When prisoners were first allowed to vote in the former Netherlands Antilles, it raised quite a few eyebrows. Many felt inmates found guilty of a crime and in the process of serving their sentence as punishment ought not really be involved in choosing elected representatives.
The risk became apparent in St. Maarten several years later, when it turned out at least one politician had obtained a list of detainees who were eligible to vote and paid for their support at the poll in the penitentiary. It apparently worked until detected, considering the massive backing this candidate got there compared to in other voting districts.
Now MFK leader Gerrit Schotte is trying to continue as Member of Parliament (MP) in Curaçao while behind bars for accepting a political bribe, forgery and money-laundering (see Monday paper). Although the country’s constitution states that legislators automatically lose their seats once irrevocably convicted, the underlying related legislation supposedly never went into effect due to the lack of a national decree.
The former prime minister reasons that he has more than enough time on his hands. Should a video conference connection be arranged Schotte could attend meetings as well, it was argued during the appeal process.
If so, would he be able to vote on draft laws, motions, etc., that way as well? Parliament’s Rules of Order certainly contain no provision for such.
And even if it were possible, this would open a Pandora’s Box whereby other members might also want to debate and vote from, for example, the hospital or their homes when ill. All this seems to be in violation of the need to sign in for meetings and to form a quorum too.
To conclude, basic democratic rights are one thing, but when people commit serious offences against society requiring incarceration there must be consequences. In short: How much is too much?
