Disenfranchising democracy

Disenfranchising democracy

Afua Hirsch:

If we do not give prisoners the right to vote we risk undermining the very nature of citizenship and human rights

In 1996 a man who one year earlier had shot the Israeli prime minister Yitzak Rabin dead, voted in Israel's general election. "He's concerned about Israel and the future", his lawyer said. Critics – not least the widow of the deceased Rabin and his successor as prime minister, Shimon Peres – were outraged and demanded the killer be stripped of his citizenship.

They did not get their way because, despite sympathy for their anger, the Israeli courts insisted that if you strip prisoners of their rights, "the base of all fundamental rights is shaken".

Echoes of this decision resonated in Canada when, in 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that the "right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and rule of law and cannot be lightly set aside", overturning a decade old electoral law which denied prisoners serving over two years the right to vote.

And in South Africa, home of that uniquely intimate relationship between the prison population and political change, the Constitutional Court in 1999 rejected attempts by the government to deny prisoners the vote. "The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and of personhood", it said. There is a trend here, and the UK, which still has a blanket ban on prisoners voting, has been moving in the wrong direction.

Not just among its international allies; closer to home Ireland – also mindful of a legacy of politicians residing in jail – joined Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey – all of whom now allow either all or some prisoners to vote.

If following the example of so many other countries isn't reason enough to change the law on prisoners voting, then you would think a judgment by the European court of human rights would do the trick.

But in 2004, former prisoner John Hirst successfully persuaded the European court of human rights that the law was disproportionate and a violation of the European convention on human rights, which requires the government to "hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people".

This week, the government announced the "second stage" in its consultation on implementing this judgment – five years after the court's original decision, amid legal challenges and mounting anger at what is seen by many as procrastination.

It's hard to disagree. The attitude of the government can only be described as sulking – it really, really does not want to change the law. "The government believes it would not be appropriate for all serving prisoners to be able to vote and the consultation does not propose giving all prisoners the vote", a Ministry of Justice press release said last week. And this was the document supposedly backing the proposals for change!

There are many reasons why the government should grow up. As the Prison Reform Trust recently pointed out, coalition forces allowed prisoners in Iraq to maintain their voting rights, arguing this was to "aid the democratic process". As the more mature decisions of other democracies have pointed out, imprisonment is supposed to deprive inmates of their liberty while facilitating their rehabilitation, not strip them of their citizenship rights.

And then there is the question of exactly who is affected by the blanket ban. At last count the prison population – which currently stands at around 83,000 – continues to massively overrepresent ethnic minorities, who make up around 22% of the male and 29% of the female prison population. Also overrepresented are those from disadvantaged backgrounds and children who have grown up in care. The government is supposedly supportive of empowering people from these communities to vote – something they are less likely to do anyway – but this interest apparently terminates when they are in jail. No "badge of dignity and of personhood" there then.

Anyone who thinks that prisoners' right to vote is of no consequence need look no further than the US, where the regime of "felony disenfranchisement" almost makes the UK look progressive. Amongst the 5.3 million citizens disenfranchised there were 600,000 in Florida. Had Al Gore not lost to George Bush by just 537 votes in that state during the 2000 presidential election, history would have looked very different.

It's hard to believe that Victorian laws which deliberately dehumanised prisoners by perpetuating "civic death" – the withdrawal of citizenship rights – are being perpetuated today. Whether it's fear of what the tabloid press will say, or fear that a major deterrent to committing crime will be lost (anyone know a potential offender who changed his mind because he would miss that general election?) – who knows? Maybe they are afraid prisoners would vote for David Cameron. Either way, it's not prisoners who are damaged in the long-run – democracy is the victim.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2009

Related content:

Jailhouselawyer states that democracy is about killing the Prime Minister to vote to elect another Prime Minister of one's choice.