Dictators Aren't Elected

The irony is almost too much to bear. In fact, it's so great that I feel I must be missing something. So if I am please feel free to put me right in the comments section.

An member of an unelected group who hold power over millions of lives has suggested that Britain will resemble a dictatorship if it doesn't do as they say.

That's right. The unelected group accuse the Mother of all Parliaments of running the oldest democracy in Europe like a dictatorship.

The issue that has spurred this lunacy is votes for prisoners, the unelected body is the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the member is John-Paul Costa.

Now before I go on I should make my own position clear.

I personally am in favour of prisoners having the vote. Unless you see disenfranchisement as part of the punishment then I can't see why you would be in favour of denying them them the vote. Particularly those only serving short terms.

One of the reasons I don't believe in removing the right to vote is because I am strongly in favour of a full and healthy democracy. Everyone lives here, everyone should be able to vote. There are a few practical difficulties with what seem to be known now as 'lags' but nothing we can't overcome. For example, if prisoners were given the vote in the constituency that they resided in prior to their spell in the big house then there would not be a problem of prisons influencing the outcome of the constituency they happen to be in.

This is not really about prisoners' votes though, is it? It is about who runs this country.

Earlier this month the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly against the ECHR's decision. What made the vote so striking was not just the huge majority of 212 (234 - 22). The debate had been tabled by arguably the two most senior backbenchers of the Conservative and Labour Parties, David Davis and Jack Straw. That such eminent members of both main parties should be able to find common ground and that so many other MPs should turn out to vote on an issue that technically they can now do nothing about shows the strength of feeling in the House.

Would it not make sense that if the ECHR makes a recommendation and Parliament rejects it that should be the end of the matter? After all, what sort of democracy do we live in when the elected representatives of the people can not decide on the laws of the land?

I should add that this is not an attack on the ECHR as an institution in principle. Rather this is a defence of democracy as a principle. The British Supreme Court also has no business dictating to Parliament. Parliament makes the laws and courts enforce them.

For Mr. Costa to compare Parliament to a dictatorship because MPs wish to carry out their function of representing those who elected them is grossly insulting and shows a complete ignorance of what democracy is.

There has been some confusion in parts of the press between the ECHR and the EU. Understandable in a way as they both suffer from democratic deficits. The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe. Don't worry if you haven't heard of that, you didn't get a chance to vote for them after all.

The CoE's mission is to promote human rights, democratic development and the rule of law. I apologise if reading that has made you spit coffee all over you laptop but you read correctly. Democratic development and the rule of law.

An unelected body promoting democracy and the same body wishing to override the oldest Parliament (and by default law making institution) promoting the rule of law.

I would appreciate another of Mr. Costa's comparisons. This time explaining to me how that makes sense.

Because the irony is killing me.