Boycott or Ballot? The Dangers of Abstention in the Bihar Assembly Elections
Introduction
Democracy thrives on participation. At its heart lies the belief that citizens are not only entitled to a voice but also bear the responsibility of exercising it. Elections represent the most visible and potent expression of that voice. Against this backdrop, calls for boycotting the upcoming Bihar assembly elections, in protest of the recent electoral roll revision conducted via the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, have sparked a fierce debate across the nation.
Former Chief Election Commissioner S. Y. Quraishi, in a powerful opinion, argues that such boycotts amount not to protest but abdication — a surrender of democratic power. In his analysis, abstaining from the electoral process gives the ruling dispensation an uncontested path, undermines the rule of law, and weakens the very democratic values the protestors claim to defend.
This article explores the roots of this controversy, examines similar global precedents, and evaluates whether boycotting elections is a legitimate form of protest or a strategic misstep.
Background: The Bihar Controversy
The Election Commission (EC) recently conducted a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar. Critics, including civil society organizations, have alleged that the revision disproportionately targeted poor and minority groups — particularly migrant workers — leading to large-scale voter disenfranchisement. Concerns were raised about deletions based on unverifiable data, including mobile phone tracking, Aadhaar linkage, and assumptions of migration.
As a result, some rights groups and opposition voices have called for a boycott of the upcoming assembly elections in Bihar, claiming the process was biased and undemocratic. However, the EC and other defenders of the process argue that electoral roll revisions are standard, legally backed procedures aimed at ensuring accurate and updated voter rolls.
Boycotts as a Democratic Tool: A Global Context
Historically, election boycotts have been used by opposition parties and civil rights groups globally to highlight unfair electoral practices or undemocratic regimes. However, these boycotts often yield mixed results — sometimes drawing attention to grievances, but more often handing power on a platter to incumbents.
Some notable examples include:
-
Bangladesh (2014): The main opposition party BNP boycotted the national elections, accusing the ruling Awami League of authoritarianism. The result was a low-turnout election with 153 seats uncontested, cementing the Awami League’s power.
-
Nepal (2013): The boycott by a Maoist faction in Nepal’s second Constituent Assembly elections led to a poor turnout and limited international sympathy.
-
Zimbabwe (2008): Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew from the runoff presidential election, citing political violence. While the move drew global attention, Robert Mugabe won unopposed, and the people lost their chance at change.
-
Venezuela (2005): A similar boycott by opposition parties gave Hugo Chávez’s government an overwhelming parliamentary majority, eroding checks and balances.
These examples suggest that while boycotts may draw temporary media or international attention, they often end up consolidating the power of those already in control. The electorate loses its representative voice, and undemocratic trends deepen further.
Indian Context: Dangers of Boycott
In India, voting is not compulsory but it is the cornerstone of the democratic framework. The legal system does not provide for mandatory voting, yet participation in elections is seen as both a right and a civic duty.
Calls to boycott the Bihar elections echo past situations where marginalized communities or opposition parties chose absence as a mode of protest. However, S. Y. Quraishi argues that such boycotts are dangerous for three reasons:
-
Forfeiting the Fight: By not participating in the electoral process, citizens effectively withdraw from the battlefield. It offers the ruling dispensation an unchallenged route to victory, reducing the possibility of political accountability.
-
Diluting the Message: Boycotts rarely lead to structural changes unless backed by mass mobilization and international solidarity. In India’s context, such solidarity is usually lacking, making the boycott a symbolic gesture without consequence.
-
Undermining Institutions: The Election Commission, despite criticism, remains one of India’s most trusted institutions. Instead of boycotting elections, efforts should focus on institutional engagement, legal challenges, media exposure, and civil society activism.
Electoral Roll Revisions: Problems and Protections
The core of the boycott call stems from the SIR, where names of poor, minority, and migrant voters were reportedly removed in large numbers. While the EC defends the process as legally mandated, critics fear that it creates space for disenfranchisement of the most vulnerable.
However, Quraishi emphasizes that India’s electoral roll revisions are backed by legal safeguards. The EC has issued guidelines to ensure due process, and it is open to redressal through forms and hearings. More importantly, voters still have the opportunity to raise objections, verify their names, and correct errors.
The call to boycott, therefore, skips the stage of contestation and moves straight to surrender. This, Quraishi argues, is not just tactically flawed but morally weak.
Constructive Alternatives to Boycott
Rather than abstaining from voting, the following strategies are more effective and democratic:
-
Legal Challenges: Bring petitions against alleged irregularities before the Election Commission and courts.
-
Voter Awareness Campaigns: Educate marginalized communities on checking and correcting their voter status.
-
Media Advocacy: Use digital and traditional media to highlight injustices and call for institutional reforms.
-
Mass Mobilization: Protest outside the ballot box can be combined with mass participation to demand accountability.
-
Civil Society Vigilance: Rights groups must monitor election-day processes, deploy observers, and report any malpractice.
Boycott of Parliament: A Parallel Trend
Quraishi also draws attention to another worrying pattern — the frequent boycott of parliamentary proceedings by opposition parties. Walking out of the legislature, while occasionally symbolic, has become routine and often counterproductive.
Instead of confronting the ruling party through debates, bills, and accountability tools, the opposition weakens its own mandate by vacating the battlefield. Laws are passed without challenge, and public perception shifts against the non-participating parties.
Conclusion: Participation Is the Power
Democracy is not a spectator sport. It demands the active engagement of its citizens, even — and especially — in times of distrust and difficulty. Boycotting elections, even as a form of protest, too often backfires by consolidating the very powers it seeks to challenge.
As Quraishi aptly summarizes, “To abandon the field is to forfeit the fight. Let us not forget that in a democracy, absence is not protest — it is abdication.”
The Bihar elections will be a test not only of political strength but also of democratic maturity. Voters must rise above anger and engage with the process to reform it from within. Civil society, media, and institutions must stay vigilant, but the ballot remains the most powerful tool of resistance.
5 Questions and Answers
Q1. Why are some groups calling for a boycott of the Bihar assembly elections?
A: Certain groups allege that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls disproportionately removed names of poor, migrant, and minority voters, leading to disenfranchisement. As a protest, they have called for a boycott of the elections.
Q2. What is S. Y. Quraishi’s position on this boycott?
A: S. Y. Quraishi strongly opposes the boycott, arguing that it constitutes abdication, not protest. He believes it hands power to the ruling party without contest and undermines democracy.
Q3. Have election boycotts worked in other countries?
A: Most historical election boycotts have failed to produce the desired change. In countries like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela, boycotts led to unopposed rule by incumbents and often worsened political conditions.
Q4. What are better alternatives to boycotting elections?
A: Legal action, voter education, media advocacy, institutional engagement, and mass mobilization are more constructive and democratic responses to electoral grievances.
Q5. How does Quraishi link this issue with parliamentary boycotts in India?
A: He criticizes the opposition’s frequent practice of walking out of Parliament, arguing that it weakens democracy by allowing ruling parties to pass laws without scrutiny and reduces opposition effectiveness.
