Prisoners' Votes Aren't a Trivial Cause

With Britain's standing in the small community of decent nations and the legality of the general election at stake, even the most cynical of observers may have expected the government to resolve the issue of the prisoners' vote.

As the election approaches, the sharper and more unavoidable the issue becomes. It is even possible that the failure to address the legal judgments made in favour of prisoners may render the election unlawful. The government has been repeatedly warned of this consequence by the parliamentary all-party human rights group and the committee of ministers of the Council of Europe.

Who would have thought, five years ago, a legal and political outcast called John Hirst could resurrect a debate about the nature of our democracy and citizenship that has seemingly ended with the introduction of the universal franchise?

Hirst had a particular status that endowed him with a peculiar legal status. He was serving a life sentence for manslaughter. As with all prisoners, he was denied the vote. Unlike most of his peers, he objected to this situation and challenged the law through to the European court of human rights. The government lost its argument in 2005, appealed, and lost again. The court argued that the ability to vote was such a fundamental component of a democratic society that Britain's blanket ban on prisoners voting was unlawful.

A government founded on some firm political ideology or principle would, at that point five years ago, called upon its strength of principle and resolved the issue. It may have caused short-term political difficulty, but this would have passed.

Instead, the government indulged in obfuscation and delay. It promised a consultation process, then delayed it for two years. It then sat on the results of this consultation for a year, before beginning a second consultation. Along the way senior ministers made it perfectly clear that they would not give prisoners the vote. The government made it equally clear that they would not resolve this issue in time for the general election this year. A legal and political crisis is now a real possibility.

Why has the government been so resistant, why is it willing to risk holding an unlawful election rather than resolve what should be a fairly minor matter? Rather than merely being fear of media and populist outrage, I believe that the government's stance derives in a fundamental way from the status that penal matters have in our social and political culture.

Prisons exist. They appear in the popular consciousness, with media prompting, with some regularity. However, to the detriment of our criminal justice system – and now the political process – prisons act more as a lightning rod for broad, incoherent discontent than as a lens with which to examine our understanding.

The prisoners' vote case, then, is not merely a symbolic matter. That it has led to this point of potential crisis is a reflection of the place of prison and prisoners in our national life - always there, but never meaningfully discussed.

If, in addressing the matter of prisoners' votes, a genuine debate can be fostered and the place and role of prisons in society becomes a matter of genuine consideration then we will all have benefited. It is such a pity that to reach this point has cost many years, much money and so much wasted political energy. As a society we deserve better from our political leaders and, when prisoners have the vote, we will play our small part in insisting that our leaders do engage with these complicated questions. For the good of us all.

from the Guardian Saturday 13 February 2010 16.00 GMT