We Are Embracing Flawed Electoral Regulations
Dear Editor,
Soon Postulation to participate in the upcoming 2024 parliamentary election is upon us. Political parties will be presenting their list of candidates.
With the postulation of the list of candidates who are eligible, new parties must acquire authorized voters signatures to support their list of candidates, according to the Election Ordinance. These signatures must amount to 1% of the total votes cast in the previous election.
The Election Ordinance further states: The signatures do not apply with regard to a list of candidates of a political party to which one or more seats in Parliament were assigned at the last election held.
Currently two members of parliament are presenting each a new political party and are obliged to acquire the necessary amount of signatures to participate in election 2024, including a third new party.
But, the political parties who are currently represented in parliament do not have that burden of acquiring signatures, even though they have recruited new members for their list. This a blatant inequity in the present Election Ordinance.
Another situation in the Electoral system is, that it is incompatible with Civil Registry Laws. In Civil Registry Law your birth name is yours for life, unless as in a marriage, the couple gives consent that the woman carries her husband title, in addition to hers.
F. Lake
###
Publisher’s Note:
Incompatibility between Civil Registry and Voters Registry
F. Lake’s observation about the discrepancy between the Civil Registry and the Voters Registry raises a critical issue in the electoral system, highlighting a significant incongruity that affects the integrity of the voter identification process. At its core, this discrepancy presents a fundamental challenge to the notion of personal identity and autonomy, impacting the rights and recognition of individuals within the democratic framework.
The Civil Registry serves as the foundational source for establishing a person’s legal identity, preserving an individual’s given names and titles at birth. It enshrines the lifelong identification of an individual based on the name provided by parents during registration. This aspect is crucial, as it safeguards an individual’s inherent right to their chosen name, reflecting their heritage, familial connections, and personal identity.
Lake’s point about the incompatible integration between the Civil Registry and the Voters Registry is particularly salient in the case of married women. The discrepancy emerges when the Voters Registry mandates the inclusion of a married woman’s husband’s title alongside her maiden name on the voting card, irrespective of her choice to adopt or retain her husband’s title at the time of marriage.
This contradiction poses a profound challenge to the principle of self-determination and the autonomy of individuals, especially women, in defining their identities. The discrepancy between the Civil Registry and the Voters Registry appears to overlook the rights of individuals who consciously decide to retain their birth names or opt not to incorporate their husband’s title.
The discrepancy becomes especially apparent in the context of elections, as it imposes an additional identifier on married women’s voting cards, potentially conflicting with their individual choice of identity. This incongruity might lead to misrepresentations and challenges in the recognition of an individual’s chosen identity, potentially compromising the accuracy and integrity of the electoral process.
Furthermore, this inconsistency may inadvertently undermine the sanctity of personal identity, running contrary to the principles of self-determination and individual autonomy enshrined in civil rights and personal freedoms.
Efforts to rectify this discrepancy between the Civil Registry and the Voters Registry are crucial to ensure a more cohesive and aligned representation of individuals’ chosen identities. Bridging this gap requires a comprehensive reassessment of electoral regulations, seeking harmony between civil rights and electoral procedures to safeguard individuals’ rights to their chosen identities without undue imposition of additional titles.
In summary, the incongruity between the Civil Registry and the Voters Registry not only signifies a disparity in identity recognition but also underscores the critical need for cohesive, inclusive, and equitable electoral practices that honor and respect individuals’ fundamental right to self-identification and autonomy within the democratic process. Resolving this disparity is essential to ensure the accurate representation of individuals and the preservation of their chosen identities in electoral processes.
