Understanding voter apathy

This article was written and submitted by Peter W Wickham, a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES). In the wake of the St James North byelection on May 21, there has been a national reflection on the issue of voter apathy which is a healthy discussion in a young democracy.

Although well intentioned, several reflections demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding the concept and worse, a politically skewed expression of this phenomenon.

There is a need to unpack the outcome of this by-election and if we choose to locate our analysis in the context of voter apathy, we need first to understand the concept before we can consider how it impacted.

Apathy of any variety relates to a lack of enthusiasm or interest in an activity; hence voter apathy implies a lack of interest in voting and we can agree that this is, to some extent, an emerging global phenomenon. This discussion here, however, appears based on two misleading and dangerous assumptions, the first of which is the assumption that a lack of interest in voting is inherently bad.

Secondly, there is a misleading assumption that the Mia Amor Mottley administration is to some extent responsible for this apathy which stains the Barbados Labour Party’s (BLP) impressive victory in St James North.

The suggestion that “the BLP might still need to examine why, in spite of its obvious incumbent advantages and popularity of its leader, voter apathy remains strong” reflects a tragic misunderstanding of the concept and infers that apathy is a BLP problem.

If we were to unpack the concept of apathy using an academic lens it would become immediately apparent that too little serious investigation has been conducted on this issue and perhaps some investigative research should be commissioned.

To my understanding, people are often not interested in voting for several reasons, some of which are reasonable. At the same time, however, the majority opinion is coloured by a generational appreciation of hard-fought battles to vote and civic responsibility. Those among us who witnessed the battle of the South African majority to vote in free and fair elections and take an interest in the evolution of the US Voting Rights Act of 1965, see the act of voting as sacrosanct and struggle with the idea that thousands who can vote, chose not to. I do share this struggle. However I also appreciate the extent to which there are other relevant views which carry equal weight and should be respected.

Albeit limited, research conducted by CADRES demonstrates that the vast majority of us do vote and the minority that does not vote is motivated by reasons that range from religious justifications to a genuine disinterest in the political process, born of either satisfaction or displeasure. In the case of St James North, our research suggests that of the 8 538 people on the EBC list in that constituency, 2 068 were unavailable to vote for reasons ranging from death to migration, either out of Barbados or the constituency. This information can be easily obtained based on the postal circular returns which both parties would have access to (if they are diligent enough to do the calculations).

This is not an insignificant number, which means that at the outset about 25 per cent or one quarter of the people who are listed to vote, cannot and this has nothing to do with apathy.

In terms of the remaining 6 470 people, 3 231 or roughly half did vote and the remainder presented assorted reasons for not doing so. CADRES efforts to interrogate these reasons in the run-up to the election presented evidence suggesting a lack of motivation was the primary justification and the demographic group more exposed was young men.

This is consistent with our historic understanding of voter nonparticipation, especially in a by-election as reflected in the appended table. Historically, there have only been three comparable by-elections which could be described as optional (the living Member of Parliament resigned) and in two of these, significantly less people voted than was the case with the most proximate General Election. Conversely, the 2002 St Thomas by-election was one in which the Democratic Labour Party’s (DLP) historic performance resulted in record numbers for them which clearly balanced the turnout scales.

If we were to explore further the rationale behind motivation, it becomes clear that people are less motivated when they believe their participation is either not needed or won’t make a difference. In this regard, I have frequently quoted the British Election Study (BES) seminal research into the historic low turnout in the UK (2001).

This study noted a decline in participation in UK elections that is similar to that being discussed. It suggested that the single largest factor contributing to the 2001 low turnout was an expectation that Tony Blair would win a second term, combined with a profound lack of opposition to his re-election. Simply put, the British wanted Blair to win, expected he would win and therefore were not motivated to participate as their vote wasn’t needed for the desired outcome. In the case of St James North, CADRES’ research supported a similar perception that was buttressed by the unanimity of analysts regarding the likely outcome.

There are, of course, ranges of motivation and the moderately motivated would perhaps have been willing to participate in the election if it were easier, hence the call in some quarters for alternative options to vote. Here also, young people appear more inclined to desire an online voting facility as this is a norm to which they have become accustomed. While I would not recommend such a facility as it comes with significant challenges, we might, however, want to consider the mail-in option as it becomes clearer that millennials are not particularly keen on standing in line in the way that our foreparents have become accustomed to.

Another data set which highlights an inaccuracy that apathy reflects poorly on the Government is presented in the second table. In this instance, the actual number of votes received by each party is tabulated and averages generated, along with an average of the increases/decreases.

This reveals that the BLP has brought out more voters consistently since 1981, while the DLP has brought out less. The BLP has consistently delivered a vote count within proximity of the average and fell significantly below this only in 1986 and 2008 which were DLP swing years.

Conversely, the DLP has fallen significantly short of its cohort in 2018, 2022 and 2025 with this most recent performance being a historic low and less than half of the DLP’s average.

In the face of this evidence, it becomes clear that the DLP has contributed more to voter apathy here and this challenges the basis of this assumption that apathy reflects more poorly in the Government.