The results of the Maharashtra and Jharkhand Legislative Assembly elections are now out, and new governments have been formed in both states. The Chief Ministers and some ministers have also taken their oaths. In the Maharashtra Assembly elections, over 65 per cent voter turnout was recorded, the highest in the last 30 years. This is significant for two reasons: first, it shows an almost 4 per cent increase compared to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, and second, it is close to the average national voter turnout of around 65–66 per cent. But the question arises can this voter turnout percentage be considered sufficient for a strong democracy? Certainly not! Then, what can be done?

This is a serious issue that all responsible citizens of the country need to think about how can voter turnout be increased in elections? As mentioned above, the Maharashtra Assembly elections recorded the highest turnout in the last 30 years. Maharashtra’s data is noteworthy because the state has the largest urban population in the country. Historically, it has lagged behind the national average due to low voter turnouts in cities and towns. However, a closer look at Maharashtra’s data reveals that voter apathy in urban areas has not entirely disappeared. For example, Western Maharashtra’s Kolhapur district recorded a high voter turnout of 76.25 per cent, followed by Gadchiroli a region often in the news for Maoist activities at 73.68 per cent. In contrast, Mumbai city district recorded a low voter turnout of 52.07 per cent. Similar figures were observed in other urban districts like Pune, Thane, and Mumbai suburban.

Advertisement

On the positive side, voter turnout has improved overall across the state. The credit for this change, though slow and gradual, goes primarily to the Election Commission of India. This time, the Election Commission was quite proactive in increasing voter turnout. Its campaign involved social media and local celebrities, from cricketers to film stars. Measures like setting up polling stations in high-rise buildings and residential societies, and introducing a token system to reduce wait times were also implemented. High-voltage campaigns by political parties also helped increase voter participation. Maharashtra’s improved voter turnout is reassuring for Indian democracy. That said, urban areas across the country generally see lower voter turnouts. From Shimla to Surat, urban voter apathy remains consistent.

This trend is not new. During the first three decades of elections, urban voter participation was much better. However, since the 1980s, the gap between urban and rural voter turnout has widened. Urban apathy needs to be understood. Urban India contributes 60 per cent to the GDP and a significant share to taxes. However, the condition of cities continues to deteriorate. Take Delhi, for instance. The city’s pollution levels have become so severe that life has become difficult for residents. Delhi is now the most polluted capital in the world. In recent years, major cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, and Bengaluru have been paralyzed by floods during the rainy season. Life in these cities came to a halt for several days. Waterlogging on roads caused traffic jams, disrupted rail services, flooded homes, and forced schools and colleges to shut down.

These recurring issues highlight the poor state of urban planning and infrastructure. It is important to understand that urban India is the backbone of the country’s economy. Almost the entire service sector is concentrated in cities. According to census data, 31 per cent of the population lives in cities, although non-governmental estimates suggest the urban population is much higher. Cities provide employment opportunities, and they are where the dreams of the country’s youth are realized. But the neglect of cities leads voters to become disillusioned with their representatives. They feel that when their leaders are ineffective, there is no point in voting. Voters are repeatedly let down by their representatives. Hence, elected representatives must understand that if voters are to be drawn to polling stations on a large scale again, the responsibility does not rest solely on the Election Commission. Representatives must also maintain direct contact with the public and show sensitivity toward their issues.

You might recall that during the last Lok Sabha elections, the scorching heat gripped almost the entire country. Despite this, voters stepped out of their homes to cast their votes. On election day, temperatures in many places exceeded 42 degrees Celsius. It wasn’t easy to campaign or stand in long queues at polling stations in such harsh weather. Yet millions of voters braved the heat and exercised their democratic right. This is encouraging and a positive sign for our democracy. People understand that their votes shape the nation’s destiny. That’s why they step out to vote.

However, the already proactive Election Commission must make polling stations more accessible and attractive to draw even more voters. Improvements such as sufficient parking, comfortable waiting areas, and voting facilities for differently-abled individuals can make a significant difference. Currently, differently-abled individuals face considerable challenges at polling stations. This needs serious attention. In summary, increasing voter turnout in panchayat, municipal, assembly, and parliamentary elections is not solely the Election Commission’s responsibility. This requires coordinated efforts at multiple levels.

(The writer is a former Member of Parliament.)