To vote or not to vote? That is a question playing in some voters' minds.

The Big Debate hosted by Redi Tlhabi engaged this question on Sunday. And having participated in the discussion, I think it is prudent to consider the different sides of the debate.

In the SA context, voting can be a very emotive issue. This is mainly because universal suffrage, where the entire adult population who are citizens of the country are eligible to vote, was only realised in 1994.

Before that, this was a privilege conferred upon certain racial and economic groups. By modern standards, SA was very late to the party on this one.

It has taken centuries of struggle for groups other than whites and males to be recognised as fully fledged citizens and many have lost their lives fighting for this.

And so some argue that all eligible voters are morally bound to vote in elections by virtue of this history.

The other strong argument is that not voting does not prevent the formation of a government.

These arguments resonate with those who hold the view that voting is a civic responsibility that does not hinge on the quality of the electoral choices on offer - political parties and their party lists. In fact, if all eligible citizens voted - meaning a higher turnout - the government and the decisions it makes could be considered more legitimate.

Moreover, it would be an endorsement of the entire democratic system.

These are good arguments indeed. There is, however, another side to this debate.

Voting is not only an obligation but a right. And rights are subject to the agency of the individuals who hold them. Having the right to do something implies that one can apply their discretion, it does not translate into a compulsion to do something. Inasmuch as citizens have the right to vote, they can reserve that right.

They can, based on considerations including the absence of a political party that appeals to a voter or seems to have a handle on how to solve the country's problems, determine that not voting is the best choice among available options including voting and spoiling the ballot. Part of having the freedom of choice in a democracy is making the choice to stay away.

Staying away is in no way a negation of the reality that a government will be formed. It is merely exercising one's freedom and not feeling compelled to support a party to demonstrate faith in the democratic system.

Of course, opting out does give a greater advantage to those parties already popular among voters while disadvantaging smaller parties or new entrants onto the political scene. Voter turnout can indeed be the deciding factor, particularly in highly contested elections.

If the concern is to ensure greater voter turnout , then the argument may lean towards compulsory voting.

In some jurisdictions the idea of voting as a civic duty has led to voting being made compulsory. Australia, Belgium and Argentina are cases in point.

The burden is placed on all citizens to participate in elections regardless of any reservations they might have. As noble as the idea may sound, it is actually inconsistent with the underpinning value of our constitutional democracy: freedom.

Regardless of how strongly one side may feel about the duty of citizens to vote, until and unless voting is made compulsory, the freedom to choose not to vote must be accepted and respected.

Comment on Twitter @NompumeleloRunj