CC BY
88
М. Рачвал
ЯВКА ИЗБИРАТЕЛЕЙ И КАЧЕСТВО ДЕМОКРАТИЧЕСКОЙ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ СИСТЕМЫ
M. Rachwal
VOTER TURNOUT AND THE QUALITY OF DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SYSTEM
Аннотация
Явка избирателей является важным показателем качества демократии, однако, не надо судить о состоянии той же политической системы только через призму участия в выборах. Демократическое государство может нормально функционировать и развиваться, даже если многие граждане не участвуют в выборах. В Швейцарии, явка избирателей в период (1945-2013) выросла на 27 процентных пунктов ниже, чем в среднем по 15 государствам-членам Европейского союза (исследованы были страны Европейского Союза до 2004 года), но качество демократии в Швейцарии было очень высоким - 4 место в мире в 2013 году (рейтинг The Democracy Ranking Association - Вена). Таким образом, подтверждается тезис, что демократическая политическая система может быть оценена очень высоко с точки зрения его качества, хотя большая часть населения не участвует в выборах. В этой связи анализируется зависимость явки избирателей и качество демократии.
Ключевые слова :
политическая система, демократия, избирательное право, явка избирателей, качество демократии, государства-члены Европейского Союза, Швейцария.
Abstract
Voter turnout is an important coefficient which signifies quality of democracy. However, the condition of a given political system should not be judged from the angle of electoral participation. A democratic state can function and develop normally, even though many citizens refuse to participate in elections. In Switzerland, the voter turnout for the 1945-2013 research period was lower by 27 per cent than the average turnout of 15 member states of the European Union (the research focused only on the states which had been the EU members before 2004). Yet, the quality of Swiss democracy was very high: ranked in the 4th place world-wide according to the ranking of 2013 developed by The Democracy Ranking Association from Vienna. As a consequence, it can be confirmed that a democratic political system might be highly appraised in terms of its quality, even though a considerable part of citizens do not participate in elections.
Key words:
political system, democracy, general election, voter turnout, quality of democracy, European Union member states, Switzerland.
Participation in elections is one of the most important decisions that manifest civil involvement in a democratic state. Prior to a public election, journalists, politicians and scientists always ponder over possible winners and the voter turnout. The level of electoral participation is often considered the indication of democratic quality. According to this assumption, a high voter turnout denotes that a given state's democracy is in good condi-
tion, while a low participation should be the sign of a crisis. Is the assumption correct? This article is an attempt to explore the aforementioned thesis in greater detail.
The research employed data on voter turnout collected during elections to national parliaments which took place between the years 1945 and 2013. The analysis focused on 16 countries, i.e. 15 member states of the European Union, which belonged to the EU before 2004, and Switzerland. The fundamental source of information about voter turnouts was the data collected by The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA).
At the outset, the current author has formulated an assumption that voter turnout is an important coefficient which signifies the quality of democracy; however, the condition of a given political system should not be judged from the angle of electoral participation. A democratic state can function and develop normally, even though many citizens refuse to participate in elections.
For the purpose of this work, it was a need to provide definitions for two notions (i.e. "voter turnout" and "quality of democracy"). The voter turnout is a proportion of eligible voters who actually cast their votes during elections. Undoubtedly, it is an indication of citizen's political involvement that reflects public feelings, level of social consciousness as well as confidence in the political elite and election procedures.
Special attention should be paid to the term "quality of democracy" because it is crucial in the context of current considerations. In the contemporary world, (a) democracy begins to denote more than just a feature of political way to organize a society; (b) in the end, quality of democracy is considered to be equivalent to the quality of social life considered as a whole; (c) appraisal of quality of democracy understood in such a way needs to take notice of social inequalities; (d) as a result, it is impossible to reach a high-quality democracy without a considerable range of social equality (10, p. 9).
Many of currently advocated models for the quality of democracy, which form the basis for numerous indices, extend clearly beyond the narrow, politological definition and they identify social and economic dimensions as direct factors that determine the quality of democracy (10, p. 13). As far as the above perspective is concerned, a high-quality democracy in the reality of severe social inequalities seems to be not possible, even if all procedural requirements for democratic political system have been met.
This article employs a rating for quality of democracy which has been developed by The Democracy Ranking Association seated in Vienna. The Democracy Ranking initiative applies the following conceptual formula for defining democracy and measuring the quality of democracy: Quality of
Democracy = (freedom & other characteristics of the political system) & (performance of the non-political dimensions).
The Democracy Ranking model refers to one political dimension and five non-political dimensions, which are:
- Gender (socio-economic and educational gender equality);
- Economy (economic system);
- Knowledge (knowledge-based information society, research and education);
- Health (health status and health system);
- Environment (environmental sustainability).
The Democracy Ranking aggregates the following dimensions with the following weights:
- Politics (50%);
- Gender (10%);
- Economy (10%);
- Knowledge (10%);
- Health (10%);
- Environment (10%).
Further part of this article presents general considerations on the citizen's impact on functioning of contemporary democratic states. It is followed by an analysis of the term "voter turnout", conducted within 15 member states of the European Union and Switzerland. Issues connected with the researches on the quality of democracy are discussed in subsequent section. The considerations conclude with an excerpt from the work on relations between voter turnout and quality of democracy.
Citizens' participation in functioning of contemporary democratic states
Taking into account the criterion of a manner of executing power by the sovereign, the contemporary democracy can be divided into two types: direct democracy and indirect democracy. However, it is worth remembering than some authors distinguish a semi-direct democracy as well (20, p. 16). In the case of direct democracy, decisions are made by the sovereign. As a consequence, political decisions are not made by duly elected representatives, but rather by citizens themselves. Contemporary states are often characterized by the following forms of direct democracy: people's assembly, referendum, plebiscite, popular initiative, people's veto, public consultation, recall, participatory budgeting. On the other hand, indirect democracy, which prevails in the contemporary world, consists in executing power through representatives who have been selected in an election. In such a system, the role of citizens eventually comes down just to the election of representatives. As M. Hansen aptly stated, "in direct de-
mocracy people are the sole ruler, that is they can participate in decisionmaking processes; in the remaining forms of democracy, however, the only decision which can be made by each person is the election of those, who make the decisions" (6, p. 19).
Hence, in contemporary democratic states elections can be regarded as a very important event because once per couple of years they provide citizens an opportunity to influence a political system. Thanks to the periodical and competitive nature of elections, citizens can point at political parties which will then create a government and define their key policy conditions for the next several years. In order to create a government it is generally required to secure absolute majority of votes in a parliament, which of course strictly depends on the ability to convince the electorate to the party's platform or, rather, the party's marketing strategy (14).
As far as constitutional tradition in Europe is concerned, the parliament is responsible for making a decision to legitimate its authority because its composition has been appointed in free and competitive elections (12, p. 27). As a consequence, a high voter turnout is desirable because it enables the representation organ to invoke its social mandate to make key decisions, including the decisions on introducing new laws. Taking into account the above conditions, it cannot be surprising that decreasing electoral participation arises anxieties about the legitimacy of authorities. As Ola Pettersson stated, "increasingly less citizens appear at ballot boxes" (15, p. 3). A decrease in participation "proceeded quite slowly until the 1990s; since that time the decrease pace has significantly accelerated and the downward trend still continues" (15, p. 5; 19, pp. 44-45).
Voter turnout in the pre-2004 European Union member states
Table 1 presents data on voter turnouts, which have been recorded during elections to national parliaments in the members states of the European Union. The data concerns the years 1945-2013 and it illustrates trends within the space of almost 70 years. Each of the 15 countries, which had been the member states of the EU before 2004, provided information about the number of elections which took place within the period covered by the research. The provided information included also the minimum and maximum turnout values for parliamentary elections, while the last column includes data on average turnout values.
Table 1. Voter turnout in parliamentary elections in the pre-2004 EU member states, 1945-2013
Figures are percentages of the registered electorate
Number of elections Minimum Maximum Average
Belgium (CV*) 21 89.2 95.1 92.3
Luxembourg (CV*) 15 86.5 92.7 90.0
Austria 21 74.9 96.8 89.0
Italy CV* 1946-1992 Non-CV* 1994- 18 75.2 93.9 88.1
87.4 93.9 91.4
75.2 86.1 81.6
Denmark 25 80.8 89.3 86.2
Sweden 20 77.4 91.8 85.4
Netherlands CV* 1945-67 Non-CV* 1971- 21 73.2 95.6 85.2
93.1 95.6 94.7
73.2 88.0 80.4
Germany 1949-87 1990 (reunification) 18 70.8 91.1 83.1
78.5 91.1 87.0
70.8 82.2 76.9
Greece (CV*) 19 62.5 84.5 77.8
Finland 19 65.0 85.1 74.4
United Kingdom 17 59.4 83.6 74.0
Spain 11 68.1 79.8 73.5
France 18 55.4 82.7 72.9
Portugal 14 58.0 91.7 72.5
Ireland 18 62.6 76.9 72.1
EU countries 275 55.4 96.8 81.7
*CV - Compulsory voting
Own study based on: International IDEA, Voter Turnout, http://www.idea.int/vt/index.cfm (accessed: 18.03.2014); Voter Turnout since 1945. A Global Report, Stockholm: International IDEA 2002.
In parliamentary elections from 1945 to 2013, the average turnout in the pre-2004 EU member countries has been 81.7 per cent of the registered electorate. In short, an overwhelming majority of citizens have voted in a majority of the elections in which they are eligible to vote (18, p. 18).
Belgium has consistently had a high turnout - in the 21 elections to the national Parliament from 1945 to 2013 an average of 92.3 per cent of the electorate participated, and turnout has never dropped below 89 per cent. In Luxembourg, Austria and Italy, almost ninety per cent of electors have usually voted. At the other end of the continuum, turnout averages 72.1 per cent in Ireland, and below 75 per cent in Portugal, France, Spain, United Kingdom and Finland. Even here, however, to describe turnout as 'low' in a country in which three out of four voters participate in elections is misleading; it would be more accurate to describe turnout as 'less high' or simply as below the EU average (18, p. 18).
In nine of the 15 EU countries, average voter turnout in more than half a century has always been 75 per cent or higher. Only five times in 275 national parliamentary elections has turnout dropped below 60 per cent of the registered electorate; this happened in the UK (2001), in France (2007, 2012) and Portugal (2009, 2011).
Changes in the rules for conducting elections or governing can affect average turnout. Since the Netherlands in 1967 repealed a law making it compulsory for registered electors to vote, turnout has fallen by an average of 14.3 percentage points. The same situation was in Italy after abolished compulsory voting.
From the end of the Second World War until 1959, turnout in the states that were EU members before 2004 averaged 84.7 per cent. In the period of economic boom between 1960 and 1973, turnout was virtually the same, 85.6 per cent. When economic conditions soured due to oil price rises, world recession and inflation, turnout was hardly affected; it averaged 83.9 per cent between 1974 and 1987 (18, p. 19). Turnout has only shown signs of falling since 1988, averaging 76.7 per cent since then (1988-2013). It is worth noting that in recent 25 years there is a marked decline in voter turnout.
Explanations of voter turnout in EU member countries
Political scientists have formulated several hypotheses which concern voter turnout. Election turnout will be higher if members of parliament (MPs) are elected by proportional representation (PR). In this type of elections every vote can helps the voters' choice get into the parliament. By contrast, in first-past-the-post elections, the winner needs just a plurality of the vote, thus causing many votes to be 'wasted'. Proportional representation tends to increase turnout by 9 to 12 percentage points (1, p. 167181). 'The reasons are that voters have more choices, that there is less of a wasted-vote problem, and, most important, that parties have stronger incentives to mobilize voters in areas where they are weak' (7, p. 6). Of the 15 EU member countries before 2004, eleven have a PR electoral system
and two (the UK and France) do not. Germany and Italy have mixed member proportional (MMP) systems.
Making voting compulsory ought to make turnout higher than it is in countries where it is voluntary (18, p. 20). In comparative multivariate analyses, compulsory voting has been found to rise turnout by 7 to 16 percentage points (8, p. 8). However, the obligation to vote usually involves 'soft compulsion', for penalties can be light or not enforced . Moreover, even if voting is voluntary, many electors may have internalized cultural norms of civic participation, thus reducing the impact of compulsion. Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece have consistently sought to make voting compulsory; the Netherlands had compulsory voting up to and including the 1967 election (11, p. 9-10). In this country, a large downward trend in turnout took place following the abolition of compulsory voting in 1967. In Italy voting was compulsory until 1992.
Where citizens have lived all their lives in a democratic system turnout is higher than in new democracies such as Spain, Portugal and Greece (18, p. 21). Calling elections on a rest day also raises turnout (5, p. 226230). If an election is held on a Saturday or Sunday, or election day is a public holiday, the free time in which employed electors can vote is greatly increased. At least one day of voting is a rest day in nine pre-2004 EU countries - Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Sweden. In the other six, employed electors are expected to make time to vote in addition to meeting their workday obligations (18, p. 20).
Voter turnout in Switzerland
Switzerland is famous for its many referendums and for this form of direct democracy, but its voter turnout is the lowest in Western Europe and one of the lowest in the world. The average turnout at parliamentary elections in Switzerland was almost 55 per cent in the years 1947-2011. From a turnout of almost 72 per cent in 1947, the lowest ever - 42 per cent - was recorded in 1995, and at the most recent parliamentary election, in 2011, it was approximately 49 per cent. The trend is clearly declining: every decade since the 1940s, turnout has fallen by a few percentage points. Only during last three elections (2003, 2007, 2011) voter turnout was a little higher.
PolitBook - 2014 - 1 Figure 1. Voter turnout in Switzerland, 1947-2011
Own study based on: International IDEA, Voter Turnout, http://www.idea.int/vt/index.cfm (accessed: 18.07.2014).
Compulsory voting was formerly practiced in Switzerland. Once it was abolished, a few cantons decided to continue this practice but today only the canton of Schaffhausen has compulsory voting (as it has had since 1904).
Why voter turnout in Switzerland is low? I think that we can formulate at least three hypotheses:
- According to citizens, economic and political situation in state is correct so there are not reasons to vote and change situation;
- Citizens can change political decisions between elections thanks of large part of direct democracy. In another country electors usually can only vote and make decision in elections; in Switzerland citizens still have power and control over undertaking decision. So the parliamentary elections are one of many voting only.
- Turnout is seriously depressed by having very frequent elections. This factor can account for the low turnout in Switzerland, where there are 6 to 7 voting days per year (7, p. 6).
The quality of democracy
The Democracy Ranking which is made by The Democracy Ranking Association refers to countries with a population of one million or more and that are classified by Freedom House as "free" or at least as "partly free" .
For the recently published Democracy Ranking 2013 a total of 115 countries have been evaluated using a scientifically valid and multidimensional approach that integrates political and non-political aspects of society, such as freedom, gender, economy, knowledge, health, and the environment (Progress...).
Quality of democracy is best in Europe. Nine of the Top-Ten-states are located there. Again, the Scandinavian model scored highest. Below is presented ten countries with the highest quality of democracy:
1. Norway (88.3 points);
2. Sweden (87.0);
3. Finland (86.7);
4. Switzerland (85.9);
5. Denmark (84.4);
6. Netherlands (83.5);
7. Germany (82.2);
8. New Zealand (81.5);
9. Austria (81.2);
10. Belgium (81.1).
Table 2 presents the quality of democracy rating for the countries which have been analysed in the current study . Information included in the table reflects the rating of a given country as well as an overall score for the years 2008-2009 and 2011-2012. What is more, the last column illustrates changes in the ranking.
Table 2. Democracy Ranking 2013 (Scores)
Rank Country Total Score Total Score Rank Change
2011-2012 2008-2009 2011-2012 Loss/gain
2 Sweden 86.9 87.0 0
3 Finland 86.0 86.7 0
4 Switzerland 84.9 85.9 0
5 Denmark 83.9 84.4 0
6 Netherlands 82.9 83.5 0
7 Germany 81.1 82.2 + 2
9 Austria 79.7 81.2 +4
10 Belgium 79.1 81.1 +4
11 Ireland 81.4 80.9 -3
14 United Kingdom 80.1 79.9 -4
16 France 77.2 78.2 + 1
17 Spain 77.9 76.9 -1
18 Portugal 75.3 75.7 0
29 Italy 71.8 71.2 -3
37 Greece 69.9 67.5 -4
Source: D.F.J. Campbell, P. Polzlbauer, T.D. Barth, G. Polzlbauer, Democracy Ranking 2013 (Scores), Vienna 2013.
Conclusion
Quality of democracy requires analyses that extend beyond purely procedural and electoral aspects. However, the analyses cannot be comprehensive without paying attention to the quality of social life considered as a whole. Apart from the features of a political system, the rating for quality of democracy, which has been employed in this study, takes notice of 5 other factors, such as: gender, economy, knowledge, health and environment.
The conducted research allowed verifying the assumption that voter turnout is an important coefficient which signifies the quality of democracy. However, the condition of a particular political system should not be judged from the angle of electoral participation. A democratic state can function and develop normally, even though many citizens refuse to participate in elections. Switzerland is a very good example of a country that substantiates the research assumption. In this country, voter turnout ranks among the lowest world-wide and it is significantly lower than voter turnouts of the other EU member states covered by the research (average voter turnout for the EU member states amounted to almost 82 per cent, while in Switzerland it was just 55 per cent). Nevertheless, in the ranking of the quality of democracy developed by The Democracy Ranking Association, Switzerland took the very high 4th place, just after Norway, Sweden and Finland. It is worth noticing here that Finland was also highly appraised in terms of the quality of democracy (the 3rd place world-wide), even though the voter turnout rate of this country was over 7 per cent lower than the average rate of the EU member states considered in the research.
Hence, the voter turnout in Switzerland during the analysed period was lower by 27 per cent than the average voter turnout of the 15 member states of the European Union. Yet, the quality of Swiss democracy is very high. Dominant part of the Swiss citizens does not participate in elections because it favourably appraises the social and political system and does not see any reason for thorough reforms. What is more, it is worth remembering that direct democracy mechanisms play a great role in this country, allowing Swiss citizens to influence on decision-making process at any moment. Therefore, it can be confirmed that a democratic political system might be highly appraised in terms of its quality, even though a considerable part of the citizens does not participate in elections.
References
1. Blais A., Carty R.K. Does proportional representation foster voter turnout? European Journal of Political Research. 1990. Vol. 18, Issue 2.
2. Campbell D.F.J. The Basic Concept for the Democracy Ranking of the Quality of Democracy, Vienna: Democracy Ranking. 2008.
3. Campbell D.F.J., Polzlbauer P., Barth T.D., Polzlbauer G. Democracy Ranking 2013 (Scores), Vienna. 2013.
4. Feasibility Study for a Quality Ranking of Democracies, D.F.J. Campbell and M. Sukosd (editors), Vienna. 2002.
5. Franklin M.N. Electoral Participation, in: Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective, Laurence LeDuc, Richard G. Niemi, and Pippa Norris (editors), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 1996.
6. Hansen M.H. Demokracja atenska w czasach Demostenesa. Struktura, zasady i ideologia, Warszawa. 1999.
7. International IDEA, Voter Turnout. URL: http://www.idea.int/ vt/index.cfm (accessed: 18.03.2014)
8. Lijphart A. Unequal participation: democracy's unresolved dilemma. The American Political Science Review. 1997. Vol. 91. №1.
9. Lijphart A. The problem of low and unequal voter turnout - and what we can do about it, „Reihe Politikwissenschaft. Political Science Series. 1998. №54.
10. Mach B.W. Jakosc demokracji a struktura spoteczna: uwagi koncepcy-jne i ilustracje empiryczne, in: Jakosc naszej demokracji. Spoteczno-kulturowe podstawy polskiego zycia publicznego, B.W. Mach (editor), Warszawa. 2012.
11. Malkopoulou A. Lost Voters: Participation in EU elections and the case for compulsory voting. Centre For European Policy Studies Working Document. 2009. №317/July.
12. Marszatek-Kawa J. Parlament Europejski a parlamenty narodowe, in: Integracja europejska na pocz^tku XXI wieku. Wybrane problemy, R. Fiedler (editor), Poznan. 2004.
13. Methodology and Types of Electoral System, in: Voter Turnout in Western Europe since 1945, Stockholm: International IDEA. 2004.
14. Ossowski S. W kierunku urynkowienia. Zagrozenia dla liberalnej demokracji w Polsce, Poznan. 2011.
15. Pettersson O. Rola instytucji publicznych i organizacji pozarz^dowych w przekazywaniu obywatelom informacji o wyborach - przyktady dziatan z roznych krajow, Warszawa. 2009.
16. Progress in world's democratic quality: Democracy Ranking 2013, Vienna 2013, http://democracyranking.org/wordpress/ranking/2013/data/ Press-Release_Democracy%20Ranking%20v10.12.2013-2013%2012%2012-FINAL%20a4.pdf (accessed: 16.03.2014).
17. Puddington A., Freedom in the World 2013. Democratic Breakthroughs in the Balance, http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/ FIW%202013%200verview%20Essay%20for%20Web.pdf (accessed: 17.03.2014).
18. Rose R. Voter Turnout in the European Union member countries, in: Voter Turnout in Western Europe since 1945, Stockholm: International IDEA. 2004.
19. Russel R.J. Citizen politics: public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies, New Jersey. 1996.
20. Uzi^bto P. Inicjatywa ustawodawcza obywateli w Polsce na tle rozwi-^zan ustrojowych panstw obcych, Warszawa. 2006.
21. Voter Turnout since 1945. A Global Report, Stockholm: International IDEA. 2002.
