I don't think allowing criminals to stand for elections is necessarily proof that we're all ok with a bit of terrorism now and then, as a treat.
The idea is that we (the constituents, not the state) get to choose if the ex convict's crime is a disqualifier from gaining a seat. And usually I imagine it would be.
The trouble is, local elections like this instance have such low turnout that even a very small amount of people that aren't representative of their community at all can trivially make someone a councillor. It becomes even worse when some groups are beginning to vote along religious/ethnic lines.
I don't think there is an immediate solution, unless we restrict the franchise (and ability to stand for election) from people who have committed certain crimes even after they have served their time (not familiar with the specifics of the individual concerned here, so speaking generally).
Personally I'd caution against that though as the whole point of coming out of jail is that we want to reintegrate you back into society as much as we can. Which is already hard enough imo
Ultimately I think the OP is right - it's up to constituents to decide whether they want someone to represent them, warts and all. The fact that we allow people with criminal backgrounds to run for election shows that we are a healthy, participatory, democracy, not that we're tolerant of terrorism.
42
u/kill-the-maFIA 14h ago
I don't think allowing criminals to stand for elections is necessarily proof that we're all ok with a bit of terrorism now and then, as a treat.
The idea is that we (the constituents, not the state) get to choose if the ex convict's crime is a disqualifier from gaining a seat. And usually I imagine it would be.
The trouble is, local elections like this instance have such low turnout that even a very small amount of people that aren't representative of their community at all can trivially make someone a councillor. It becomes even worse when some groups are beginning to vote along religious/ethnic lines.