Should devotees Vote?

His Grace Chaitanya Charan Das speaks:

His Grace Kamal Locana Das speaks:

Whom Should You Vote For

His Holiness Bhakti Vikasa Swami responds:

Should devotees vote in the election?

His Holiness Bhakti Vikasa re-clarifies:

Clarification on "Should Devotees Vote in the Election?"

His Grace Chaitanya Charan Das concludes:

More clarifications about voting being a social responsiblity of devotees

In my talk, “Voting in elections is the social responsibility of devotees,” my using this term ‘social responsibility’ may have conveyed that I was saying that devotees have to vote in elections. That was not my intention at all.

I gave my talk because I had come across some devotees who were insisting that, as a matter of principle, devotees shouldn’t vote. Is that sort of insistence warranted by the teachings of Srila Prabhupada? No doubt, he disapproved democracy. But does his disapproval amount to an eternal ban on voting for devotees?

Only if we divorce his words from his actions.

In his practical example, Srila Prabhupada was dynamic in responding to changing social realities. For example, in the initial days of our movement, he stated that there was no need for varnashrama - just Krishna consciousness was enough. But later, seeing how the contemporary culture made sustainable practice of serious bhakti extremely difficult, he emphasized that varnashrama was needed.

This social dynamism was evident even in his approach to democracy.

For example, though Lord Chaitanya refused to meet King Pratap Rudra when the king himself was desperate to meet him, Srila Prabhupada went out of his way to meet Indira Gandhi – he cancelled a world tour to meet a democratically elected leader who was a politician and a woman. And he did that after he had repeatedly stated and written that democracy was not a desirable form of government, that politicians weren’t trustworthy and that a female being a head of state wasn’t appropriate.

How do we understand this difference between Srila Prabhupada and Lord Chaitanya – and even the difference between Srila Prabhupada’s words and actions?

By understanding at the context.

Srila Prabhupada lived in a socio-political situation substantially different from the one at the time of Lord Chaitanya. Whereas Lord Chaitanya’s reputation would have been sullied by meeting a king, in the modern situation Srila Prabhupada’s reputation would have been enhanced by meeting the Indian Prime Minister.

In his writings, Srila Prabhupada declared as ideal a government headed by a spiritually enlightened monarch. But he also recognized that today’s practical reality was radically different, necessitating a pragmatic response that made the best use of a bad bargain. One such response was meeting and influencing a democratically elected head of state.

Srila Prabhupada’s context-sensitive response demonstrates that his practical actions in relationship with democracy were far more nuanced than mere condemnation. And ISKCON’s global history confirms that devotees too need to adopt carefully considered socio-political positions.

In today's socio-political situation, overall countries with democratic governments have been far more conducive for sharing Krishna consciousness than countries with non-democratic forms of government.

Had it not been for devotees’ contacting politicians who had been elected democratically and who therefore had to be responsive to public opinion,

We might have had no temple at Juhu (An influential democratic leader intervened to stop the demolition),
Bhagavad Gita As It Is might have been banned in Russia (India’s democratically elected Parliamentary leaders vehemently opposed the proposed ban and sent a strong message to the Russia government).

In contrast, non-democratic governments have often been hostile to devotees

The non-democratic communist governments in USSR persecuted devotees.
The non-democratic theocracies in the Middle East ban the public practice of devotional service to this day.
Countries with nominal democracies such as China are similarly hostile.

So, in a world when there’s no enlightened spiritual form of government, ISKCON’s history testifies that democracy appears the best option for us.

In a democratic setup, there will be karmic reactions in voting for a government that doesn’t correct wrongs like cow slaughter. But is not voting necessarily a karmically safe option?

Given the choice between a party that may curb cow slaughter and others that most certainly won’t curb it, not voting may also lead to karmic reactions. How? Because by our inaction we may have neglected doing what was in our power to try to stop cow slaughter. After all, the Bhagavad-gita asserts that inaction is also a form of action; and the Mahabharata demonstrates that Bhishma and Drona became culpable during Draupadi’s disrobing because they didn’t do anything. As His Holiness Bhakti Vikas Maharaj has stated in his talk, the social situation today is extremely complex and there are no easy answers or quick solutions such as “all devotees should vote” or “no devotee should vote.”

Of course, if we had a devotee-candidate, or better still, a political party formed by devotees was contesting, then naturally the answer would be: “devotees should vote”. Srila Prabhupada encouraged devotees to start a political party and campaign for getting votes. Unfortunately, at present, there’s no such party.

For those devotees who feel inclined to vote for a party that is relatively more favorable to sanatana-dharma than others, my talk intended to show that our philosophy is inclusive enough to accommodate their inclination. Maharaj too gave that room for choice by stating that devotees can vote.

The purpose of my talk was to help devotees concerned about bringing in a social environment more favorable to sanatana-dharma could see voting as a social opportunity.

If I intended to convey that voting was a social opportunity, then why did I use the word ‘social responsibility’?

To convey that devotees shouldn’t be apathetic to the social situation, dismissing it as mundane. I have observed that the dismissive disdain for voting among some devotees unnecessarily alienates socially responsible people, many of whom are intelligent, are in the mode of goodness and are potential devotees. Such people see the disdain of devotees as a confirmation of their misperception that devotees are socially irresponsible: “You people don’t care about what happens in society – you just want to, like a parasite, use society’s resources for doing your own other-worldly stuff.”

If we feed the public perception that devotees’ role in society is parasitic, we do violence not just to our preaching mission but also to the truth. Our social role is not parasitic, but cathartic. Or at least it should be. Srila Prabhupada wanted us to transform society positively – in that sense, devotees are meant to be socially conscious and socially concerned, or in other words, socially responsible. One way devotees can express that social responsibility is by voting in elections.

Will such voting distract devotees from their far more important social responsibility to implement Srila Prabhupada’s broad program: all-round social reform necessary for bringing in guna-karma-based varnashrama?

That distraction is possible, but not probable. Because voting in elections will take only a few minutes once in a few years. As I had said in my talk, Srila Prabhupada has abundantly cautioned us against romanticizing this world. This means that we shouldn’t become obsessed with politics, entertaining vain hopes that political change alone will solve all problems. The occasional activity of voting shouldn’t become a replacement for our perennial social responsibility of spiritually-centered reform.

To the contrary, this occasional voting may well contribute towards that long-term program. One way to progress towards varnashrama is by influencing social leaders. Though the ideal situation is that political leaders come to spiritual leaders for guidance, we are far away from that situation, as Maharaj pointed out. So making the best of what we have, one way to begin interacting with today’s leaders is by making our social presence felt in a way that counts for them – as a group of socially conscious voters.

To conclude, my use of the word ‘social responsibility’ was not to convey that voting was something that devotees had to do – rather, my intention was to convey that it being a social responsibility is optional, as contrasted with a spiritual responsibility which is mandatory.

Devotees who feel inclined to vote don’t have to be made to feel that they are going against Srila Prabhupada’s teachings – nor, of course, should devotees who feel disinclined to vote. His Divine Grace has built a house big enough in which both groups can live.