Many countries have passed legislation to safeguard the interests of animals, but a professor and legal researcher in the United States has proposed an unusual idea to provide animals voting rights. Ioan-Radu Motoarca, a professor in the philosophy department at Rowan University in New Jersey, has authored a paper exposing his unorthodox conviction that certain animals should have voting rights. Though he recognized that the ”concept seems absurd,” he pushed for a voting system that allows animals to have their voice on matters that concern them, such as pet care.
”Accordingly, most authors who have touched on the issue dismiss it in a few words as obviously absurd. However, I will argue that we can understand this idea as a natural outcome of our fundamental democratic commitments. Consequently, I believe governments should recognize a political right to vote for at least certain categories of animals,” he wrote in the study. ”Before defending this view, it is worth emphasizing two features of the proposal I have in mind. First, the system of animal voting I am envisaging would involve appointed representatives casting votes on behalf of animals,” he added.
The professor further argues that the incompetence of animals to exercise voting rights is not a valid reason to exclude them
The professor further argues that the incompetence of an animal to exercise voting rights is not a valid reason to exclude them. “If you are a supporter of democracy (as opposed to some other political arrangement), and if you reflect on the best reasons we have for including or excluding certain categories of beings from our democratic community—think about the historical treatment of minorities in the political process—it is not going to be easy to exclude animals from that community,” Mr Motoarca told Newsweek.
According to Newsweek, under his proposed system, people would only be nominated as delegates to vote on behalf of animals in matters concerning welfare regulations such as animal husbandry, meat production standards, fisheries control, or pet care. He cited an example of how animals get named as plaintiffs in a large number of US federal litigation. Animals are unconcerned about complex moral concerns such as abortion or prostitution, hence the author contends that they should not vote on them. Defending his position, he went on to say that just as there are representatives for children and those with mental problems, animals should have the same opportunity. He also remarked that many regimes in the past did not grant basic voting rights to many people, including women and slaves, which appeared “clear at the time but is now seen as prejudiced.”
