RESTRUCTURING THE BALLOT BOX: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CRIMINAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT LAWS AND ISLAMIC LEGAL POSITION

Abstract

Modern Democratic state theory has transformed the world replacing traditional political systems. It is working fine in many regions, but on the other hand is problematic and still in transition in other geo-political locations. Modern European states are enjoying the fruits and benefits of the democratic system, but it has not made any significant changes in many South-American states, Africa and South Asia for instance. Among many reasons is the system of voting and adult franchise. Article 25 of ICCPR discourages “unreasonable restrictions” on voting rights. But the question remains, that what are the “reasonable restrictions”, which the ICCPR is in a way allowing, in the light of modern and Islamic laws. It is an established fact that a legal or political system which is working perfectly in one place may not align with another geopolitical location. It would be unwise to universalize systems, so as to imposing them worldwide equally. In the above argued debate, we would see that granting ‘the right to vote’ to every adult citizen may work fine in states with perfect conditions, whereas it may produce disastrous results in others. That has given rise to the modern concept of criminal disenfranchisement. It is not surprising that we find explicit evidence of this phenomenon in traditional and contemporary Islamic law interpretations. Both modern and traditional Islamic political scientists have laid Teacher Islamic legal studies, down the qualifications for potential candidates and “restrictions” on voters. I would try to analyse and find the Islamic principles for disenfranchisement. For this purpose, I have chosen the model of US laws of disenfranchisement of felons as a precedent, as these laws are best articulated and implemented there, plus the bulk of case laws on the issue are also from the US courts. It is not surprising to note that Islamic traditional law is not so primitive as it seems, rather we find deep logical debates, conclusions and rulings on many of the so-called modern issues. That is because of a rich history of juristic writings, fatwas, interpretations of divine texts and case laws spread over a span of thirteen hundred years (612AD till 1920AD).