Mal Fletcher comments on the rights and responsibilities of voting

Mal Fletcher

Churchill famously observed that, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

The man often adjudged the greatest of all British Prime Ministers clearly was not always encouraged by the intellectual capacities of the voting public. Ultimately, he suffered the humiliation of being ejected from government by a post-war electorate which appeared to have suffered a major lapse of short-term memory. In very quick time, the old man's feats of wartime leadership and resolve had seemingly been forgotten.

Yet, for all its flaws, Churchill understood that democracy is the least worst of all the alternatives. He knew from his experience battling Nazism, that if citizens refuse to stand and be counted, by engaging the system of governance and holding it to account, a dangerous power vacuum is created. Ruthless ideologies and individuals will always exploit such a vacuum.

Voting is both an individual right, but it is also a part of one's responsibility to the collective society.

In the lead-up to this general election, there is more than the usual degree of uncertainty. There is a lot of talk about undecided voters, but a good deal of attention has also been paid to one or two advocates of a "don't vote" philosophy.

The current enthusiasm for non-voting perhaps smacks of populism and half-baked philosophies. Yet it is a response to something felt very deeply by its advocates; specifically, a gaping trust deficit when it comes to politicians and other members of the ruling elites.

Scepticism, of course, is not restricted to no-voters. It has long been a component of the wider public's default reaction to politicos and their promises. Manifesto commitments have all too often turned out, once a party gains power, to be little more than expressions of wishful thinking at best and cynical manipulation at worst.

Since 2009, this natural wariness has morphed into a more overt form of suspicion. At the height of the recession, the public's trust in almost every foundational institution within British society was called into question.

There was a drive to see a collective housecleaning, starting with the banks and quickly spreading to Westminster in the wake of the expenses scandal. The spotlight of suspicion then widened to include universities, as tuition fees began to bite. The reputation of the police and the courts was battered for a while by their handling of the riots across England. The media and press were hauled before the court of public opinion over phone tapping scandals and the institutional church struggled to deal with horrendous child abuse allegations made against it. The world of popular entertainment took a beating too, in the wake of Jimmy Savile child sex abuse revelations.

On the political front in more recent times, we've heard story after story of abuses of parliamentary privilege. We've read about prominent politicians who've pitched themselves as sellers of influence to the highest bidder.

While many politicians may be doing their best in an often difficult job, there are some grounds for public cynicism and feelings of estrangement. Unsurprisingly, the trust issue continues to surface as a major factor in surveys among undecided voters.

However, turning mistrust or scepticism into an excuse not to vote is to mistakenly equate anarchism with activism.

Acclaiming individual rights without recognising concomitant social responsibilities is the beginning of anarchism.

Activism is motivated by a clear and distinctive vision of the preferred future - usually , in one particular area of need. It takes the cards it has been dealt and strategically looks for ways to maximize their potential, in bringing about clear goals and specific changes.