct suffrage by secret ballot. (Constitute Project, “Thailand’s Constitution of 2017”).
Togo
Under article 5 of the Constitution of Togo grants all citizens over the age of 18 the right to universal, equal, and secret suffrage. Articles 52, 59, and 141 state that the Deputies, President, and territorial collectivities are voted into office based on the principles of universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “Togo’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2007”).
Tonga
Tongan citizens over the age of 21 who are not nobles, insane or disabled by the definitions of the 23rd Article can vote for representatives, according to Article 64. Citizens living abroad may also vote as long as they are registered. (Constitute Project, “Tonga’s Constitution of 1875 with Amendments through 2013”).
Trinidad and Tobago
Under Article 51, citizens 18 years or older and that have proper residence may vote and run for office. Eligible voters elect the members of the legislature and the President. (Constitute Project, “Trinidad and Tobago’s Constitution of 1976 with Amendments through 2007”).
Tunisia
Under Article 54, Tunisian citizens are eligible voters if they are at least 18 years old. Article 55 states that these voters elect the members of the Assembly of the Representatives of the People via principles of universal, free, direct, and secret suffrage. (Constitute Project, “Tunisia’s Constitution of 2014”).
Turkey
Article 67 of Turkey’s Constitution gives its citizens (18 years old or older) the right to vote, run for office, and engage in political activity. Some members of the Armed Forces and individuals convicted of crimes cannot vote. Articles 75 and 101 grant voters the right to elect the members of the Grand National Assembly and the President via universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “Turkey’s Constitution of 1982 with Amendments through 2017”).
Turkmenistan
Under Article 119, citizens of Turkmenistan who are at least 18 years old can vote for the President of Turkmenistan, the deputies of the Mejlis, and members of the People’s Council. (Constitute Project, “Turkmenistan’s Constitution of 2008 with Amendments through 2016”).
Tuvalu
Article 87 of the Tuvalu Constitution states that the members of Parliament are voted into office by voting age (18 years old) adults based on the principles of universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “Tuvalu’s Constitution of 1986 with Amendments through 2010”).
Uganda
Articles 78 and 103 grant citizens of Uganda the right to vote for representatives and the President through processes of universal suffrage by secret ballot. The voting age in Uganda is 18 years old. (Constitute Project, “Uganda’s Constitution of 1995 with Amendments through 2017”).
Ukraine
Articles 70 and 71 of Ukraine’s Constitution lay out the rights of voters. Ukrainian citizens age 18 or older who are not deemed incompetent can vote in local and national elections based on the principles of universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “Ukraine’s Constitution of 1996 with Amendments through 2016”).
United Arab Emirates
Under article 46 of section 1, The Supreme Council of the Union, each Emirate shall have a single vote in the deliberations of the council. According to article 49 decisions of the council and procedural matters shall be taken by majority vote. Article 61 states that the decisions are secret and in an evenly divided vote the Chairman’s vote shall prevail. There are no political parties and, until the beginning of the 21st century, no elections were held. Now, an electoral college meets every four years to select half of the members of the advisory Federal National Council, the other half is designated by appointment. (Constitute Project, “United Arab Emirates's Constitution of 1971 with Amendments through 2004”)
United Kingdom
The Reform Act of 1832 was the first piece of legislation to expand voting rights in the United Kingdom. It established that men above the age of 21 who were freeholders of property could vote. Universal suffrage was established with the Representation of the People Act 1969, which extended the right to vote to all persons of age (Anglotopia, "The History of Voting Rights in the United Kingdom")
United States
U.S. election laws first were seen in Article 1 of the Constitution, which gave states the responsibility to oversee federal elections. Since then, many Constitutional amendments and federal laws have been put in place to protect voting rights such as the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth Amendment (USA Gov, "Voting and Elections").
Uruguay
Chapter 2 article 77 of the 1966 Constitution of Uruguay states that since every citizen is a member of the sovereignty of the nation, they are eligible to vote and participate in the electoral process (Constitute Project, "Uruguay's Constitution of 1966, Reinstated in 1985, with Amendments through 2004").
Uzbekistan
The law on Election of Citizens' Suffrage in 1994 granted Citizens of the Republic of Uzbekistan the right to take part in public and state affairs both as directly and through their representatives (Legislaionline, "Law on Election of Citizens' Suffrage").
Vanuatu
The 1980 Constitution under Chapter 1, National Sovereignty, The Electoral Franchise and Political Parties, entitles every citizen of age thee right to vote (Constitute Project, "Vanuatu's Constitution of 1980 with Amendments through 2013").
Venezuela
Under the 1999 Constitution of Venezuela, Article 64, all Venezuelans over the age of 18 have the right to vote (Constitute Project, Venezuela's Constitution of 1999 with Amendments through 2009).
Vietnam
According to Chapter I, Political System, Article 7 of the Vietnmaese Constitution the elections are held in accordance with the principles of universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage. Under Chapter II, Human Rights and Citizen’s Fundamental Rights and Duties, Article 27 citizens of the age of 18 have the right to vote (Constitute Project, “Vietnam’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2013”).
Yemen
Under Part Three, Organization of the State Authorities, Chapter 1, Article 63 of the Yemeni Constitution, The members of the House of Representatives shall be elected in a secret free and equal vote directly by the people (Constitute Project, “Yemen's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2001”).
Zambia
Article 75, clause 1 of the 1991 Constitution grants every citizen of Zambia who has attained the age of eighteen years is entitled to be registered as a voter (Election Access, "Zambia").
Zimbabwe
According to ZImbabwe’s Constitution, Chapter 7, Elections, Part one, Electoral Systems and Processes, Number 155, Principles of the Electoral System, elections must be held regularly and referendums to which the Constitution applies must be peaceful, free, conducted by a secret ballot and based on universal suffrage and equality (Constitute Project, “Zimbabwe's Constitution of 2013”).
Is there another noteworthy written source from the past that mentions this right?
Other noteworthy written sources that mention an implicit right to vote in a more modern context include Thomas Rainsborough during the British Putney Debates in 1647, where he stated, “I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put Himself under.” Rainsborough’s speech at the Putney Debates also alluded to a divine right to vote:
"I do think the main cause why Almighty God gave men reason, it was that they should make use of that reason…every man born in England cannot, ought not, neither by the law of God nor the law of nature, to be exempted from the choice of those who are to make laws for him to live under." (Rainsborough)
In the United States, the 1776 Constitution of Virginia was one of the first written sources to establish a protected right to vote, stating that “all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage.” Federalist 52, written by James Madison, also alludes to the importance of voting rights, stating “the definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government” (Avalon Project). Similar to earlier conceptions of democracy as a means of quelling the potential for rebellion, concessions to expand voting rights in Great Britain, in particular, were in large part made by political leaders to “prevent the necessity of revolution” among the population (National Archives). In both of these cases, however, the right to vote was granted solely to property-owning men, and it would not be until the mid-19th Century that the connection between the right to vote and property ownership would be removed in both Great Britain and the United States. Additionally, perceptions of suffrage as a universal right have come about much more recently, with New Zealand becoming the first country to legally recognize suffrage as a universal right in 1893 under Part One of the Electoral Act, which outlined that “every person of the age of twenty-one years or upwards who has resided for one year in the colony” was eligible to vote.
Is the identification of this right associated with a particular era in history, political regime, or political leader?
What specific events or ideas contributed to its identification as a fundamental right?
When was it generally accepted as a fundamental, legally-protectable right?
What historical forces or events, if any, contributed to a widespread belief in its importance?
Legal Codification
Is this right protected in the Constitutions of most countries today?
Is it contained in the US Constitution?
Has it been interpreted as being implicit in the US Constitution?
Are there any exceptions in American law to this right?
Is this right enshrined in international and regional human rights treaties?
Philosophical Origins
What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
Buddhism
Platonism
In the Republic and Laws, these dialogues of Plato attempt to firstly address the conception of the ideal state, and further, the practices and implementation of such a state. Plato’s Republic provides an insight into the possibility of a new system of governance, outlined primarily with the guided discussion of Socrates. Throughout the series, Socrates defines the nature of justice and the conditions under which one would be incentivized to act justly, drawing parallels between the state and the individual. Socrates argues that the just state will provide stability and prosperity to society. Plato’s Laws comes to a similar conclusion about the just state, however, justice here is maintained through the enforcement of virtuous law. Throughout several dialogues with the Athenian stranger, the conception of the state is presented through a more democratic lens. Although Plato does not officially endorse voting rights, the system in Laws is a controlled form of voting, whereby citizens nominate candidates, who are then selected through subsequent rounds of voting and the drawing of lots. Emphasis is placed on the scrutiny of final candidates to ensure that virtuous people are put into authoritative positions.
States will only be effective if they are ruled in a just manner, however, just leadership must come from just men. Socrates addresses the nature of justice both within society and pertaining to individuals in the Republic. The structure of Kallipolis is based upon both the individual and collective will to act virtuously - if the state is successful in cultivating just citizens, just policy will be enacted. A similar principle is presented in Laws, but importance is emphasized here on the role of the lawmaker, who enacts virtuous laws, and the education of citizens, which indicates virtue within a society.
The Myth of the Metals, or Noble Lie, lays out the foundation for social order in Socrates’ Kallipolis. He proposes that a noble lie is needed in order to allow for citizens to accept their position within the state, as well as to instill a sense of unity, as citizens will regard themselves as “brothers and sisters, sprung from the self same earth.” (Plato, The Republic, Book III, 414E). Justice is defined in the Republic as each of the three classes performing their respective duties, and not engaging in the affairs of the other classes. “In relation to the excellence of the city, the capacity of each person therein to engage in what belongs to himself is on an equal footing with its wisdom, its sound-mindedness and its courage (Plato, The Republic, Book IV, 433D),” thus, the city retains unity and is able to cultivate a collective virtue. Upon the basis of the individual, Socrates alludes that “a just man will not differ from a just city with respect to the form itself, of justice” (Plato, The Republic, Book IV, 435B). The argument that Socrates proposes is that the state cannot be just unless man is just, and vice versa; that justice is contingent upon practice within the individual as well as the state. A unified state is created through the enforcement of this class system, and the unified state indicates a just society.
In the Laws, the Athenian stranger proposes internal warfare is the greatest threat to a society, which he describes as the threat of faction. Here, he states that, “the highest good, however, is neither war nor civil strife (Plato, Laws, Book I, 628C)…the city itself winning a victory over itself is not to be counted among the best outcomes, but among those that are necessary” (Plato, Laws, Book I, 628D). Additionally, a distinction is made between divine goods and human goods, in which the former are composed of virtues such as wisdom, sound disposition, justice, and courage. The purpose of the law is to regulate the behavior of citizens, so that they will pursue the divine goods over human; the stranger suggests that “[the citizens] should be watched and supervised, and censure or praise should be bestowed…through the laws themselves” (Plato, Laws, Book I, 632A). The just state will ultimately arise from the virtuous citizen, and the method by which one achieves virtue is through abiding virtuous laws.
Thus, the role of the lawmaker is such that dictates virtue within society, and it is the citizen’s responsibility to follow these laws to achieve personal virtue. The stranger suggests that “the lawgiver has set out, in detail, what’s disgraceful and evil on the one hand, and what’s good and noble on the other, [and] whoever is not prepared to refrain from [evil] by every means at his disposal (Plato, Laws, Book V, 728A)… is heaping vile dishonor and deformity on his most divine possession, his soul” (Plato, Laws, Book V, 728B). Virtuous law will uphold the divine goods, and the citizen will protect his most divine element (the soul) by following the law. This law acts as a form of unity within the state, so when there is faction, this indicates that citizens are not abiding to the laws and therefore disregarding virtue itself - this is described as an “excess of [human goods] bring[ing] about enmity and faction…[which] is good neither for [citizens], nor for the city” (Plato, Laws, Book V, 729A). In the Laws this unity plays an essential role in shaping the legislation of the city-state; insofar that the citizens are not divided, the most effective state will unify if just laws are enforced. This unification is not contingent on the basis of equality, which differentiates Plato’s discourses from modern conceptions of suffrage.
Once the connection between justice in the individual and the state is established, the question of leadership arises. Who is fit to be in the ruling class, and is it possible to ensure they will not be corrupted to act in their own interests? Socrates proposes the theory of forms and the allegory of the cave as an answer to this. The philosopher king is the sole entity fit to rule, who must be trained rigorously in order to fulfill such a position. Conversely, in Laws, it is suggested that although absolute rule will be most effective in enforcing laws, it is impossible to ensure that citizens will abide by them through compulsion alone. Therefore, a system of voting including the drawing of lots is proposed, which combines both democratic and monarchic elements.
Socrates uses the allegory of the cave to establish the flawed nature of human beings. The cave is representative of the physical realm, shadows of the images of physical objects, statues of the physical objects themselves, and the fire as the Sun. What is physically tangible is easier to comprehend, however belief concerning visible things alone is perceived as a low perception of the truth. The analogy of the cave proposes that most are blind to the good, therefore they are unable to act truly virtuously.. Instead, they comprehend the intelligible realm through the means of the physical realm, as a desire for worldly possessions and physical objects. The shadows presented to them are seemingly the truth, therefore they have an unwavering belief in what is idealized to them (the statues, ie. physical objects). The only one who can truly perceive the intelligible realm and act virtuously is the philosopher - therefore, Socrates suggests that the state should be ruled by a philosopher king who is able to maintain virtue within society. Additionally, Socrates warns of the unrestrained freedom within democratic systems, which eliminate systems of law and order. He equates this to the loss of virtue within society, as the citizens become weary of authority and “don’t even pay attention to the laws, written or unwritten” (Plato, The Republic, Book VIII, 563D). The future of democracy is dependent on the sentiment of the masses, in which the rulers fear the people - Socrates compares this to the father who is subservient to his son, and the teacher who is afraid of his pupils. For fear of displeasing the public, rulers will attempt to appease the masses, and this is the tactic that will eventually lead to the rise of the tyrant. This version of Kallipolis disparages the concept of democracy and democratic rights such as suffrage, equating these systems to the downfall of society.
However, in Laws, the concept of the philosopher king is disputed. Although the Athenian states that the most efficient way to rule would be under a just tyrant and virtuous lawmaker (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 710E), it is recognized that human nature does not reflect the ideal state, and that “any [city] ruled by some mortal, and not by God, finds no escape from evils and hardships for their citizens” (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 713E). He proposes that law plays the important role of regulating the behavior of both citizens and leaders, as it “[regulates] by reason,”(Plato, Laws, Book IV, 714A) both the public and private spheres. This is presented as the divine element of reason, by which rational laws will mirror a divine rule - rational law will allow for citizens to “[obey] the immortal element within them,” (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 713E) acting rationally, and therefore virtuously. He uses the doctor analogy to support this, wherein the slave doctor represents the tyrant who rules by compulsion alone, and the free doctor represents the legislator who creates laws using both compulsion and persuasion (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 720C). Only with the cooperation of the patient, who represents the citizen, is the doctor able to successfully restore his health (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 720C). Similarly, within the state, the rational laws can only have effect within the city if the citizens are willing to adopt them - absolute rule, therefore, is not a realistic solution, as compulsion alone is not enough to ensure compliance with the laws (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 720C). The stranger concludes that the legislator should be like the free doctor, so that citizens will willingly obey the laws (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 720C). Additionally rulers should be “servants of the laws,” (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 715C) as the “salvation…of the city hinges, most of all, upon this” - the subservience of the entire populace to the laws (Plato, Laws, Book IV, 715D). The Athenian acknowledges the role of the legislator as shared with the public, and rejects the concept of absolute rule.
The proposed voting system would “maintain a mean between monarchic and democratic constitution” (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 756E), as candidates would first be nominated, and proceed through several rounds of public voting until the top thirty seven candidates were chosen (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 756C). At this point, half the candidates would be selected through a lottery, and then subject to scrutiny before appointment (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 756E). In the case of positions of office, the vote is to be cast by “all who were involved in the military” (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 753B). In the Republic, Socrates designates a specific military class in the Myth of the Metals. If a similar class system were to be assumed here, it may be reasonable to suggest that suffrage would not be universal, due to the strict class segregation argued for in Kallipolis. The Laws, however, as previously established, operate outside of Kallipolis, so it is reasonable to assume that military status would not be limited to a specific class within society. The Athenian stranger places importance on physical education in the development of good character and military training of citizens. When discussing the city-state, he exalts military exercise as amongst the noble pursuits (Plato, Laws, Book VIII, 831E), and proposes physical contests for each of the military classes - for the horsemen and chariots, archers and hoplites - where victors can win prizes (833B). He suggests that there should be three classes of competition for all members of society: one for the women, children, and men, respectively (Plato, Laws, Book VIII, 833C). The military education is not only stressed but encouraged for all and therefore the vote may be at least relatively accessible. When considering the origins of hoplite warfare, linked to the agrarian sector of Greek society (Hale, “Origins of Hoplite Warfare,” 177), it can also be assumed that citizens of various classes were involved in the Greek military. Hoplite service was also mandatory during the Classical Age and eventually became enforced by record, where conscription was based exclusively on age (Christ, “Conscription of Hoplites in Ancient Athens,” 398). Taking these points into account, the Athenian stranger would likely have been advocating for a relatively universal form of voting, as most citizens were under conscription.
The Athenian stranger proposes two types of equalities, one that is measurable by weight and number, and the other, the pure virtue of equality itself, described as the “truest and most excellent quality…the judgment of Zeus” (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 757B). This pure equality, therefore, is likened to the divine good; this divine equality acts as a form of justice itself by “giving due measure to each, according to their own nature…bestowing greater honors upon those whose excellence is greater” (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 757C). The voting system is able to merge this divine equality with its measurable counterpart - divine equality is exercised in the casting of the lots, as chance or fate determines who is best suited for leadership. The stranger explains this when discussing the appointment of priests, stating that “we should allow God to bring about what is pleasing (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 759B) to himself, by entrusting the matter to the divine chance of the lot” (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 759C), and purity is maintained through the process of scrutiny, ensuring that those who are appointed truly display qualities of integrity and legitimacy, “pure and untainted by slaughter and all such transgressions of divine precepts (Plato, Laws, Book VI, 759C). Measurable equality is seen in the nomination and subsequent rounds of voting, whereby candidates are evaluated by citizens on the basis of their character and virtue. Here, importance is stressed on the education of the selectors, as they should be “reared in lawful habits, and well enough educated to be able to decide…who deserves to be accepted as satisfactory” (Plato, Laws, Book VI,751C). If citizens are educated on principles of virtue, then this will be reflected in their scrutiny, benefiting society overall in the appointment of proper leaders.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates disparages the democratic system for its failure to uphold virtues within both the individual and society. He argues that an “insatiable desire” (Plato, Republic, Book VIII, 562B) for freedom will lead to injustice in the state, as class divides will cease to exist and individuals are dictated by their appetitive desires. The system proposed in Laws, however, acts as an intermediary between the ideals of Kallipolis and the reality of human nature, by merging principles of absolutism with democratic practices. A measured equality is maintained through the casting of lots, and importance is stressed on the education of citizens to be able to maintain virtue within society, reflected in the appointment of leaders.
Christ, Matthew R. “Conscription of Hoplites in Classical Athens,” The Classical Quarterly, 51, no. 2 (2001): 398–422, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556519
Hale, John R. “Not Patriots, Not Farmers, Not Amateurs: Greek Soldiers of Fortune and the Origins of Hoplite Warfare.” In Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece, edited by Donald Kagan and Gregory Viggiano, 176-191. Princeton University Press, 2013.
Plato. Laws, Book I. Translated by David Horan. The Dialogues of Plato, Platonic Foundation, 2021. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/laws/laws-book-1/
Plato. Laws, Book IV. Translated by David Horan. The Dialogues of Plato, Platonic Foundation, 2021. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/laws/laws-book-4/
Plato. Laws, Book V. Translated by David Horan. The Dialogues of Plato, Platonic Foundation, 2021. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/laws/laws-book-5/
Plato. Laws, Book VI. Translated by David Horan. The Dialogues of Plato, Platonic Foundation, 2021.https://www.platonicfoundation.org/laws/laws-book-6/
Plato. Republic, Book III. Translated by David Horan. The Dialogues of Plato, Platonic Foundation, 2021. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/republic/republic-book-3/
Plato. Republic, Book IV. Translated by David Horan. The Dialogues of Plato, Platonic Foundation, 2021. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/republic/republic-book-4/
Plato. Republic, Book VIII. Translated by David Horan. The Dialogues of Plato, Platonic Foundation, 2021. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/republic/republic-book-8/
Aristotelian thought
An Aristotelian approach to voting is complex, in part because democracies of his day functioned differently than those today. Aristotle broke the selection of officials into three main categories. The first was selection of officials by lot in which case office would be open to all citizens. Aristotle viewed selection by lot to be a democratic feature. The second category was selecting officials by means of elections, which he considered to be more oligarchic and aristocratic. The third category was a combination of the first two, in which some members were elected for the purpose of certain matters and others were chosen either by lot from all or by lot from a preselected group, or these two groups worked together in the same offices (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1298b5).
Aristotle outlined election features of different types of democracies that were considered democratic because of their incorporation of the assembly. The first type would be that in which offices were open to all but would be appointed in turn by magistrates. In this case few things would be decided by all in the assembly, but the assembly would decide on the passage of laws and they would approve or withhold the selection of officials by magistrates. Aristotle did not specifically explain how magistrates would go about selecting officials in this type of democracy (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1298a9). Another type of democracy was one in which more matters were decided by the assembly, including legislation and selecting offices. Offices would be chosen by lot, except in the cases where an office required a special skill or knowledge, in which case they would be chosen by election (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1298a24). In the final form of democracy, the assembly would decide all matters. Officials would only be necessary for organizational purposes to ensure the assembly ran properly, and officials would not have final judgment on matters (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1298a28). In the case of democracies, Aristotle suggested paying the poor to attend the assembly and fining the rich for not. He also recommended limitations on payment for attendance in order to ensure the common people would not outweigh the rich. Aristotle wanted to avoid oligarchy by evening the influence of the rich and the poor, to ensure the common interest was at hand (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1298b11).
Aristotle also outlined differences in voting procedures in different types of oligarchies as well as mixed regimes and aristocracies and polities. One type of oligarchy was that in which officials were elected from among those who had the requisite amount of wealth. Another type was that in which all who had the requisite amount of wealth shared in rule. There were also cases of aristocracy or polity in which case all had control over matters of war, peace, and taking audits, but magistrates had control of everything else, including laws and electing officials. This type of regime would not be democratic because officials were not chosen by all, or at least not approved by all in the assembly. However, because all still decided on other matters such as war and peace, the regime would not be an oligarchy. “Lot is a democratic feature and will make them [regimes] polities by opening up office to many; election is an oligarchic and aristocratic feature and will either confine office to the wealthy (in which case the regime will be an aristocracy in the sense in which oligarchic polities are aristocracies) or to those with a certain quality or virtue (in which case the regime will be genuinely aristocratic…)” (Simpson 2002, 345). In general, Aristotle believed that rulers should rule in the common best interest, rather than solely in their own best interest (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1279a28). In the case of oligarchy, Aristotle recommended affording the populace the ability to give some input on political decisions, as this could promote peace, even if they were not given power in final decision making (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1298b26).
Aristotle had two large concerns with elections, campaigning and demagoguery. In terms of campaigning, Aristotle was concerned that only the people who wanted to be in office would be, rather than the people who necessarily deserved to be in office. He believed that a man who was worthy of office should accept the position regardless of if he wanted to (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1271a10). He also thought that campaigning “promotes love of honor, the cause, along with love of money, of most voluntary wrongs or deliberate acts of injustice” (Simpson 2002, 118). It is the pursuit of these wrongs that leads to tyranny. Additionally, regarding demagoguery, Aristotle worried that class interests would dominate elections, rather than the good of the whole. To prevent this, he recommended that the populace be divided into local groups for voting in elections. He believed that by voting in such groups, people would be less concerned with their general class interest, and would be more alert to local ties (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1305a28).
While Aristotle strongly believed citizens should participate in politics, he did not support extending political rights to slaves, women, or laborers. He thought that slaves did not possess the intellectual skills to be able to govern themselves, and hence would be subject to the governing of others (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1254b16-23). Similarly, women were viewed as naturally inferior to men with less capability of leading (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1259b1-2). An important point that Aristotle emphasized was that citizens should be ruled by their equals, resulting in a reciprocal equality, unlike that between slaves and their masters or women and men, and therefore women and slaves were not considered citizens. As for laborers and artisans, Aristotle believed that “there is a need for leisure both with a view to the creation of virtue and with a view to political activities,” which laborers and artisans did not have sufficient time for (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1329a1-2).
Ancient Chinese Philosophy
Confucianism
Confucianism presents that a virtuous person, and therefore a virtuous society, can only come about through the understanding of an individual’s place within their society, and the eager participation in the rites and rituals of the society by that individual (Mark, 2020). If both these things are realized, there will be a righteous and happy culture.
The two major parts of understanding one’s place in their social system is honoring ones familial and social superiors: “Filial piety and fraternal submission,--are they not the root of all benevolent actions?” (Analects, 1.2). Within the Analects, there are many rules emphasizing the actions and attitudes one must take to those one should honor. Confucianism proposes that interest in oneself is limiting and: “To subdue one’s self and return to propriety, is perfect virtue”.
This importance on the collective can harshly rub against one of the founding traditions towards the right to vote, as the right usually implies a dissatisfaction found within the current leadership when the right is expressed—certainly the modern origins of voting were led by that dissatisfaction. In fact, the insistence of usurping the power traditionally given to political superiors is greatly disrespectful and damaging under the Confucian view: “The requisites of government are that there be sufficiency of food, sufficiency of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler” (12.7). Confucianism reveals the highly individual nature of the right to vote which rises from a discontent towards the present politics.
Confucianism can reveal the other, more collective side of the right to vote as well, however. The overcoming of the self is key for Confucianism which is realized when: “…one de-emphasizes the boundaries between oneself and others, and gives one’s own and others’ concerns as much weight as is appropriate to the situation” (Chang & Kalmanson, 2010, pg. 109). This is immanently compatible with the right to vote. Moreover, public rituals were seen as the path towards peace and virtue: “In practicing the rules of [ritual] propriety, a natural ease is to be prized. This is the Way of the ancient kings, a quality of excellence, and in things small and great follow them” (Analects, 1.12). Later: “The management of a state demands the rules of [ritual] propriety” (11.26). Under this lens, the right to vote is a ritual with which the current political and social order is being upheld, as well as an opportunity for citizens to participate together. Confucianism reveals how the right to vote is also a modern ritual of political participation,
Confucianism shows how the right to vote has a paradoxical nature. On the one hand, it is a mechanism that allows citizens to privately disrespect their leaders and voice their resentment with the qualities of their current political system. At the same time, voting also acts as a modern-day ritual that is experienced with other citizens.
Taoism
Central to Taoism is the full acceptance of the Tao. Describing the Tao is difficult as the very first lines of the Laozi texts state: “The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the ternal Name” (Tao Te Ching, 1). This notwithstanding, the Tao is akin to the source and substance of nature (James, 2015). It both creates and holds everything that is existing. With this expansiveness, the ambitions and anxieties of man’s daily life are unimportant and giving them special attention would be a personal mistake: “Heaven and earth are not like humans, they are impartial” (Tao Te Ching, 5).
The strivings that people have create a paradoxical relationship between our ambition and their outcomes and this relationship is found all throughout the foundational text: “The pride of wealth and position brings about their own misfortune” (9). What we strive towards will usually bring what we are trying to avoid. The Taoist prescription to this issue is wu wei, which is a type of nonattached, spontaneous action. With wu wei, one doesn’t struggle to get anywhere, rather they are just expressing their natures as part of the Tao: “To win true merit, to preserve just fame, the personality must be retiring. This is the heavenly [Tao]” (9).
The connection between Taoism and the right to vote can be readily made. The Taoist political life and rule is decidedly hands off. If it were intentional and active, one would reach similar problems to the ones that result from striving for things in one’s daily life. The Taoist errs on the side of not-intervening: “Among people the more restrictions and prohibitions there are, the poorer they become…The more laws and orders are issued the more thieves and robbers abound” (57). Later it states: “If a ruler practices wu wei the people will reform themselves” (57). The implication is that the more active a society’s politics is, the worse outcomes will occur for the state and its people. This shows that the Taoist has a preference towards a freer politics where the ruling forces are not apparent: “When great men rule, subjects know little of their existence…How carefully a wise ruler chooses his words. He performs deeds, and accumulates merit! Under such a ruler the people think they are ruling themselves” (17). Many have taken the Tao Te Ching as advocating for anarchism (Irwin, 2014; Rapp, 2012; Stamatov, 2014), and despite the inclusion of a ruler in most of its political references, this interpretation is quite proximal.
As with Confucianism, Taoism provides two insights about the right to vote. On one hand, the right to vote for citizens is a decidedly more emphasized version of the allowance for people’s self-reformation. While this reformation decidedly occurs through the changing of one’s rulers, voting rights allow the people to go their own way, and live according to the ever changing, spontaneous desires and ideas that they hold, and the elected leadership reflects that.
On the other hand, Taoism shows that the right to vote can come from a misguided ambition to change society, usually for unnecessary reasons. It is this discontented impulse which is responsible for the right to vote, and according to Taoism, this impulse brings with it dire consequences. Under this view, voting is unnecessary, and just another expression of man caring for things that are not his business. Of course, voting could also be an act of concession where the voter chooses for what their society already believes and approves of. Voting in this way is not to change anything, but rather to continue what is already present. However, it is arguable that the Taoist would still be against this as this prevents the spontaneous change present in the Tao.
Stoicism
Early Indian Philosophy
In early Indian philosophy, there is little or no mention of voting rights. However, many ancient scriptures in different civilizations mention representative forms of government. In various regions of ancient India, republican governments existed. During the nineteenth century, research into the Buddhist Pali Canon revealed existing republicanism at the time. (Muhlberger, 1998). The Pali Canon provides a far more complete, though somewhat oblique, account of democratic institutions in Indian Philosophy, confirming and expanding on Panini's vision. The Maha-parinibbana-suttanta, the Mahavagga, and the Kullavagga are three of the Canon's oldest and most revered parts. Taken together, they preserve the Buddha's teachings for the proper operation of the Buddhist monastic community – the Sangha – after his death. (Muhlberger, 1998). They were the most reliable source on voting processes in a corporate body during the early Buddhist period. They also provide some insight into the development of democratic thought.
According to Panini, all northern India's states and territories (janapadas) during his time were founded on the colonization or conquest of a specific area by an identified warrior group who still controlled the political life of that area (Basham, 1959). Some of these peoples (known as janapadins by Panini) were ruled by a king who was, at least in theory, of their own blood and maybe reliant on their support (Muhlberger, 1998). Other than that, the janapadins handled their affairs in a republican fashion. Thus, in both types of state, the government was dominated by persons classed as ksatriyas, or members of the warrior caste, as later times would describe it (Hays, 2015). Another example is a republican federation known as the Kshudrak-Malla Sangha which posed serious resistance to Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC. Many more republican regimes in India have been mentioned by the Greeks, some of which were classified as pure democracies and others as "aristocratic republics” (Muhlberger, 1998).
According to Prakash (2006), a vote was called a 'chhanda,' which literally translates to a 'wish.' This evocative word was used to communicate the concept that voting expresses a member's free will and choice. There used to be multi-colored voting tickets called 'shalakas' (pins) for voting in the assembly . When a division was called, they were handed to members and collected by an officer of the assembly called the ‘shalaka grahak' (collector of pins). This official was chosen by the entire assembly. It was his responsibility to conduct the vote, which may be secret or open. However, Indian republics are beginning to sound extremely undemocratic by our modern standards, with real power concentrated in the hands of a few patriarchs representing the leading lineages of one privileged section of the warrior caste.
References:
Basham, A. L. (1959). India as Known to Pāṇini (A Study of the Cultural Material of the Ashṭādhyāyī). By V. S. Agrawala. pp. xx + 549, 3 maps, plate. Lucknow University, 1953. Rs. 50. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 91(3-4), 181–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00118544
Muhlberger, S. (1998). Democracy in Ancient India. https://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_muhlb_democra_frameset.htm
Prakash, A. (2006). Law relating to elections: an essential revision aid for law students. Universal Law Pub.
Hays, J. (2015). ANCIENT INDIA IN THE TIME OF THE BUDDHA. Facts and Details. http://factsanddetails.com/india/History/sub7_1a/entry-4105.html
Miscellaneous Hellenistic Schools (epicureans, academics, skeptics, etc.)
Roman Legal and Political Thought
The Constitution of Ancient Rome consisted largely of unwritten laws and was commonly enforced according to precedent and tradition. Hence, the right to vote and to participate in the electoral process was not written explicitly within the Constitution of the Roman Republic (Lintott 2015, 3). Greek historian Polybius did explain, however, that “the people had the right to make or rescind any law,” and he emphasized the sovereignty of the Roman people who would validate Roman political decisions (Atkins 2018, 9). Within Ancient Rome, voting assemblies would give their approval of the laws and the magistrates. Such assemblies were referred to as “the people,” and these groups, which excluded women and slaves, would represent the Roman citizens (Atkins 2018, 19). This differed from a system of “one-man, one-vote” as was employed in Athens. The three assemblies of Rome included the Curiate Assembly, the Tribal Assembly, and the Centuriate Assembly. Roman assemblies were formed on the basis of wealth, military status, and sometimes religion (Hall 1964, 270). The election of consuls, the gathering of assemblies, and other voting procedures were not explained within the Constitution or in any specific legislature, however, they were commonly referred to in books from religious colleges, which had some authority at the time (Lintott 2015, 4).
The right to vote was often limited by the fact that not all votes carried the same weight. The successive order in which groups voted could have influenced election outcomes and the speed with which election outcomes reached a majority. Members of the higher class were commonly in assemblies with fewer people, allowing their individual voice and vote to be more impactful than that of someone from a lower class in a larger assembly. Similarly, group decisions dictated the vote, rather than individual votes. It is likely that more powerful men or families within each assembly would have had more power and influence over their assembly (Hall 1964, 270). To this extent, voting blocks could be organized in order to favor certain political agendas (Atkins 2018, 21). The sovereignty of the citizens of Rome was subject to limitations. In Rome, the citizens were limited insofar as the electoral decisions made by voting assemblies had to be approved by the Roman aristocratic council. Citizens taking part in voting assemblies were not given the ability to propose new legislation, rather they were only able to vote for or against legislation introduced by magistrates (Atkins 2018, 19).
Roman historian Titus Livius was more concerned with achieving political ownership rather than equal citizen participation. Livius argued that “equal liberty” for the people meant that they would be able to elect whoever they wanted to the magistrate. To this extent, “equal liberty” meant citizens having complete decision making power over who would govern (Atkins 2018, 51). Gaius Canuleius, like Livius, supported opening up the consulship to allow plebeians to join, though he was more concerned with equal citizen participation, suggesting that all citizens should have an equal vote in order to avoid domination (Atkins 2018, 52). Although Ancient Rome did not necessarily achieve to the fullest extent such political ownership or equal citizen participation, and hence there is some debate over whether Ancient Rome truly was a democracy, Romans did recognize the need for checks and balances in a stable regime.
Early Christianity
Thomism and medieval Christianity
Medieval Islamic Thought
Medieval Judaism
Early Modern Rationalism
Absolute Idealism
Reformation Christianity
Hobbesian Thought
In discussing his argument about the social contract theory and the idea that people must give the government their consent to be ruled, Thomas Hobbes explores the right to vote and what that would look like in a government with absolute authority and power over the people. When it comes to the right to vote, Hobbes would say that every individual has the right to vote on who they consent to govern them, but upon voting for the form of government and its leaders, the existence of right to vote is dependent on the type of government they consent to.
Hobbes claims that individuals have the right to vote and should exercise their right in order to consent to a form of government and therefore leave the warring state of nature. In his book De Cive Hobbes noted that, “for it is not from nature that the consent of the major part should be received for the consent of all, neither is it true in tumults, but it proceeds from civill institution, and is then onely true, when that Man or Court which hath the supreme power, assembling his subjects, by reason of the greatnesse of their number, allowes those that are elected a power of speaking for those who elected them, and will have the major part of voyces, in such matters as are by him propounded to be discust, to be as effectuall as the whole” (Hobbes 1651, 89). Hobbes’ revolutionary idea for his time was the idea that the people consent to being governed and determine the type of absolute government which they consent to. Hobbes’ main concern was how these types of government would be consented to and who would be allowed to run these governments according to the desires of the people. To remedy this question, Hobbes claims that the people should be allowed to vote on who to consent to and because voting is the only way to measure the sentiments of the people. Hobbes views the right to vote in general as the means of consenting to a government that will make decisions in the best interests of the people and without this initial vote, there is not true consent the people can give to a government. Hobbes does notes that the type of government agreed upon after the initial voting determines whether this right to vote stays intact during the life of the individual.
The right to vote is to allow initial consent to be governed by a governing body or group and changes according to the government in place. Throughout De Cive, Hobbes continued this theme writing that, “a Councell of many men, consists either of all the Citizens, (insomuch as every man of them hath a Right to Vote, and an interest in the ordering of the greatest affaires, if he will himselfe) or of a part onely; from whence there arise three sorts of Government: The one, when the Power is in a Councell, where every Citizen hath a right to Vote, and it is call'd a DEMOCRATY. The other, when it is in a Councell, where not all, but some part onely have their suffrages, and we call it an ARISTOCRATY. The third is that, when the Supreme Authority rests onely in one, and it is stiled a MONARCHY. In the first, he that governes is called demos, The PEOPLE. In the second, the NOBLES. In the third, the MONARCH” (Hobbes 1651, 91). Throughout his initial description of the idea of consenting to being governed, Hobbes goes on to describe what voting looks like within each system of government in which the people vote differently. However, despite the differences in the right to vote according to types of government, there is a consistent pattern that if the government were to dissolve and resort to the warring state of nature, then the right to vote for every citizen is restored and the people have the right to consent to a new form of government which they vote on and reestablish consent. The different forms of government have varying levels of voting, but most voting is held in order to re-establish the government and reconsent to a new body because the people have the inherent right to consent to the government that is formed. However, Hobbes makes the point that once the people have used their right to vote to consent to a government, the government uses their absolute power to make the best decisions on behalf of the community and the common good. This feeds into the idea that the right to vote only pertains to giving consent to being governed by a certain government.
Hobbes’ views on voting vary according to the form of government the people consent to. Specifically in his book titled Elements of Law, Hobbes details that within a democracy, “The first in order of time of these three sorts is democracy, and it must be so of necessity, because an aristocracy and a monarchy, require nomination of persons agreed upon; which agreement in a great multitude of men must consist in the consent of the major part; and where the votes of the major part involve the votes of the rest, there is actually a democracy” (Hobbes 1640, 119). Within his democracy the people have the inherent right to vote in which the people decide the direction of the government by a majority rule which is the most fundamental part of the democracy according to Hobbes. He notes that the democratic form of government is not perfect since the decision-making process would have to take time and quick decisions are hard to arrive upon especially in times where quick decisions are needed for the good of the community. It is within this democratic process that power is lost, especially since coming upon a single decision is hard to make when there are various voices with different opinions about the state of the government. The idea of democracy is important to Hobbes when it comes to initially consenting to the government and choosing the type of government that the people will allow themselves to be governed by.
Throughout his work, Hobbes details what each form of government looks like once consented to and his form of aristocracy poses very interesting insights into what the right to vote looks like in this form of government. In his most famous work titled, The Leviathan, Hobbes wrote that, “A Common-wealth is said to be Instituted, when a Multitude of men do Agree, and Covenant, Every One With Every One, that to whatsoever Man, or Assembly Of Men, shall be given by the major part, the Right to Present the Person of them all, (that is to say, to be their Representative;) every one, as well he that Voted For It, as he that Voted Against It, shall Authorise all the Actions and Judgements, of that Man, or Assembly of men, in the same manner, as if they were his own, to the end, to live peaceably amongst themselves, and be protected against other men” (Hobbes 1651, 144). Compared to democracy, the aristocracy is more limited when it comes to the right to vote. Like the democracy there is this inherent right to vote in order to establish the government and the assemblymen, but once given the power, the assembly retains the power and no longer requires the votes from the people to make decisions. They are given absolute power to make decisions for the people according to their thoughts on the state of the community and the state of the government. Each member of the state is allowed to vote on the initial assemblymen and each citizen consents to each member being given power, but after the assembly is responsible for ruling and deliberating on the issues of the state. The people are just expected to follow the rules of this assembly because they consented to being governed by these individuals and only upon returning to the state of nature, is this right to vote restored in order to re-establish consent to the government. One might assume that when a member of the assembly resigns or dies the people get to elect a new member, but according to Hobbes the right to vote is still not granted. Hobbes remedies this situation by claiming that those within the government should elect a new member to replace the others because they have more power and should therefore choose on behalf of the government. Hobbes does not describe how this body would return to the state of nature under an assembly so if the other representatives continue to elect one another, the right to vote may not ever exist for the citizen after they have consented to the larger government.
Finally, Hobbes spoke specifically about the monarchy and what voting would look like when a single ruler had absolute power upon being given consent to govern. When it comes to the right to vote within the monarchy, like the other forms of government, the individual has the right to vote on who they want to govern them, but like the aristocracy, once electing a monarch, the people lose the right to vote. Like the aristocracy, by voting they are consenting to who they want to govern them, thus giving them absolute power over the public and the decisions made on their behalf as well. Like the assembly, the monarch makes decisions for the public based on being given the consent to make decisions for the people. Hobbes argues that this is the best form of government because of the immediate decision made by the monarch that will increase the efficiency of the government for the people. Further discussing the monarchy within The Leviathan, Hobbes continued his argument stating that, “And first, concerning an Elective King, whose power is limited to his life, as it is in many places of Christendome at this day; or to certaine Yeares or Moneths, as the Dictators power amongst the Romans; If he have Right to appoint his Successor, he is no more Elective but Hereditary. But if he have no Power to elect his Successor, then there is some other Man, or Assembly known, which after his decease may elect a new, or else the Common-wealth dieth, and dissolveth with him, and returneth to the condition of Warre. If it be known who have the power to give the Soveraigntie after his death, it is known also that the Soveraigntie was in them before: For none have right to give that which they have not right to possesse, and keep to themselves, if they think good. But if there be none that can give the Soveraigntie, after the decease of him that was first elected; then has he power, nay he is obliged by the Law of Nature, to provide, by establishing his Successor, to keep those that had trusted him with the Government, from relapsing into the miserable condition of Civill warre. And consequently he was, when elected, a Soveraign absolute” (Hobbes 1651, 161). The monarch differs from the aristocracy when it comes to the process of succession in the cases of retirement or death of the monarch. Unlike the aristocracy in which new members are voted in by the current members, the new monarch is either determined by the old king or by the people in the case in which the old leader has not appointed someone new due to his absolute power. Hobbes claims that the monarch has the absolute power and authority to nominate a new successor in the case of his demise, but if he does not appoint someone new, the people have the right to vote in someone new since they are reduced to the state of nature again. Within the monarchy, Hobbes points out that returning to the state of nature is a more frequent phenomenon when the monarch dies and there is no successor to automatically take the position. In the case that there is no clear successor, society returns to the state of nature in which the people must vote and reconsent to being governed by some entity and therefore, their right to vote is restored.
When it comes to rights in general, Thomas Hobbes’ views of the government and the relationship it has with the people is an interesting concept considering how centralized he believes that the power the government should have. His overall belief holds that if the people consent to the government, the government should be allowed to wield unlimited power since the people gave the government permission to rule as they do. What is interesting and important about this perspective is the way that the modern take on rights has built upon the idea of consent but moved away from the absolutist view on government that Hobbes proposes. It is held true today that the government has enough power to protect the people, but not so much that it can infringe on the rights of the people because of their own values and goals. The same holds true for the right to vote today and the way that ultimately the people hold power through the means of voting and electing people rather than allowing the government to have absolute power as Hobbes proposes. The right to vote was and always will be a contested right that varies as people debate the relationship between the government and the people.
Bibliography
Hobbes, Thomas. De Cive. Cambridge University Press. 1998.
Hobbes, Thomas. Elements of Law. Oxford University Press New York. 1994.
Hobbes Thomas. Leviathan. New York: E.P. Dutton and Company, INC. London: J.M. Dent and Sons, Limited. 1950
Lockean Thought/English Empiricism
In his second treatise of government, John Locke rejects the divine right of kings, stating that men are, by nature, equal and free. When a political society is therefore formed, it will reflect this state of nature, existing only with the consent of the governed and practiced under majority rule. There is an inherent relationship between the people and the state, wherein citizens give up some of their natural rights with the trust that the government will act in the common good - if the government fails to do so, the people also have the autonomy to choose a new government. Locke therefore, makes the argument that humans naturally govern under the consent of the majority, staunchly supporting political franchise.
In the first two chapters of the treatise, Locke disproves the divine right of kings and establishes the natural state of man to be equal and free. Most of the first chapter addresses Sir Robert Filmer, who made the argument that Adam had authority from God to rule, therefore enshrining the divine right of kings, as his heirs would assume positions of power. Locke states that “Adam had not…any such authority over his children or dominion over the world…[and] if he had, his heirs yet had no right to it…[and] that [even] if his heirs had…the right of succession, and consequently of bearing rule, could not have been certainly determined” (Locke, An Essay, 695). Locke makes the argument that Adam had no such inherent right to rule by distinguishing that “private dominion and parental jurisdiction” (Locke, An Essay, 695) are not the basis of political power; instead, God, as the ruler of all men, created them in “a state of perfect freedom” (Locke, An Essay, 696), where no one individual holds advantages or superiority over another. This natural state of freedom is “not a state of licence” (Locke, An Essay, 696), however, as the law of nature - reason - ensures that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke, An Essay, 697). Freedom and equality, therefore, are the basis of the natural state, governed by reason, and ultimately rejecting absolute rule as a violation of this natural state.
Locke then discusses the formation of political societies, reflecting the natural state, which exists with the consent of the governed. He states that “men being… by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent” (Locke, An Essay, 743), thereby establishing the right of citizens to choose their leaders. Once a civil society is established, it must operate under majority rule, as “the consent of every individual… made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority” (Locke, An Essay, 743). The operation of a political society is the will of the majority, which reflects the consent of each individual to participate within such a society. He claims that majority rule, therefore, is not only naturally assumed, but the most practical form of governance, since “the consent of every individual… next to impossible ever to be had” (Locke, An Essay, 744). Locke claims that this is a phenomenon to be seen throughout all of history, even in the cases of “nations which have no certain kings, but as occasion is offered, in peace or war, they choose their captains as they please” (Locke, An Essay, 745). He uses this to show that even in these cases, there was a mutual agreement between subject and ruler, and that these political societies began “from a voluntary union” (Locke, An Essay, 745). Therefore, Locke asserts the rationale behind the conclusion that “all peaceful beginnings of government have been laid in the consent of the people” (Locke, An Essay, 751).
However, despite the existence of the natural state and natural laws, there is still a purpose for the government. Locke explains that because men do not respect others’ freedoms, the state of nature must be governed by authority. Being “ constantly exposed to the invasion of others… it is not without reason that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates” (Locke, An Essay, 757). He identifies three key traits lacking in the state of nature, that being the relativity of right and wrong, the lack of an impartial judgment, and the inability to enforce punishment (Locke, An Essay, 757). It is for these reasons that the government has a purpose to serve in the common good - safeguarding the life, liberty and property of citizens through the creation of legislation and enforcement of such. In return for this service, citizens can be expected to give up some of their own natural rights, namely the right to self preservation and the right to punishment (Locke, An Essay, 758). Locke states that “both these he gives up, when he joins in a private, if I may so call it, or particular political society, and incorporates into any commonwealth, separate from the rest of mankind” (Locke, An Essay, 758). This is the form of social contract, wherein citizens exchange some of their natural rights for the protection of the state, which is expected to use its powers to act in the common good (Locke, An Essay, 758).
If this social contract is violated by the government, then “the people are at liberty to provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, differing from the other by the change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good” (Locke, An Essay, 809). There are two instances when this may occur: firstly, the dissolution of the government, and the second when the government acts contrary to the trust of the people (Locke, An Essay, 808-810). Locke concludes that the power which individuals hold is given to the government so long as the commonwealth lasts, as “[the people] have given up their political power to the legislative, and cannot resume it” (Locke, An Essay, 823). However, there is a limitation to this power, in that it is only a temporary one, and in the instance of the abuse of power, forfeiture, or completion of term, the people have the right to “erect a new form [of government], or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good” (Locke, An Essay, 823).
Throughout the second treatise, Locke makes the case for universal suffrage. Locke, by establishing the natural state of man, asserts that there is an inherent right to choose a government under majority rule. The government is expected to act in the common good of the people, and if these terms of the social contract are not met, the government can be replaced by the people as well.
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding: with the second treatise of government. Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, 2015.
Physiocrats
Scottish Enlightenment
Modern Capitalism
Rousseau's Thought
In Rousseau's Social Contract, he discusses how society is designed to be a give and take between governors and the governed. This relationship is probably most evident in his discussion on elections and democracy. Rousseau believes that democracy is a perfect form of government, as it holds the sovereign to the general will and separates the "maker of laws [from the one] to execute them" (Rousseau 1953, 71). However, there are many flaws with democracy in Rousseau's mind, primarily being born from the inherent flaws of the people within it. People need the government to be governed as they are not perfect; therefore, there will always be problems with the "influence of private interests in public affairs" (Rousseau 1953, 71). This influence of personal interest coupled with the struggle of forming a society "where the people can readily be assembled" for matters of state like a true democracy requires (Rousseau 1953, 72). For both of these requirements to be met, the government must only control a small amount of land with a small population "where each citizen… [is] well acquainted with all the rest" (Rousseau 1953, 72). These criteria allow for a society that can always gather to discuss policy and legislation for each person to cast their vote on each issue presented. However, these criteria, the elimination of personal interest and a small state, are nearly impossible to establish in society sustainably. Inevitably, personal interest, corruption, or any other inhibitor will get in the way, or a city’s population will increase too much and that is why Rousseau believes that "so perfect a form of government is not for men"' (Rousseau 1953, 73). Having a small and compact state is also a utilitarian view. Rousseau knows that for voters to want to participate, they will need to think that their vote matters, for example: "suppose that this state consists of ten thousand citizens… thus the sovereign is as ten thousand to one; that is to say, every member of the state has, as his own share, only one ten-thousandth part of the sovereign power, although he is subject to the whole" (Rousseau 2004). Therefore, if you make the republic bigger, let us say this time the republic is "composed of one hundred thousand men, the position of the subjects is unchanged, and each continues to bear the whole weight of the laws, while his vote, reduced to the one hundred-thousandth part, has ten times less influence in the making of the laws" (Rousseau 2004). This means that as the republic thrives and grows, it will become more prominent, and therefore less liberty is guaranteed through the republic's own institutions (Rousseau 2004). However, Rousseau's apprehension toward a true democracy does not mean that he does not believe in citizens' right to vote.
Since Rousseau identifies direct or perfect democracies as implausible, he discusses the two main ways magistrates, legislators, and the prince should be appointed. Rousseau agrees with Montesquieu in that "'selection by lot… is natural to democracy'" (Rousseau 1953, 119). This is because a democracy facilitates a community "in which each member can participate unreservedly" (Watt 1981, 719), acting on their right to vote and even having "'a reasonable hope of serving his country'" (Rousseau 1953, 119). However, the act of desiring a political position, as prospective representatives would need to campaign for election, is a personal interest that Rousseau sees as a hindrance to government. Rousseau criticizes Montesquieu by pointing out that in a "democracy, public office is not an advantage but a heavy responsibility" (Rousseau 1953, 119-120). Because of this, Rousseau believes that the Venetian and Athenian system for appointing legislators is better for democracy than vote by lot. Since the "selection of rulers is a function of government, and not of sovereignty," and that "common sense, judgment, and integrity [should be] sufficient" in all candidates, then sortition, which appoints the legislators by random chance, allows for a government without infighting and personal interest influencing the functions of government (Rousseau 1953, 119-120). However, even in this system, Rousseau believes that the public should still have a say when voting to "fill those positions which demand particular talents, such as military officers" (Rousseau 1953, 121). The military is exempt from the duty which is associated with public office as it is a position which does not need to follow the general will. The government must be run by the people and not be diluted by their opinions. Therefore, the military can be elected, while the legislator must be appointed by random chance. This is where Rousseau's concept of the general will come in and starts playing a role in his view on voting.
Whether it is the public voting on a member of the government or legislators voting on policy, there will always be a majority and minority, which will form based on differing opinions about what is best for the republic. Rousseau stresses that within the assemblies of government, "the more agreement there is…, the more also does the general will prevail" (Rousseau 1953, 116). Therefore, the more "long debates, dissensions, and tumult" allowed within the assemblies leads to the "ascendancy of private and particular interests and the decline of the state" (Rousseau 1953, 116). Rousseau's solution to this dissent to the general will is "unanimous consent" (Rousseau 1953, 117). If the general will is being challenged, then the only way to refine it is only to pass legislation on which everyone agrees. While technically still allowing each magistrate to vote on policy, this leaves their votes meaning nothing unless everyone can agree. This dilutes the power of each person's vote even further, making the dissent and long discussion that Rousseau pointed to as the things that made the state's decline necessary. Therefore, while Rousseau believes that there is a right to vote, there are restrictions on the power that each person's vote holds due to the chance of the general will being deteriorated by personal interests and intrigues.
While the people's right to vote is guaranteed in democracies, Rousseau does not believe it is an inherent right in all governments. He is relatively straightforward about monarchies stating that "neither sortition nor election has any place in a monarchical government," going further to say that "the monarch is by right the sole prince and magistrate, the choice of his lieutenants belongs to him only" (Rousseau 1953, 121). Therefore, monarchs have the right to hold the sole authority in the government and do not have to give the people the power to vote due to their monarchical rights. However, even in republics, there are situations in which Rousseau believes the right to vote can be curbed. Taking from the Roman institution of the dictator, Rousseau believes that if "the greatest dangers are great enough to equal the danger of changing the public order," then the rule of law may have to be set aside to remedy the dangers (Rousseau 1953, 136). Therefore, the government must "increase the activity of the government" to counteract the issue, and Rousseau believes that "if the peril is such that the apparatus of law itself is an obstacle to security, then [the state] must appoint a supreme ruler who will silence the law" (Rousseau 1953, 137). This ruler's sole goal would be to see that "the state does not perish," and to do this the dictator will use their authority to ensure that "there is no doubt as to the general will" (Rousseau 1953, 137). The dictator will unify the government citizenry of the republic and enforce his will to save the state. However, the dictator must remove the people's voice in the assemblies and their say as to who will be legislators. They will curb the "long debates, dissensions, and tumult" which lead to the "decline of the state," effectively silencing dissenters and saving the state at the expense of the citizens' rights. Therefore, while Rousseau believes in the right to vote, he only believes that a citizen's vote should hold so much power. Furthermore, in some instances, these votes should hold no power, depending on the threats to the state and the form of government.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1953. Political Writings. Translated and edited by Frederick Watkins. The University of Wisconsin Press.
Watt, E. D. 1981. “Rousseau Réchaufée-Being Obliged, Consenting, Participating, and Obeying Only Oneself.” The Journal of Politics Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 707-719. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.furman.edu/stable/2130633?seq=13#metadata_info_tab_contents
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 2004. Emile. The Project Gutenberg EBook of Emile. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5427/5427-h/5427-h.htm#link2H_4_0002
Kantianism
Kant thought that citizens of a state could only be property-owning male or active members of society, and that they were the only individuals who could vote (Kant, 1991, p.27, para.1). With that in mind, as well as his hypothetical social contract theory, maintaining a just state under Kantianism seems unlikely. This is especially true when victims of the system, such as women, youth, the poor, minorities, and others, do not have a voice in what happens to them or their lives through voting and representation. Kant's system is geared on keeping the property owner and independent, while keeping the rest of society silent and dependent (Glawson, 2016). One might expect from this emphasis that Kant would insist that the proper political system is one that not only allows individuals to think for themselves about political issues, but also contains a mechanism such as voting to translate those well-reasoned opinions into government policy.
In his discussion in “Perpetual Peace” of the traditional division of the types of government Kant classifies governments in two dimensions. The first is the “form of sovereignty” (forma imperii), concerning who rules, and here Kant identifies the traditional three forms: autocracy, aristocracy, and democracy, “the power of a prince, the power of a nobility, and the power of the people” (Kant, 1991, p. 100). The second is the “form of government” (forma regiminis) concerning how those people rule, and here Kant offers a variation on the traditional good/bad dichotomy: either republican or despotic (Kant, 1991, p.101). The term ‘republican’ in Kant’s writings, “could be interpreted to represent what nowadays is generally called parliamentary democracy” (Kant, 1991, p.25, para.2). Despotism is defined as a state of unity in which the same ruler makes and enforces rules, thus transforming an individual's private will into the public will. Kant differentiates between a republicanism and despotism emphasizing that a ‘republican’ form of government is “where the executive is separated from the legislature, and the despotic, where it is not” (Kant, 1991, p.29, para.1)
Republics require representation to guarantee that the executive authority exclusively executes the will of the people by requiring the executive to enforce only laws enacted by representatives of the people, not the executive itself. However, a republic may function with just one lawmaker if other people serve as executives (Rauscher, 2016). Kant warns from the danger of a monarch becoming a tyrant. A monarch would enact laws in the name of the people, but the monarch's ministers would oversee enforcing them. Thus, like Rousseau, Kant is convinced that the adage of a republican government is the respect of law by the people and also by the ruler and the sovereign. (Kant, 1991, p.30, para.2). Kant's argument that such a government is republican demonstrates his belief that a republican government does not need real participation of the people in creating laws, even though elected representatives, as long as the laws are issued with the people's entire united will in mind.
When Kant addresses voting for representatives, he conforms to many of the time's prevalent biases. The right to vote necessitates, in Kant’s words, "being one's own master," (Kant, 1991, p.27), which entails owning property or having a talent that can sustain oneself. Kant classes those who are independent as ‘active’ citizens and those who are not as ‘passive’. He also excludes women from voting, claiming that “ [Women] are, on principle, disqualified. But any legislation should always be enacted and carried out as if the passive citizens too were participating” (Kant, 1991, p.27). His thesis is that these people are unsuitable to vote because they lack the ability to reason and have no free choice “being one’s own master” (Kant, 1991, p. 27). The mentally sick and the elderly who are unable to function are further instances of people who lack reason and are not their own masters. According to Kant, the presumption of being "one's own master" is essential for citizenship eligibility. For example, at least in Kant’s time, when a woman got married, her possessions became her husband's, and she is expected to completely rely on him, thus she does not own property and consequently excluded from voting (Glawson, 2017). To summarize, Kant did not believe that married women could be active members of a state or citizens since they are incompetent and dependent by their very nature as women (Glawson, 2017). Thus, Kant believes that just by adopting the people's point of view, a single individual or small group may properly represent the people at large. Insistence on a representative system is not the same as insisting on a representative system that is elected.
Regardless, Kant clearly believes that an elective representational democracy is preferable. Republican constitutions, he says, are more likely to prevent war because, when the people's permission is required, they will weigh the costs of war (fighting, taxes, property damage, and so on), but a non-republican ruler may be immune to such considerations. He also mentions in the "Doctrine of Right" that a republican government represents the people "by all the citizens united and acting via their delegates" (Rauscher, 2016).
References:
Glawson, J. D. (2017, November 24). Immanuel Kant on Suffrage: With a Libertarian Disagreement. Medium. https://medium.com/@JoshuaGlawson/immanuel-kant-on-suffrage-with-a-libertarian-disagreement-d6f149df3658
Kant, I. (1991). Kant: political writings. Cambridge University Press.
Rauscher, F. (2016, September 1). Kant's social and political philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/
German Idealism
Benthamite Utilitarianism
Millian Utilitarianism
Current Utilitarianism
Transcendentalism
Marxism
Early Sociology
Pragmatism
Weberian Thought
Weberian Thought (3.1.31) Through the democratic process in which citizens elect their representatives to government, Weberian Thought held the promise that it would be possible to rewrite the historically authoritarian regime of Prussia (Germany at Weber’s time) perpetuated by Junkers, wealthy conservative landowners, and monarchists before the war. (Maley, 2011, p.76). Weber envisioned his model as a counterpoint to both the left's Social Democrats and the right's monarchists and Junkers.
According to Weber, equal suffrage meant equal universal voting rights for working classes who had historically been barred from voting. In his writings on equal suffrage in modern citizenship, he clearly states that equal suffrage is “closely related to the equality of certain fates which the modern state as such creates” (Weber, 1994, p. 105). He explicitly focuses on returning soldiers’ rights, and argues that the equality of the modern state functions in the way that people are equal before death, because the “most basic needs [of physical existence] on the one hand and, on the other, that most solemn and lofty fact of all are encompassed by those equalities which the modern state offers all its citizens in a truly lasting and undoubted way: sheer physical security and the minimum for subsistence, but also the battlefield on which to die” (Weber, 1994, p.105, para.2)
Weber does not emphasize on women’s suffrage, he does, however, say that women should have the right to vote as long as “they too are ‘fighting’ the war if they do their duty” (Weber, 1994, p.78, line.14). Moreover, in “Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology”, Weber notes that “the woman is dependent because of the normal superiority of the physical and intellectual energies of the male” (Weber, 1978, p.1007). The Weberian Thought on voting was aiming to correct historical gender and class inequities or might at least mitigate the most severe exclusions of women, the urban working class, and the rural peasantry from power and government.
Weber's ideas for equal suffrage might be viewed as a partial erasing of historical discriminatory markings. Weber's suggestions have a deeper element to them than the more neutral sounding ‘counterweight’ to bureaucratic dominance (Weber, 1994, p.104). Equal suffrage emerged as a valuable counterbalance to both types of inequity. Weber saw that the inequities created by capitalism might be just as persistent as those created by prior, more feudal social systems. Against both, Weber advocated for a ‘positive politics’ in which “equal voting rights” means that the individual “is not considered in terms of the particular professional and family position he occupies, nor in relation to the differences of material and social situation, but purely and simply as a citizen” (Weber, 1994, p.103).
During the Russian revolution, enraged workers, students, and returning soldiers took to the streets in protest of the existing regime's ruler, Tsar Nicholas II, who had obstructed their enfranchisement and rights prior to the war and then ordered mass slaughter on the battlefield. Weber recognized their outrage at the collapsing regime, but he dismissed their demands for more revolutionary, far-reaching reform as immature. Although Weber understood the anger of Russian revolutionists against the crumbling regime, he saw it as immature and ‘childish’ (Maley, 2011, p. 99). Weber was concerned that under the Russian revolutionary circumstances of 1918–19, people would respond out of anger and rage, which would be doubly harmful. In “Parliament and Government in Germany under a New Political Order”, Weber had already wondered “whether such explosions unleash yet again the familiar and usual fear of the propertied classes; in other words, it depends on whether the emotional effect of undirected mass fury produces the equally emotional and equally undirected cowardice of the bourgeoisie” (Weber, 1994, p. 232)
In his wartime newspaper writings, Weber made a strategic case for the Social Democratic Party's participation as a disciplined working-class party. Though Weber considered the working class to be too “immature” to take on the role of a ruling class, he praised the discipline and self-control of the Social Democrats' political partners, the trade unions. He said approvingly that “organizations like the trade unions, but also the Social Democratic Party, create a very important counterbalance [not only against the right, but] to the rule of the street which is so typical of purely plebiscitary nations and so prone to momentary and irrational influences” (Weber, 1994, p. 231).
References:
Maley, T. (2011). Democracy and the Political. In Democracy & the Political in Max Weber's Thought (pp. 77-120). Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press. Retrieved July 16, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctt2ttgq2.7
Weber, M. (1994). Weber: Political Writings. United States: Cambridge University Press.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press.
Process Philosophy
Process philosophy is a philosophical tradition that describes reality as primarily being made up of processes or events, rather than objects (Rescher, 2000, pg. 4). This means that when we look at supposedly static objects in our world, we are actually seeing a constantly changing event or an action taking place, and things that seem like they are static are just processes that are relatively more stable than others. Nicholas Rescher describes the main claim succinctly: “Even on the surface of it, verbs have as good a claim to reality as nouns. For process theorists, becoming is no less important than being…The phenomenology of change is stressed precisely because the difference between a museum and the real world of an ever-changing nature is to be seen as crucial to our understanding of reality” (pg. 4).
While a political connection to Process Philosophy’s metaphysical and ontological claims seems far-fetched, Alfred North Whitehead—perhaps the most rigorous and defining theorist for Process Philosophy in the 20th century—claimed that the goal of philosophy is to “…voyage towards the larger generalities” of human life and behavior (Whitehead, 1979, pg. 94). This meaning that an understanding of the nature of reality will then give you access to insights of psychology, aesthetics, ethics, sociology, language, and virtually every other human enquiry and experience.
The majority of political history, static roles were assigned to rulers and their subjects. A king and his identity were stamped definitively, and this title was described as chosen by God; the king’s unchanging identity was a thing in the universe. The Process Philosophy critique of this type of conception is decidedly an aesthetic one: “People instinctively dislike being described in thing-classificatory terms…Such object-property attributions indicate a fixed nature that we naturally see as repugnant to ourselves” (pg. 14). This is to say, a political system which tries its hardest to stay the same and not go through changes in power and interactions goes against how reality is presented and organized to us, as well as what we value in ourselves and others.
With this analysis, the right to vote can clearly be understood. After thousands of years of static politics, people began to advocate for a political system which would better reflect the dynamism, novelty, and change seen in reality. The right to vote allows for processes like changes in leadership, as well as changes in the law and governance. Due to the ever-changing opinions and contexts that individuals go through, the right to vote allows for a reflection of this novelty. Such a system is empowering due to it allowing individuals to express themselves as ever changing processes themselves as opposed to static objects and it is metaphysically accurate according to our natures and the nature of reality. Also, it is telling that such political ideals came about during the Enlightenment, a period of time where understanding of the world without appeal to philosophical and religious tradition was given major emphasis. As we learned more about the world, we learned about the ideal political system.
Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism held that human life in society was a fight for survival guided by the principle of "survival of the fittest", proposed by British philosopher and scientist Herbert Spencer. In his later publications, Spencer's devotion to the right of universal suffrage waned. While he views universal suffrage in Social Statics (1851) as a reliable way of keeping government from overstepping its bounds in safeguarding moral rights, he concludes in Principles of Ethics that universal suffrage fails to do so successfully, and therefore abandons his support for it. He subsequently came to the conclusion that universal suffrage posed more of a danger to moral rights than it did to defend them (Spencer on Voting, 1879). Over-legislation was promoted by universal suffrage, especially when it was extended to women, as it allowed the government to take on tasks that were not its responsibility.
Spencer understood that liberalism's fundamental objective has never been to grant people the right to vote, but rather to limit government authority. In Social Statics (1981), he states that “The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of Parliaments” (Spencer, 1981, p. 166). The primary motivation for expanding suffrage is to limit or prevent the government's role from expanding. When this aim is challenged, the law of equal freedom may be jeopardized less by suffrage restrictions than by their removal, according to Social Statics (Miller, 1982, p. 492).
Spencer's work emphasizes the importance of changes in the pattern of interrelationships between the individual and the state in social evolution. The gradual decline of government's function in people's lives, according to Spencer, is the key to optimal social evolution in the future (Miller, 1982, p. 493). Before the publication of Social Statics in 1851, Spencer thought that universal suffrage would eliminate class legislation and protect the interests of the entire community. He even criticized the association of ignorance to the working class saying that “it is a great error to suppose that ignorance is peculiar to the unenfranchised.” (Spencer, 1851, p.232, para. 4). In 1860, Spencer emphasized once more that extending suffrage is only justifiable when it is utilized to preserve or extend individual liberty. However, he praised the suffrage expansion brought about by the Reform Bill of 1867, a good example of the triumph of feeling over intellect.
Spencer's views on women's suffrage are similar to his views on allowing workers to vote. Spencer calls for unlimited political equality for women in Social Statics (1851). He portrays women as being cognitively and physically inferior to men in this book, despite the fact that history shows that some women are equal to men in both regards. They have thrived as rulers, scientists, authors, and artists despite institutional constraints (Miller, 1982, p. 494). If many women are inferior, then many men are as well. In either case, the inferior should not be denied the chance to use the faculties they have. However, Spencer had concluded by 1892 that women could not be trusted with unfettered franchise. His rationale was that women are less capable of abstract thinking than males and are more influenced by emotional appeals. Spencer does not give explicit reasoning as to why this is the case. He simply notes in Social Statics (1851) that “[a woman’s] faculties are less powerful [..] because woman is mentally inferior to man she has less extensive rights, amount to ? Just this,--that because woman has weaker faculties than man, she ought not to have like liberty with him to exercise the faculties she has!” (Spencer, 1851, p.158). In addition, “A further difference between men and women is due to the fact that men are liable to military service for the defense of the country in time of war. Since this burden does not fall upon women, they are not entitled to the franchise, until a state of permanent peace has been attained” (Elliot, 2019, p. 205).
References:
Elliot, H., Williams, B. (2019). Makers of the Nineteenth Century Herbert Spencer. United States: Creative Media Partners, LLC.
Miller, W. (1982). HERBERT SPENCER'S DRIFT TO CONSERVATISM. History of Political Thought, 3(3), 483-497. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26212267
Spencer on voting as a poor instrument for protecting our rights to life, liberty, and property (1879). Online Library of Liberty. (n.d.). https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/spencer-on-voting-as-a-poor-instrument-for-protecting-our-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property-1879.
Spencer, H. (1851). Social Statics . Online Library of Liberty. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/spencer-social-statics-1851
Spencer, H. (1981). The Man versus the State, with Six Essays on Government, Society and Freedom (LF ed.). Online Library of Liberty. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/mack-the-man-versus-the-state-with-six-essays-on-government-society-and-freedom-lf-ed#Spencer_0020_330
British Idealism (19th cen.)
Continental Philosophy/Frankfurt School
Behaviorism
The understanding of how and why human beings act was and still is often described as a dualistic interaction between mind and body. Usually this is described in terms of feelings. We feel a certain way, and that feeling prompts us to act. We eat because we feel like eating. We attack others because we feel angry. This causal explanation for behavior is taken for granted, but in the 19th century, a group of psychologists believed that behavior could be studied, not as an effect of the non-observable, ethereal mind, but rather as the outcome of changes from the environment. This was behaviorism, and William Baum states: “the central idea in behaviorism can be stated simply: A science of behavior is possible” (Baum, 2017, pg. 3).
One of the most influential behaviorists, BF Skinner, was a radical behaviorist where instead of merely positing that only behavior could be objectively observed, went one step further in saying that all interior phenomena was a behavior like any other, and was subject to and created by the same environmental pressures as external behavior.
According to Skinner, all of our behavior and dispositions are determined by our environment. What we call freedom is merely the ability to free ourselves from “harmful contacts” (Skinner, 1971, pg. 32). Slavery is when we are unable to escape of avoid harm, and what Skinner calls the “literature of freedom”—philosophical and political traditions based around rights, emancipation, and the immorality of oppression—are merely ways to “..induce people to escape from or attack those who act to control them aversively” (pg. 35). The idea of freedom as an inherent right towards autonomy in one’s actions and beliefs is wholeheartedly rejected by Skinner, and instead is reduced to being able to do what one desires when the desire arises; a desire whose arising the individual has nothing to do with.
Dignity is an attribute that we use to describe someone’s character—character of course meaning a quality essential to someone’s internality, something that a radical behaviorist is very skeptical of. We do not respect someone’s action if it is done automatically, instead we value the individual who does a particular action despite whatever the environment compels them to do: “We give credit generosity when there are no obvious reasons for behaving differently…” (pg. 72). Our caring towards dignified action and character then reveals a blind spot that we have towards reality—if every behavior we do is determined and selected by the environment, no one deserves any credit towards their action, and no one is dignified for acting in a certain way.
Democracy and the right to vote for behaviorists like Skinner are then merely an expression of the fundamental biological mechanism of avoiding or escaping harmful contacts. If it weren’t for the aversive state of affairs that were present in the past, the right to vote would have never come about. Voting rights came about as a way to justify the public’s resistance to the restrictors, and this is in great contrast with the “literature of freedom’s” claim that the right to vote is a way to uphold god given rights. Voting, at base, was a way to control the behavior of those in power.
Feminist Thought
Postmodernism
Postmodernism evolved during the late 20th century in opposition to modernism and as a response to the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment encouraged a shift from intellectual dependence on the church and theology to a belief in a universal moral and intellectual historical experience legitimated by reason (Woods 1999, 227). Modernism supports the belief in this type of organization of knowledge and the human experience, suggesting that such reasoning would be unified by scientific thinking, teleology, and rationality. Modernism uses reason and scientific procedure to establish universal truths from which knowledge can be claimed and order established. The Enlightenment led to the spread of democratic values in the west, and likewise, influenced the creation of modern democratic institutions, a form of reason in practice (Gaete 1991, 149). An important change that stemmed from modernism and the Enlightenment was the acceptance of human rights as ethical truths. The statement, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations (United Nations 1948) was offered as a universal truth that would provide social order based on the objective reasoning suggested by modernism (Gaete 1991, 149). For example, from this claim, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could uphold that “The will of the people shall be the basis of authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be universal and equal in suffrage…” (United Nations 1948). From the acceptance of the initial statement of objective rights as a universal truth, equal political participation and voting rights could be theoretically promised.
The postmodern response to modernism reflects a difference in attitude, but does not imply that postmodernism will supersede modernism. In this way, postmodern thinking offers a critique of reason (Woods 1999, 9). According to Sabina Lovibond, “Postmodernism… rejects the doctrine of the unity of reason. It refuses to conceive of humanity as a unitary subject striving towards the goal of perfect coherence (in its common stock of beliefs) or of perfect cohesion and stability (in its political practice)” (Lovibond 1990). Modernism relies on metanarratives, an overarching pattern and interpretation of society, while postmodernism rejects this idea of an “all-encompassing rationality” (Woods 1990, 10).
There are two relevant points to consider regarding postmodernism in relation to voting rights. First off, postmodernists are largely opposed to the hierarchical structure of government and tend to question their trust in institutionalized government (Green & Roberts 2012, 85). Philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard who helped to formulate postmodernism suggests that postmodernists are suspicious of political narratives. Examples of such narratives include the idea of progress that is associated with the Enlightenment and ‘social liberation’ associated with Marxism. Lyotard refers to these types of narratives as “violent” and “tyrannical” for attempting to impose a universal pattern on human experience and knowledge. Instead, Lyotard believes knowledge can only be understood as partial and nonexclusive. According to Lyotard, “Scientists, technicians, and instruments are purchased not to find truth, but to augment power” (Lyotard 1997, 46). Postmodernists are opposed to this type of hierarchical structure, suggesting that older proponents of modernism were “being blind to the destructive and oppressive nature of all totalising ideologies” (Arslan 1999, 205). In terms of voting rights, this ‘totalising ideology’ may be the claim that voting rights provide the best method of citizen political participation. Postmodernists would instead suggest that the human experience is constantly changing and developing, so this ‘totalising ideology’ may not be all inclusive. While they may be in favor of voting rights in practice, they would reject the idea of voting rights and human rights as universal truths, suggesting that successful political commitments are not necessarily the result of institutional calls to universal truths, but rather of continued innovation (Woods 1999, 13).
The second point to consider with regard to voting rights is that postmodernists believe that the marginalized should be accounted for. Postmodernists suggest that meaning is constantly evolving and is contingent on situational factors and dependent on the interpreter. For the individual, postmodernism means liberation from fixed identities. Postmodernists do not believe that metanarratives can describe each individual, but rather believe that identity can be diverse despite sharing a common situation (Woods 1990, 44). They argue, “There must be an attempt to recoup the power of the individual to tell his or her narrative; that is, anti-foundationalism in this guise becomes the access to the control of one’s own politics” (Woods 1999, 21). One way to afford power to the individual may be by means of voting rights for all in order to provide representation for those who are otherwise marginalized and to account for the diverse individual human experience. Postmodernists do not think that minorities and all individuals are correctly represented by political metanarratives, and therefore, they would support representation for all by means of voting as a way to avoid the miscategorization of individuals into metanarratives. In fact, the feminist movement is an example of this type of resistance to popular culture, which has contributed to the spread of postmodernism (Woods 1999, 170).
Are there any philosophical or moral traditions that dispute the classification of this right as a fundamental right?
What do the major legal theories (positive law, natural law, critical legal studies, etc.) say about this right?
Natural Law:
Perceptions of voting as a right under natural law theory have evolved over time. In early natural law theory, the right to vote was not explicitly considered a necessary component of the fundamental goods on which rights and law are founded. Notably, suffrage was not an intrinsic element of Aquinas’s or philosopher John Finnis’s seven fundamental goods–“life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, friendship, practical reasonableness, and religion” (Britannica). While Aquinas posited that “the supreme power belongs to the multitude as a whole, or to that one who represents the multitude,” he never emphasized the importance of expressing the power of the multitude through voting, specifically (Shepard 1913, 114). Additionally in the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke finds that, while natural law and reason compel humans beings to create civil governments to protect their property and grant powers to sovereign individuals and institutions as a “common superior on earth to appeal to for relief,” widely-recognized suffrage is not a natural prerequisite for this tendency (Locke 1689, 15).
Over time, however, suffrage has received more consideration as intrinsic to natural law. Walter James Shepard describes this shift as part of the “theory of the early constitutional regime,” which moved beyond feudal interpretations of political representation and brought about the notion “that voting is an abstract right, founded in natural law, a consequence of the social compact, and an incident of popular sovereignty” (Shepard 1913, 108). The American Civil Rights Movement also brought about more explicit connections between the right to vote and natural law theory. Martin Luther King Jr., widely considered to have based his political philosophy on the tenets of natural law, often rhetorically framed the right to vote as part of the “eternal moral issue” of the Civil Rights Movement, stating that “the denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition” (King 1957). King’s commentary on de facto denial of African Americans’ right to vote echoes later writings by King that more explicitly outline the natural law tradition: “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (King 1963).
Legal Positivism:
Legal positivist interpretations of suffrage prioritize the systems that define, carry out, and protect suffrage and the voting process. Unlike natural law, the right to vote is not intimately connected or not connected to the pursuit of human goodness. Instead, it is a product of positive norms in a given society, and can be codified as a right as long as society and its legislators view it as something worth protecting. According to legal positivist H.L.A. Hart, the right to vote constitutes a “secondary rule”–a rule that regulates how laws in the conventional sense are “ascertained, introduced, eliminated” and enforced (Hart 1961, 92). Whereas “primary rules” control individual action such as speed limits, environmental regulations, or criminal law, the right to vote as a secondary rule regulates the process by which primary rules are created by incorporating some level of public input on who makes the law. Positivist Jeremy Waldron emphasizes the necessity of governmental and legal systems for suffrage, stating that “one has the right to vote only if one’s vote is counted and given effect in a system of collective decision that determines policy, leadership and authority” (Waldron 1999, 233). While positivists emphasize the importance of systems in the creation and validation of voting rights, voting as a right can also be conferred “as criteria of legal validity” in “conformity with moral principles or substantive values” (Hart 1961, 250). Waldron’s discussion of the inherent connection between individuals and the legal systems that dictate large parts of their lives serves as a positivist articulation of voting as a right: “since it is my duties (among others’) whose performance the state is orchestrating, I have a right to a say in the decision-mechanisms which control their orchestration” (Waldron 1998, 310).
Critical Legal Theory:
Some critical legal theorists maintain critiques against rights-based legal philosophies and methodologies altogether, including voting rights. These critiques include notions that rights-based legal thought “produces a kind of isolated individualism that hinders social solidarity and genuine human connection,” that “the use of rights discourse stunts human imagination and mystifies people about how law really works,” and that “legal rights are in fact indeterminate and incoherent” (Harvard). Drawing on historical precedent, critical legal theorists such as Robert Gordon argue that overreliance on rights-based legal strategy can make modest social gains for individuals, but simultaneously impose a limit on the extent to which individuals can make use of such rights and push back against entrenched power structures. Similarly, Cass Sunstein argues that the right to vote is not meaningfully enforced in the United States due to its strict limitation to the public sector:
“The legal system purports to promote democracy through protecting the right to vote and the traditional freedom of expression; but those rights do not allow for democracy in the private sector, where critical decisions are also made. By safeguarding rights in the public arena and ignoring the private sphere, the legal system has eroded rather than promoted democracy” (Sunstein 1983, 128).
Under this framework, limiting suffrage to a matter of individual rights imposes unnecessary restrictions on when and where it can be enforced.
Not all critical legal theorists agree with the rejection of rights-based frameworks for suffrage. Critical race theorists such as Kimberle Crenshaw believe that “rights can be defended and reconstructed; the critique of rights neglects the historical potential of rights in the real lives of people of color and women” (Harvard). Framing voting as a right can also empower marginalized groups and mobilize individuals to push back against the existing legal status quo:
“The vast majority are able to sustain a ‘dual consciousness’ – recognizing and capitalizing on the revolutionary potential of legal rights while remaining skeptical of the overall social and political order in which rights are currently embedded” (Harvard). While there is broad consensus in critical legal theory that existing legal systems favor historically dominant hierarchies and do not equally protect all citizens’ ability to vote, there is ongoing debate as to whether framing the issue as a matter of voting “rights” is the best course of action.
Culture and Politics
Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively
Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)?
Is there general and widespread belief that this right is a fundamental right that should generally be protected (and that exceptions should be rare)?
For several decades, the right to vote has been widely recognized as fundamental to fair, participatory government by a wide variety of international organizations and individual nations. The most prominent example comes from the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, which recognized that “every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity...to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors” (UN General Assembly 1966). Regional organizations such as the OAS, OSCE, EU, and African Union also hold provisions emphasizing the importance of maintaining equal access to voting among their member nations (University of Minnesota, 2003). In addition to international decrees and declarations identifying the importance of suffrage, international election monitoring and observation bodies exist around the world to protect citizens’ ability to vote and analyze countries’ electoral processes. There is strong global consensus that voting rights ought to be protected and are an essential element of successful representative democracies.
In an American context, the United States Constitution explicitly protects citizens’ right to vote in Section II of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, Nineteenth Amendment, and Twenty-Fourth Amendment. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its subsequent amendments also describe the right to vote as an “inherent constitutional right” (H.R. 4249, 91st Congress 1970). Additionally, prominent Supreme Court cases concerning voting rights such as, Reynolds v. Sims (1964), Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), and Kramer v. Union Free School District (1969) convey the fundamental nature of suffrage, pushing back against previous interpretations by the Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) that “the Constitution...does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one” (Supreme Court of the US 1875) and even older perceptions of voting as a privilege that had to be earned through societal metrics such as property ownership (Behrens 2004, 232). In Reynolds, the Court established that:
"Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."
Harper concerned the constitutionality of poll taxes, and the Court reasoned that “wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned” (Supreme Court of the US 1966). Kramer similarly outlined that “any unjustified discrimination in determining who may participate in political affairs or in the selection of public officials undermines the legitimacy of representative government” (Supreme Court of the US 1969). Both majority opinions in Reynolds and Harper also relied upon previous rationale established in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) that “though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless [the right to vote] is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights” (Supreme Court of the US 1886).
In spite of these general beliefs legal precedent, certain members of society are still excluded from this fundamental right for reasons that are widely debated. Citizenship, for example, is often a requirement for suffrage. However, some countries, including certain local governments in the United States, allow noncitizens to vote in local elections after they have met certain residency requirements (Earnest). Felons are also often restricted from voting. In most countries with restrictions on felon voting, these penalties only take place when individuals are serving their prison sentence. In the United States, however, felon voting policy, like nearly all electoral policy, is a state decision, and half of all states prohibit felons from voting until the completion of parole and probation, including nine states that prohibit it even after parole and probation (ProCon). Restrictive felon voting policies are indicative to some experts that the United States has “failed to give the right to vote its true status as a fundamental right” (Behrens 275).
In addition to the explicit prohibition of certain individuals from voting, unequal access to voting precincts and absentee drop-off locations as well as reduced voting hours and early voting periods also undermine the extent to which voting rights are protected around the world. Beyond restrictions of where citizens can vote, more explicit voter intimidation and election-related violence are employed even in countries that have signed on to international agreements outlining the importance of voting rights. Partisan gerrymandering, which the Supreme Court has defined as federally “nonjusticiable” in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), also dilutes the impact of certain citizens’ votes, undermining their ability to meaningfully exercise suffrage (Supreme Court of the US 2019).
Additionally, policies implemented to address voter fraud such as voter identification can also limit overall voting access. Critics of voter identification argue that requiring an often-times narrow list of permissible forms of identification puts an undue burden on citizens who are less likely to possess valid identification and constitute a more discrete form of a “poll tax” (Nackenoff). Voter ID cases are often analyzed on a case-by-case basis, as outlined in Crawford v. Marion County (2008), with states’ individual histories of voting discrimination, prevalence of voter fraud–or in many cases “perceptions” of fraud or a lack of “voter confidence”–and evidence indicating deliberate discriminatory intent all playing a role in determining whether or not voter identification satisfies a legitimate government interest (Tokaji).
Does public polling reveal insights about the right as experienced in different countries?
Electoral Rights and Europe
Being a part of the European Union, a citizen of a European country has electoral power in European, national, regional, and municipal levels, though that can bring confusion as to whether or not a European citizen can participate in all of the elections of a particular EU country. EU citizens can vote for European Parliament and municipal elections in any EU country that they live in, though they cannot vote in elections for national parliament nor in regional elections ('Flash Eurobarometer 485 - European Union Citizenship and Democracy', 2020, p. 3).
According to the Flash Eurobarometer 485 of July 2020, 71% European citizens were aware that a citizen of the EU that lives in their country has the right to vote for European Parliament (p. 5). 53% correctly stated that it is false that EU citizens living in their country can vote for national elections. A similar fifty percent split was found with European citizen’s belief of whether other EU citizens not from their country could vote for municipal and regional elections (p. 5).
This data implies that most Europeans recognize their own and others’ right to vote, and that their voting is done in conjunction with European voters from different countries and cultures. This creates an experience of voting that is decidedly international, both in the power that a European has with their vote and also the effects they feel from the votes of others. Voting power is much more expansive than just their own locality, and is instead affecting a much larger trans-national federation.
Later in the report, it shows that 63% of Europeans believe that a citizen of the US is justified in having the right to vote in the national elections of the country that the foreign citizen resides in (p. 6). The countries with the highest number of citizens who thought it justified was Ireland with 77% and Portugal with 74%. The lowest was Denmark with 40% and Sweden with 35%.
With the countries with more citizens that believe it is justified like Portugal and Ireland, the data implies that the right to vote should be expansive and farther reaching, with less importance placed on nationality and more on where someone lives. Moreover, the citizen’s desire for a wider net of participation implies an experience of voting that is too restricted, and far away from being universal.
With countries on the lower end with citizens that believe it to not be justified like Denmark and Sweden, the data implies that their conception of the right to vote is one that should be kept close with the ethnic and cultural natives of the country. The electoral net is too wide, and there would be a greater benefit if voting access were to be restrained and more controlled. This is further supported by the report later on which states that 49% of Danes and 56% of Swedes (the highest percentage) believe that European citizens should only vote in their country of origin (p. 21).
Encouraging Others to Vote
The World Values Survey in their 2020 report asked more than 70,000 citizens from 50 countries about what political activism they would consider taking, particularly whether they would encourage others they know to vote in an election.
The results:
- 22% said they have encouraged others to vote
- 26% said they might encourage others to vote
- 48% said they would never encourage others to vote ('World Values Survey Wave 7', 2017, p. 333).
The countries with the highest percentage of those that have encouraged others were Germany with 64%, the United States with 63%, and New Zealand with 62%. The countries with the highest percentage of those that would never encourage others were Myanmar with 79%, Ethiopia and Kyrgyzstan with 76%, and Jordan with 69% (p. 333).
For the countries like Germany and New Zealand with a high percentage of vote encouragers, the act of voting is likely experienced as an important, effective, and social phenomenon where political accomplishments can be reached if there is enough support. Voting is a statement made about the beliefs a citizen has over the contemporary political process, and pride is taken in its expression and public participation. The right to vote is something citizens should both have and take advantage of.
For the countries like Myanmar and Ethiopia with a high percentage of “never encourage” voters, their experience of voting is likely one where voting is unimportant and ineffective, and as a result is either a private or non-existent affair. Likely, the experience of voting is one of pessimism and disillusionment. The political goals of the public are not taken into account and the act of voting is political theater. On the other hand, it is possible also that voting is actively discouraged in these countries in order to uphold the current status quo, and in that case the right to vote is seen as a threat to established power.