French theoretician and philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote in his 1762 treatise "The Social Contract" that society must force men to be free. Is this a real and true paradox? I'm not sure; and in any event, Rousseau answered his critics directly with his argument of principle: "I would rather be a man of paradoxes than a man of prejudices." "Rousseau's paradox" is the anchor of the proposal to require Israelis to go out to the polls on election day, effectively forcing them to be free. In other words, the state must end the national barbecue festival on election day and turn it into a national democratic festival. The state must enforce the obligation to vote with real sanctions: the denial of the right to vote in the future, driver's license freezes, denial to grant passports, or other penalties. Another approach would be to enforce the obligation to vote with a reward. For example, one could receive vouchers for books on freedom and democracy. Opponents of this approach believe that such a proposal is undemocratic. Firstly, it violates the basic principle of freedom of choice. Secondly, forcing anything on people is the purview of totalitarian regimes and dark dictatorships. Such claims are based on the dreaded history of Germany, arguing that required mass voter participation gives power to extreme, nationalist and racist movements. Is it really such a dark idea? Apparently not, since there are "dark" democracies around the world that impose the duty of voting on citizens. There are about 25 countries that have a voting requirement alongside sanctions for not voting. In Australia, Luxembourg, Chile, Brazil, Ecuador, Argentina and a few other countries, fines are imposed for not voting. In Greece, driver's licenses are frozen, passports may be evoked and the non-voter may be sent to prison. Belgium punishes "disobedient voters" who are civil servants by halting promotions in the bureaucratic hierarchy. In Italy, identification documents are imprinted with the words "did not vote" as a mark of infamy. There are opposing arguments that deserve some discussion, though they don't seem to equal the moral and political benefits of enforcing the citizens' duty to vote. First, studies show that voter participation is higher among the upper classes. This is logical because the elite have more to lose from a government and ideology that they do not support or which does not serve their interests. In contrast, people of a lower socioeconomic level vote less because they have a distinct feeling that "nothing will help, the rich are in charge." Mass voting would legitimate elected officials and, therefore, make it easier to agree that it is amoral to get paid for days off without also stopping at the ballot box on the way to the beach. Studies have shown that voting requirements significantly increase citizens' political participation. Consequently, this increases the legitimacy of elected officials and contributes to the overall stability of the government. Will citizens accept a voting requirement? Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion would answer as such: "I don't know what the people want. I know what the people need."