Memorandum by Mr Mazin Zeki (VOT 26)
SUMMARY
— problems of the register;
— importance of separate stand-alone
register;
— ethnic mobilisation is totally irrelevant;
— racialisation of the political process
should be resisted;
— transience is a serious threat;
— the primacy of individual ballot
and voting must not be infringed;
— electoral register is part of public
sphere;
— postal voting is not the way forward;
and
— centrality of jury service.
The register should stand alone without any
link to any other information or database. Any card which combines
other functions must be strongly resisted. No "Malaysia card"
system which combines other functions with electoral system. Independently
supervised safeguards must exist against the collection of voting
information.
The privacy of register is to some extent a
contradiction. It is meant to be a public document. The Robertson
case, although undertaken with good intentions, has led to a very
unsatisfactory and confusing outcome. There should be one register
without any opt-out other than very exceptional circumstances
to be decided on an objective basis.
It must be of some concern that the community
cohesion and Civil renewal agenda does not even mention such fundamental
issues as registration, voting or jury service. A check on the
national electoral database is a more complicated question. There
is no reason to explore a link to other facts about an individual
registrant unless there is a utilitarian argument which is separate
from the register itself. No such utilitarian argument has been
made. Not everybody who has a legitimate NI number (this is separate
from the growing number of fraudulent numbers) is necessarily
an eligible citizen. This is confusing residence with citizenship.
This confusion is encouraged by multicultural propagandists.
It is more important to undertake prosecutions
of those who register falsely or who use the registration for
fraudulent purposes. This should be considered as an additional
offence separate from fraudulent registration itself. Also because
of the confusion surrounding registration there is a strong case
for non-prosecution for those who do not register because they
are not sure if they are eligible.
The chaotic state of electoral registration
in inner-city boroughs is very much like the census. From personal
experience I can vouch for the fact that the canvass for the electoral
registration is not always accurate and is often carried out by
poorly trained temporary staff. People who had not re-registered
were still included on the register. There were people who were
included in buildings which were undergoing demolition before
the register was being compiled.
Part of the reason is the transient nature of
the workforce employed by the ERO in places like Haringey. In
some cases there was no ID available for such workers thus lessening
confidence in the register. The electoral registration officer
has not responded to such concerns.
VOTING AS
A CIVIC
ACTIVITY AND
THE JURY
SYSTEM
Great concern must be expressed about attempts
to phase out traditional polling stations. Results of elections
could be brought into question, as individuals can vote where
they were registered not where at a current address. It is perfectly
legal to register at more than one address provided only one vote
is cast. This must remain the case. It should be up to voters
to decide where they can cast their vote in the most effective
way.
The question on nationality is asked twice and is
therefore confusing.
The first question is "I am a citizen of .
. ."
The question with a the mandatory signature states
"I am a citizen of the United Kingdom, . . ."
However, a transient population such as that
which occurs in Haringey is likely to undermine the electoral
register. But the response of the local authority is to deny the
reality of transience and even to deny the opportunity to discuss
the issue of transience and its harmful effects.
This transience is of course not caused by the
voting system but has a negative impact upon it. It affects the
ability of parties to maintain membership. It therefore undermines
the legitimacy of the democratic order. It is of great concern
that transience has been denied by observers when they were in
a position to influence local events.
POSTAL VOTING
All-postal ballots must be resisted for several
reasons. E-enabled elections do not necessarily increase turnout.
The secret ballot is compromised. The report from the Electoral
Commission may be misleading . The traditional ballot strengthens
civil society because it is a visible, shared activity. The mechanisms
for all-postal voting are too weak to be considered, except in
special circumstances. The argument that turnout rises in all-postal
ballots is very misleading. It is true in the short term but tends
to fall thereafter. This has been the experience in Britain and
in other countries. The continual decline in turnout will only
be halted when differences are more marked between political parties.
This subject is outside the remit of the consultation and has
been underlined by studies by the Electoral Reform Society. It
may increase turnout if it is an experiment and therefore a novelty,
but great concern must be expressed about all-postal ballots for
significant political events such as referenda on constitutional
or similar matters. Great concern must also be expressed about
the Electoral Commission which has remained silent on some aspects
of this such as the impact of transience.
IRRELEVANCE OF
ETHNICITY
A number of self-appointed representative groups
have sprung up which claim to represent particular minorities
in the political process. What perhaps is more disturbing is that
mainstream parties take such claims seriously instead of facing
down the immature claims head on. Strangely none of their claims
has been supported by a shred of evidence. Furthermore, there
is not a shred of evidence that ethnic minorities are under-represented
in voting registers.
Political parties which make claims to represent
this or that group must submit their total paid membership of
eligible citizens. Observers can judge just how accountable or
and representative such claims are. These are purely demagogic
statements which are irresponsible. There are real dangers that
the voting system could be abused by demagogues, and demagogic
elements who are being promoted under the rubric of so-called
"diversity" to mobilise on the basis of ethnic or other
identity. Although currently fashionable this is potentially very
harmful to the democratic process. Far from reflecting diversity,
as some observers are fond of proclaiming, it can only lead to
greater factionalism and the balkanisation of the political process.
Politics should be decided on the clear and open clash of political
differences and political ideas but not subjectively defined identity.
Any identifiers in the voting register must
not be included if they can identify any other non-objective facts.
The numerical strength of ethnic voters has ostensibly been gauged
from tabulating the number of "foreign sounding names"
from the register in particular areas. This is not a sound basis
for reaching conclusions partly because areas of high ethnic concentration
are also areas of high transience. In addition many "ethnic"
names are actually English names. And vice versa. It is also based
on the absurd extrapolation that all these foreign sounding names
would vote in a particular direction and are not divided by political
opinion, class, other identities and loyalties. This is the politics
of fantasy indulged in by particular lobby groups in tandem with
particular think tanks who seek to make demands. Such statements
should not be taken seriously since they are based on a total
misreading of the voting register. It can best be done by withdrawing
recognition from organisations such as Operation Black Vote which
have no specific and demonstrable democratic mandate based on
membership etc but make outlandish claims on behalf of communities.
JURY SYSTEM
This consultation could have benefitted from
a wider review of the interaction with the jury system. This is
at the heart of citizenship a concept which is constantly used
but never actually defined objectively.
Now the electoral registration has been reformed
through a rolling system. This is currently often patchy and although
compulsory it has become voluntary in practice. The registration
system is one of those ties that bind all of us. It is not only
a way of ensuring that residents who qualify can cast their vote.
The accuracy of the electoral registration system must also be
maintained as it is the basis for jury selection. Great concern
must also be expressed about how this subject has been totally
ignored in the community cohesion agenda.
The random basis of selection, which must not
be infringed under any circumstances, is best assured through
an accurate register. Random selection, because it reflects society
as a whole, remains the best vehicle for delivering the highest
possible levels of criminal justice.
But in areas of high transience, typically inner
city areas—the registration system suffers and therefore
the selection system may be affected adversely.
Many also avoid registration in order to escape
possible service on a jury.
The only way to achieve a higher turnout and
to ensure that the jury system reflects the voting population
will be to tighten up on registration and make it compulsory.
The electoral lists include those who may not be eligible for
full voting rights. It includes those with an inadequate grasp
of English or Welsh. And jury service excludes those over 70 even
if they are willing to and able to serve, which many are. This
is both discriminatory and does not reflect the reality of an
ageing society. The above factors will reduce the pool of potential
jurors relative to the registered electorate from which they are
drawn. This is an objective problem which has not been addressed.
Avoiding jury service is an offence but prosecutions
are very rare and this also discredits the system. The jury system
is a progressive gain which has been taken for granted and requires
robust defence. Meanwhile the integrity of the jury system has
to be maintained against external attacks. But it must also be
protected from attrition by those who are avoiding serving on
a jury.
The work of Amitai Etzioni on communitarianism
has sought discuss issues of "rights and responsibilities".
It is often forgotten that the inspiration for this work was the
jury system, not taxation. His study found that both liberals
and authoritarians believed in the jury system as a public good
but avoided it if called.
Action must be taken against those who avoid
electoral registration largely, but not only, in order to avoid
jury service. Additionally action must be taken against those
who refuse or avoid jury service when called. Ultimately it is
a choice of balancing rights and responsibilities on a proportionate
basis. Which is the bedrock principle of human rights.
There may be difficult but necessary choices
to preserve the integrity of both the jury principle and universal
electoral registration on which it is based.
Penalties for avoiding jury service should be
accompanied with penalties for deliberately and unreasonably avoiding
electoral registration and or of registering falsely.
Compulsion is the only utilitarian, realistic
and progressive way forward. A more efficient electoral registration
system will strengthen the jury system by drawing on a larger
pool of potential jurors.
What is required is a much broader inquiry into
the whole subject of jury service and, its relation to citizenship
and criminal justice. There are electoral, political, community
cohesion and other implications which have been ignored. In particular
this creates a challenge for the criminal justice system and human
rights organisations which have not responded with sufficient
seriousness to the problem.
Bernard Crick in his report on "Living
in the United Kingdom" mentioned the "minimum"
English needed, as below GCSE 1 level. But his report did not
even mention jury service. Sir Bernard is the chair of the Advisory
Panel on Citizenship and Naturalisation which has issued a new
guide to citizenship. It appears not to mention jury service.
This omission must be a matter of deep concern.
There is therefore a strong case for a much
broader consultation on the whole issue which will include the
points above.
| 
