One of the quirks of the English language will surely raise its head when those that choose to do so exercise universal suffrage today. While the word has come to be known as “election” it didn’t originate as such, referring to a series of intercession petitions pronounced by a priest to be commented on by the community as laid out in the Book of Common prayer. In essence, it was about one man’s decision, or rather interpretation, as to what was good.
What worked at the time gave way to newer thinking given the corruption that entered the Church during medieval times requiring acceptance from the vox populi. The same corruption was as existent in other religions leading to off-shoots and the inevitable misinterpretation causing blood-spilt controversy and conflict. The most well known tug of war between royalty and religion is well documented.
The philosophies of non-conformists, non-believers, and existentialists exacerbated the issue till political thinkers came up with the “isms” which we are landed up with today. None of them are wholesome in delivering the cliched terms of equality, fraternity, or even fair-play in legality. The most sellable of all “isms” has been democracy except, in the last century or so, critical elements have been deviously carved out of the body-politick.
Universal suffrage is just one of the terms that is next on the guillotine. Those that choose to turn up to vote in today’s polls will be tasked with clearing yet another figment of confusion. Up until recently it had been about the raison d'etre of political parties. That followed closely by selection of candidates supposed to represent constituents, ones that had been in-sight and with the local voters when they were needed and even when not. Individuals of that ilk, ones that have had empathy and bonding, those that understood the pulse of the people, were spoken of in hushed reverence.
They aren’t talked about today even in the dustiest of remotes, and if at all in half-filled air-conditioned hall rooms and not under a banyan tree in a popular village market or local institution. Those that speak of the illustrious don’t really know what made them tick, why they did what they did or even list their achievements large or small.
It’s no longer about individuals but parties and symbols. The newest phase is getting party loyalists to contest against each other. With money and muscle-power holding sway over ideology and belief that there’s a new equation at play. Previously it had been about convincing voters to a particular candidate’s thoughts and pledges. It’s now about begging and, yes, cajoling the electorate to turn up. With no defined number as to what turn-out is a must it seems somewhat of a diluted argument. By-elections with very low votes cast have happened, were accepted, and left unchallenged.
Added to the confusion is the preference of a broadside launched against an opposition that has chosen to stay away from the polls rather than extolling the admirable achievements of the party in power. The leadership’s candidness in stating that mistakes made will be corrected is far-sighted and courageous -- it is also a calculated savviness. That these aren’t being eschewed by party nominees in their constituencies is astonishing. It was incumbent on them to spell out the mistakes and their impact on citizens with clear-cut narratives of how matters will change.
The seat-sharing philosophy with parties contesting is another spanner in the works when it comes to voters -- they are facing the prospect of having to vote on dictates rather than personal preference. If even 10% of a politician's commitments lies with the community they represent, who they know and who knows of them matters. That is where universal suffrage begins to wither.
Mahmudur Rahman is a writer, columnist, broadcaster, and communications specialist.