In last year's national elections, two people that the Indian government has jailed under various national security and terrorism laws were allowed to participate and actually won their respective contests.[1][2] While they were allowed to take their oaths in parliament, they continue to be in jail due to the charges against them.
The trials will take place, eventually. Or some other accommodation will be arrived at. After all, 50m court cases are pending in Indian courts at various levels and these things take their own sweet time.
The point is, people were allowed to vote for their preferred candidate in elections in spite of the security apparatus of the State considering them to be terrorists. This is democracy.
If prominent politicians in Europe are prevented from standing for elections while the European Union lectures the developing world about the lack of "democracy," why should anyone take these clowns seriously?
These are not similar situations. In your example, they were merely charged and arrested. At that point, nothing has been proven. The case in question has already resulted in a conviction.
It’s a pretty clear cut case of someone misusing governmental funds to further their political aspirations. Another way of phrasing that is corruption. Is a role of the courts not to prevent this? Is allowing proven corrupt individuals to hold office positive for a democratic institution?
Anyone serious about democracy should think hard before they prevent people from standing for elections.
The courts might think they are doing their job, but disqualifying a major political figure from standing for elections based on charges related to 10-20 year old cases gives a very specific message, whether you like it or not.
The last instances of impropriety took place seven years before charges were brought. I think that’s in a reasonable time period considering it’s was a conspiracy and had to be investigated.
Government officials should be held to a higher standard, let alone a minimum standard of “don’t steal from the people.” A few years of house arrest and a suspension from politics is a light sentence when one violates that bare minimum standard.
The trials will take place, eventually. Or some other accommodation will be arrived at. After all, 50m court cases are pending in Indian courts at various levels and these things take their own sweet time.
The point is, people were allowed to vote for their preferred candidate in elections in spite of the security apparatus of the State considering them to be terrorists. This is democracy.
If prominent politicians in Europe are prevented from standing for elections while the European Union lectures the developing world about the lack of "democracy," why should anyone take these clowns seriously?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Abdul_Rashid
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritpal_Singh