Bertrand Russell once said that “the kernel of scientific outlook is the refusal to regard our own desires, tastes and interests as affording a key to the understanding of the world”. My former philosophy lecturer would add to this that even God himself must present his credentials at the threshold of the philosophy classroom. I believe that these expressions should as well apply in the field of creating good laws. When trying to make respectable, lasting and humane laws our minds must never be over crowded with subjective, exaggerated and blindfolded personal tastes. We must be guided by utmost and unalloyed sobriety. Good proposals for law must present their credentials, that is, they must be objectively rational.
“Prisoners, save those under sentence of death or serving life imprisonment should be permitted to vote”
ELECTORAL REFORM RECOMMENDATIONS
In August 2005 the Electoral Reforms Technical Committee (ERTC) released its final report reviewing the electoral system in Zambia. Certainly, they made more than a few brilliant and progressive recommendations. But reading their final recommendation on the “Prisoners and the electoral reforms”, requires that profound reflect on the subject.
The ERTC had made an interim recommendation regarding the franchise of prisoners thus: “Prisoners, save those under sentence of death or serving life imprisonment should be permitted to vote” (See Appendix VII, Chapter four, recommendation number 11).
STAKEHOLDERS’ INFLUENCE
After reviewing stakeholders’ comments, the ERTC reached a decision to depart from its interim recommendation and justifies its position in the following words:
…the committee concedes that allowing detainees and prisoners to vote would create security problems, which are not conducive to free and fair elections. The committee also acknowledges that allowing thousands of prisoners to vote would overstretch the limited prison establishment and that those prisoners have inadequate information on which to make informed choices. The committee also considered that there is a likelihood of prisoners being coerced to vote against their will.
This position of the ERTC indicates four (4) major concerns; security problems, overstretching the prison authority, inadequate information for prisoners and prisoners being coerced to vote. It is important that we take a close look at each of these concerns.
SECURITY CONCERNS
The ERTC gives no explanation for supposing that “allowing detainees and prisoners to vote would create security problems.” In the absence of reasons we are all entitled to guess, and I can only guess that this position assumes that all prisoners are in custody due to having committed heinous crimes that are perpetually inimical to the well being of society. Therefore letting prisoners out even for a brief moment would mean that each prisoner would certainly grievously injure somebody.
While there could be some trace of truth in that sort of fear, it falls short of reflecting contemporary criminal justice. It is inadequate to think that only the most outrageous and profoundly immoral acts such as murder, armed robbery and rape are criminal. Today a lot of acts that could be viewed by many people as morally innocuous are prohibited by criminal law on the grounds of social expediency and not because of their immoral nature. Think of traffic laws, taxation and trade regulations.
An example on this issue can be drawn from the imprisonment of Fr. Jules Torrend, S.J., the founder of Kasisi mission. Being short of funds, Fr. Torrend paid some of his workers by giving them clothes. He was charged and duly convicted of selling goods without a trading licence for which he was confined into custody in a Livingstone prison in 1914. What sort of security would such a prisoner cause by casting a vote?
In any case, if the security fears was genuine, then it would be hard to reconcile recommendation 11 with another recommendation which the ERTC has retained; “Prisoners who are in detention, but not convicted of an offence, be allowed to contest election” (Appendix VII, chapter 4, recommendation number 12). Are we to suppose that those detainees who wish to contest elections would only be free to campaign to fellow prisoners who according to recommendation 11 are supposed to be disenfranchised? Surely if the detainees have to reasonably contest elections it means that they will be allowed to go out to campaign, propagate their manifestos and sell out their ideas to the electorate. It is therefore anomalous that while detainees are allowed to contest elections and campaign outside prison they are at the same time denied the right to cast a vote.
It is therefore anomalous that while detainees are allowed to contest elections and campaign outside prison they are at the same time denied the right to cast a vote.
OVERSTRETCHING THE PRISON AUTHORITY
The ERTC fears that allowing the prisoners to vote would overstretch the limited prison service. I guess by this the ERTC means that there are fewer prison guards to supervise and look after prisoners and detainees during the time of voting.
I have many times met several prisoners going about their daily chores with minimal security presence. I remember clearly that sometimes prisoners came for football matches at our school and there was minimal security presence. The same prisoners, therefore, who go about their daily lives without overstretching the prisons service, can take a few minutes to cast a vote. There could be a few prisoners who need serious guarding. But the same guards who watch over them during the year surely can spend a few minutes on an election day to look after their treasure!
Voting is not a right like the freedom of travel wherever one wishes, which automatically terminates on imprisonment.
In any case, disenfranchisement has no relevance to imprisonment. Voting is not a right like the freedom of travel wherever one wishes, which automatically terminates on imprisonment. Voting is more of a civic responsibility. Since prisons are also meant as reformation centres, it is hard to see what sort of lesson prisoners learn by curtailing their franchise.
INFORMATION
The ERTC does not explain why they think that prisoners have inadequate information. There is no law that exclusively forbids prisoners from seeking and acquiring information and certainly some prisoners could in fact be better informed than free citizens.
If the ERTC by “information” means access to newspapers, then there are millions of Zambians who do not buy newspapers and thousands more who cannot even read. Yet such people are free to vote. If “information” includes access to radio and television, there are several districts and villages around the country that have no access to television or radio channels. Yet these people vote. Such people associate with other human beings who give them the information they need. Prisoners, like everyone else, are human beings who get information by association. They go out to do certain works, they go out for sports and they are also visited by friends, their lawyers, relatives, seminarians, pastors, Christian lay groups, nuns, charitable organisations and priests, who may give them valuable information. Life could be made easier by allowing politicians to campaign directly to prisoners so that prisoners are able to compare and contrast the viability of each prospective leader.
Denying prisoners information is not part of their sentence and it would be preposterous and unjust to disenfranchise them on that account.
Denying prisoners information is not part of their sentence and it would be preposterous and unjust to disenfranchise them on that account.
COERCION
Finally it is conceded that prisoners and detainees should be disenfranchised on the basis that they could be coerced to vote against their own will. Not much ink needs wasting on this one. Accepting that prisoners should not vote due to the possibility of intimidation and coercion is simply resigning to the status quo and entrenching a negative practice instead of taking a more robust and progressive step towards eliminating all forms of torture and human degradation.
CONCLUSION
A lot of people who have contributed to the human civilisation and progress at one time spent sometime in prison. Think of Monze Nchete, Socrates, Jules Torrend, Kenneth Kaunda, Steven Biko, Nelson Mandela, Thomas More, John the Baptist and Jesus. Making an indiscriminate ban on all prisoners and detainees from voting denies society of the wise choices and profound meditation of some people in prison.
Being a prisoner does not mean one is more morally depraved than those outside. There are some acts which everyone or almost everyone considers morally repugnant but criminal prosecution is not prescribed.
Being a prisoner does not mean one is more morally depraved than those outside.
A perfect example is adultery. One could commit adultery as much as he or she wants and even be proud of it. Yet such a person will not spend a day in prison for it. Adultery is not a criminal offence. What grounds, then, should entitle an adulterer to vote and yet prevent a traffic offender spending a few months in prison from casting a vote? Let he who has never sinned be the first one to deny prisoners the right to vote!
O’Brien Kaaba
Law Student
Lusaka
