S - Votes

Familiar questions Why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses vote? If we live under a government anyway, why shouldn’t we be allowed to influence who makes decisions? Is voting the same as taking sides with “the world”? Can you be politically neutral and still be involved in society? What if a government makes decisions that limit preaching or religious freedom? If the good news has to be preached worldwide, then isn’t it important which government comes to power? Can a Jehovah’s Witness lose their place in the congregation if they vote? And if someone otherwise lives honestly, faithfully, and responsibly, who are they actually harming by choosing a candidate in a voting booth? Why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses vote? Jehovah’s Witnesses are politically neutral. According to their current official explanation, they do not vote for political parties or candidates, do not run political campaigns, do not stand for political office, and do not take part in actions against a government. They base that stance in part on Jesus’ words that his followers are ‘no part of the world’ and that his Kingdom is ‘no part of this world’ . The idea is not: ‘It doesn’t matter what governments do.’ Rather, the idea is: ‘My political loyalty does not belong to any human government or party, but to God’s Kingdom under Jesus.’ Jehovah’s Witnesses see God’s Kingdom as the ultimate government Within the faith, God’s Kingdom is not a symbolic ideal. It is regarded as a real heavenly government with Jesus Christ as King. Human governments are temporary and, according to the teaching, have only relative authority. That is why a Jehovah’s Witness sees themselves first and foremost as a subject of God’s Kingdom. From that reasoning, voting for a human political candidate can feel like taking sides within a system from which they want to remain religiously neutral. But Jehovah’s Witnesses do acknowledge human governments Political neutrality does not mean Jehovah’s Witnesses ignore governments. According to their own teaching, they must respect the authorities, obey the law, pay taxes, and cooperate with legal arrangements as long as these do not conflict with what they consider God’s law. They are also encouraged to pray for those in authority, among other things so that Christians can lead a peaceful life and practice their faith. That creates an interesting combination: the government really does have authority over my daily life but: I do not want to help decide who makes up that government. ‘But we’re living here and now, aren’t we?’ That is a understandable question. A government decides on laws that can affect, for example, education, healthcare, taxes, housing, social security, and religious freedom. In the Netherlands, citizens elect members of parliament who decide on laws and government policy; more votes also means more political influence for parties and candidates. From a democratic perspective, someone may therefore think: ‘If these decisions also affect my life and my children’s lives, why shouldn’t I use my vote?’ From the perspective of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the reasoning is different: ‘Precisely because human political systems are temporary, I do not choose any of those parties. My confidence for the ultimate solution lies in God’s Kingdom.’ These are two different ideas about political responsibility. Voting is not the same as believing a government is perfect Someone who votes does not have to think that a candidate or party can solve all problems. For many citizens, voting is simply a way to influence decisions that have to be made now within the current system. Jehovah’s Witnesses approach it differently: they see political participation itself as something a Christian must stay away from in order to remain neutral. So the discussion is not only about: ‘Do I trust politicians?’ but more fundamentally about: ‘Is a Christian allowed to take part in choosing political leaders at all?’ Voting as an action is not forbidden in itself An interesting point is that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not against voting as a procedure . Congregations can, for example, make practical decisions by show of hands. Also, in non-political situations, voting does not have to be a problem according to their literature. The religious issue arises with political elections and the support a vote gives to a candidate or political direction. So it is not about the pencil or the ballot paper. It is about the meaning attached to the political choice. A striking wording: ‘personal decision’ The Watchtower published a detailed explanation about voting in 1999. It said that every Jehovah’s Witness decides for himself, based on his Bible-trained conscience , whether to vote for a candidate. The article then lists several reasons why Witnesses choose not to do so: neutrality, loyalty to God’s Kingdom, Christian unity, and the desire to be able to approach people of every political persuasion. The current book Keep Yourselves in God’s Love also frames it as a personal choice not to vote for a political party or candidate , while the current FAQ puts it more simply: ‘we do not vote for political parties or candidates.’ So there is a nuance in the official wording: conscience makes the choice personal, but conscience is at the same time expected to lead to political neutrality. What happens in the voting booth? The 1999 article goes a step further. If someone in a country is legally required to go to a polling place, or would face major problems for not showing up, a Witness may go to the polling station. What he then does in the voting booth is described in that article as a matter between him and his Creator. That means that: going to a polling place and: actually supporting a political candidate are not necessarily treated as exactly the same act. Can a Jehovah’s Witness be removed for voting? Accuracy matters here. On the public pages of JW.org , it does not simply say: ‘Voting is a serious sin for which you will be removed from the congregation.’ Instead, the public information uses language about conscience and political neutrality. Internal elder guidelines that have become public outside JW.org deal with a course of action that conflicts with Christian neutrality under the category of disassociation . Technically, that is something different from being removed from the congregation by elders for serious wrongdoing. For example, a leaked 2025 edition of the elders’ manual mentions joining a non-neutral organization as a situation in which someone may be considered to have disassociated themselves. In addition, a 2020 letter from the Scandinavian branch of Jehovah’s Witnesses became public, explaining that someone who chooses to participate in a political election by voting may be seen by the faith community as having chosen to leave the community. That source was not published on JW.org , but has been cited in coverage of the Norwegian dispute involving the faith community. Therefore, this wording is more accurate: Political voting can be seen as conflicting with the required neutrality and can have consequences for a person’s religious status, but in organizational terminology, ‘disassociation’ is something different from ‘being removed for serious sin’. For the person hearing the announcement: ‘[Name] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ that distinction may feel much less significant in everyday life. “But who are you harming?” That is another important question. Suppose: a baptized Jehovah’s Witness is faithful to his partner, takes good care of his children, works, does not lie, does not steal, and treats others respectfully. On election day he walks into a voting booth and deliberately chooses a candidate. Who is directly harmed by that? From a harm-based moral framework , someone might answer: ‘I don’t see a direct victim.’ But within a religious system, something does not have to be wrong only when harm is done to another person. Behavior can also be seen as wrong because, in the religious interpretation, it goes against: loyalty to God , worship , neutrality , or a divine command . From a Jehovah’s Witness perspective, the problem is therefore not necessarily: ‘Who did you hurt?’ but rather: ‘By making a political choice, did you abandon your neutrality toward human governments?’ Those are different moral frameworks. Doing wrong without a direct victim? The same distinction exists in other religious norms as well. Some actions are seen within a faith as sin because God disapproves of them according to that teaching, even when no clear individual victim can be identified. That is why the question: ‘Who am I harming?’ is not always the same question as: ‘Is this allowed according to my religion?’ For someone who fully accepts the religious standard, that can make sense: God ultimately determines what is right and wrong. For someone who is beginning to doubt, the follow-up question can be: ‘Why do I consider this act morally wrong: because of concrete harm, or because my religious system defines it as disobedience?’ ‘You didn’t vote — so can you complain about the government?’ There are different perspectives on that too. From a democratic civic perspective, someone might say: ‘If I want influence over who makes decisions, I use my right to vote.’ From a Jehovah’s Witness perspective, someone might answer: ‘My not voting is itself a deliberate choice. I respect the elected government, but I don’t want to take sides.’ So not voting does not necessarily mean indifference. It can be a deliberate religious conviction. But in practical terms, it does mean choosing not to use the electoral means by which citizens can influence the composition of the legislature . What if a government bans the preaching work? This raises a question that is especially interesting within JW theology. Suppose a government is elected that restricts religious freedom or bans Jehovah’s Witnesses’ preaching work. Wouldn’t it then have made sense to try to prevent such a government from gaining power through elections? From a democratic perspective, that line of reasoning can be understandable. Political choices can have consequences for laws and freedoms. But Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theological reasoning is different. They believe that the command to preach comes from God and therefore should not depend on election results. When a government bans preaching, their principle is: ‘We must obey God as ruler rather than men.’ JW publications explicitly say that even under a ban they will look for ways to continue the preaching work. Still, Jehovah’s Witnesses do use the legal system Political neutrality also does not mean that Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse any influence over government action. The organization has brought many legal cases worldwide to defend religious freedom, the right to gather, and the right to preach. JW.org itself describes such lawsuits in detail and sees legal defense of the preaching work as compatible with neutrality. An interesting distinction emerges there: choosing a politician who can change a law: not participating. challenging an existing law or government decision in court: acceptable. From the organization’s own teaching, that is not seen as contradictory: the first is viewed as participation in politics, the second as using legal rights without taking a political side. ‘But first the good news still has to be preached throughout the whole earth, right?’ That touches directly on end-times doctrine. Jehovah’s Witnesses base this on Matthew 24:14: the good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth, and then the end will come. According to the current interpretation, revised in 2025, the preaching of the good news even continues until just before the actual end at Armageddon. Earlier, it was taught that this form of preaching would stop at the beginning of the great tribulation. The thought: ‘If a government blocks the preaching work, isn’t it then opposing God’s purpose?’ therefore seems natural. According to JW teaching, God’s purpose cannot depend on elections The answer from a faith perspective would be: no. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God ensures his purpose is carried out, even when governments oppose it. According to their literature, the preaching work has in fact taken place in many countries under ban and persecution. So a Jehovah’s Witness might reason: ‘If it is God’s will that the message be preached, my vote for a politician does not have to make that purpose possible.’ That answer follows logically from the belief model. But someone re-examining that model may then ask: ‘If human governments really affect my freedom to live and preach, why is using my vote religiously different from using a court?’ That is not a question where ExJW.World needs to give the reader the conclusion. It is a question that can be explored. Jesus did not choose a political office An important foundation for the JW view is Jesus himself. When people wanted to make him king, he withdrew. Later he said to Pilate: ‘My Kingdom is no part of this world.’ Jehovah’s Witnesses see that as a model for Christians: Jesus did not try to reform the Roman or Jewish political system from within. But Jesus did not live in a modern parliamentary democracy That does raise an interpretive question. The first-century world did not have the same system of universal suffrage in which ordinary citizens periodically elect representatives. So the application: ‘Jesus did not accept a political office, so Christians do not vote’ is a religious interpretation of Bible principles, not a direct Bible verse stating: ‘A Christian may not cast a vote in a modern election.’ The Watchtower from 1999 effectively acknowledges that distinction by saying there is no Bible principle against voting as an act in itself , but that political neutrality determines how Jehovah’s Witnesses view political elections. Does a vote represent everything a politician later does? Another reason mentioned in that same Watchtower is responsibility. The article raises the question of to what extent someone who helps elect a politician shares responsibility for what that politician does afterward. That again raises questions worth examining: Does voting mean I support every later decision a politician makes? Or am I choosing, within limited options, the person whose policies best align with certain priorities? Am I responsible for everything someone does after I vote for them once? Those are political and ethical questions to which people give different answers. Neutrality can also protect something There are clear benefits that Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves connect to their neutrality. A congregation can include members of all kinds of nationalities and backgrounds without political party conflict within the community. A publisher can speak with people of different political views without having campaigned for an opposing party. And in wartime, a Jehovah’s Witness does not want to see a fellow believer on the other side as a political or military enemy. The organization especially points to global unity and the freedom to approach everyone as reasons for neutrality. But neutrality also has a price Political neutrality at the same time means that someone does not use an electoral vote in decisions that can affect their own daily life. That can involve matters on which different citizens place great value. For a believer, that price may be acceptable because loyalty to God’s Kingdom outweighs it. For someone who is beginning to doubt, the calculation may change: ‘If I live here, pay taxes, raise children, and bear the consequences of laws, do I also want influence over who makes those laws?’ The answer does not have to be the same for everyone. What happens to the conscience? For someone who has been a Jehovah’s Witness for decades, even thinking about voting can already trigger feelings of guilt. It can feel like: taking sides with the world. Being unfaithful to Jesus. Not fully trusting God’s Kingdom. When someone later starts thinking differently, that emotional reaction can remain. Then it helps to distinguish between: ‘My conscience is protesting’ and: ‘Why is my conscience protesting?’ After all, a conscience is shaped in part by upbringing, religion, environment, and repetition. Not voting can likewise remain a personal conviction Exploring the issue again does not have to mean that someone will ultimately vote. A former Jehovah’s Witness may, after researching, say: ‘I still want to remain politically neutral.’ Another decides to make use of their right to vote. Someone else sometimes votes and sometimes does not. ExJW.World does not have to take over the political choice. The relevant question is: ‘Have I examined this choice myself, or am I making it only because I once learned that there is but one spiritually acceptable answer?’ The difference between being politically neutral and being socially indifferent Those two are not necessarily the same. A Jehovah’s Witness can choose not to vote for a political candidate and still: pay taxes, be a good neighbor, work in healthcare or education, help people, and use legal procedures. Conversely, someone can vote without otherwise being socially active. Political participation and civic engagement therefore overlap, but they are not identical. For active Jehovah’s Witnesses An active Jehovah’s Witness may, after researching, say: ‘I understand why I do not vote. I have chosen God’s Kingdom and do not want to support a political party.’ That is a possible personal conviction. The fact that other people vote does not have to make that choice any less sincere. For someone who is doubting A doubting Jehovah’s Witness may be asked different questions: ‘Does the Bible really say that I am not allowed to vote?’ ‘Why may I take a legal case against a government decision, but not choose a representative who wants to protect my religious freedom?’ ‘Can I recognize Jesus as King and at the same time make a choice about who governs me for the next four years?’ ‘Is political neutrality the same as not exercising any democratic influence at all?’ These are questions about interpretation, conscience, and loyalty. For someone who has left For a former Jehovah’s Witness, a first election can be surprisingly emotional. For outsiders, it may be just: marking a box red. For the ex-JW, it can symbolize: ‘For the first time, I decide for myself whether or not I take part.’ That can come with excitement, but also guilt, fear, or the feeling of breaking something fundamental. Here too, the same applies: a strong feeling says something about how important the norm has been, but it does not automatically determine what choice someone should make today. Questions to think about Why do I consider political neutrality important? Is my conviction stated directly in a Bible verse, or is it based on an interpretation of several principles? What does it mean to me to recognize Jesus as King? Does that, in my view, rule out every form of political choice? Do I see voting as support for an entire political system, or as influence over concrete decisions within the country where I live now? Am I responsible for everything a politician does after I vote for them? Why, according to my faith, is it appropriate to use legal means against a government decision but not to influence things through elections? What if a government restricts my freedom of worship? Do I trust that God’s purpose will be carried out regardless of political circumstances? Who is directly harmed when someone votes? Is direct harm necessary for me to consider something morally wrong? What is the difference between disobeying a religious rule and harming another human being? Does voting feel wrong because I personally think it is wrong, or because my conscience was shaped that way for years? Can I re-examine political neutrality and still consciously make the same choice afterward? And does a different conclusion also feel safe enough to examine honestly? Summary Jehovah’s Witnesses do not vote for political parties or candidates because they see political neutrality as part of their Christian loyalty to God’s Kingdom. They base this, among other things, on Jesus’ words that his Kingdom is not of this world and that his followers are no part of the world. At the same time, they recognize human governments, pay taxes, obey laws that do not conflict with their faith, use courts to defend their religious freedom, and according to their own teaching continue preaching when a government tries to forbid it. That creates a distinctive position: living under human governments, but not taking part in choosing them. For a convinced Jehovah’s Witness, that can be completely coherent: their highest loyalty lies with another government, God’s Kingdom. For someone re-examining the position, different questions may arise. If human governments now genuinely affect education, family, health, freedom of worship, and the ability to preach: why is electoral influence then fundamentally different from legal influence? And if someone votes for a candidate without directly hurting anyone: why does that choice carry such great religious significance? The public JW sources describe political neutrality as a personal matter of conscience and at the same time clearly state that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not vote for political parties or candidates. A violation of neutrality can, according to internal organizational guidelines, have consequences for someone’s status as a Jehovah’s Witness, but technically this is not handled in the same way as ordinary removal for serious wrongdoing. Ultimately, these questions concern more than politics. They are about: loyalty, conscience, religious interpretation, personal responsibility, and the question of how much room someone feels they have to re-examine a belief for themselves. ‘If my government truly affects my life, my children, and my freedom to practice my faith today, how do I decide for myself where respect for that government ends and political participation begins?’ And perhaps even more fundamentally: ‘Is not voting my own, carefully considered conscience-based choice — or does it feel like the only choice I’m allowed to make as a faithful Jehovah’s Witness?’ Sources JW.org - Why Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Politically Neutral? The Watchtower - November 1, 1999 - Questions from Readers: How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Feel About Voting? JW.org - How Can You Remain in God’s Love? - Endnote 16: Neutrality JW.org - Enjoy Life Forever! - Lesson 45: What It Means to Be Neutral JW.org - Should Religion Be Involved in Politics? JW.org - Who Should We Obey — God or Men? JW.org - God’s Kingdom Rules! - Fighting for Freedom of Worship JW.org - God’s Kingdom Rules! - Kingdom Proclaimers Go to Court The Watchtower - August 2025 - Questions from Readers: When Will the Preaching of the Good News End? New World Translation - Matthew 24:14; John 17:14, 16; John 18:36; Romans 13:1-7; Acts 5:29 Government of the Netherlands - Operation of parliamentary democracy; House of Representatives elections Additional for the organizational procedure - Shepherd the Flock of God , 2025 edition, chapter on violating Christian neutrality See also in the A-Z Psychology Glossary G - Conscience - How does your inner sense that something is right or wrong develop? I - Internalization - How can religious standards become part of your own inner voice? L - Loyalty conflict - What happens when loyalty to your own convictions and loyalty to your faith community clash? S - Social influence - How does a community influence our choices without direct coercion? Read also on ExJW.World D - The truth - What happens when a religious belief is presented as absolute truth? O - Organizational structure - How does spiritual direction work within Jehovah’s Witnesses? V - Free will - How free is a choice when different outcomes can have major religious and social consequences? W - Worldly - What does it mean to be ‘no part of the world’?