Rules concerning the right to become a candidate for elective office often reflect a conflict between two opposing principles. On the one hand, according to the guiding principle of political participation, (see Political Participation) restrictions on candidacy should be as limited as possible. As an ideal, everyone who has the right to vote should have the additional right to stand for office (to use the British idiom), or (according to American terminology) to run for office. On the other hand, in view of the responsibilities of public office, the qualifications of candidates ought arguably to be more testing than those of ordinary voters. Moreover, there are some jobs which need to be held by those who are politically-neutral; those holding such positions should therefore be ineligible to stand for office.
Guy Goodwin-Gill has commented on the legal principles, such as those embodied in the European Convention on Human Rights, which concern restrictions on the right to stand for public office.
European jurisprudence recognizes a variety of conditions and exclusions [from the right to candidacy], including penal detention and residence requirements, but provides generally that they shall be prescribed by law and reasonably necessary in a democratic society. They must also not be arbitrary or violate the principle of non-discrimination ... to deny political rights merely on the basis of political opinion poses a direct challenge to the democratic process itself.
Examples of existing restrictions follow.
Citizenship
This is a normal, though not universal qualification. For elections to the European Parliament, candidates in any one country may be citizens of any other country within the European Union. In British and Jamaican elections, citizens of Commonwealth countries may be candidates.
In other cases, citizenship requirements are more stringent for candidates than for voters. In the United States, a candidate for the presidency must not only be a citizen but must, in addition, be a citizen by birth. There is a similar qualification for the Senate of Colombia, and for both legislative chambers in Bolivia. In the United States, nine years' citizenship is required for the Senate and seven years for the House of Representatives. In Argentina the figures for the Senate and Chamber of Deputies are six years and four years respectively; and in Uruguay, seven years and five years. In Zambia, the rules for presidential candidates are especially restrictive: not only must they be born in the country, but they must also be of Zambian parentage.
Residence
Special residence qualifications include: Costa Rica ten years (not necessarily in the constituency where the candidate is standing); Norway ten years (but not necessarily immediately prior to candidature), and for the presidency of the United States, fourteen years.
In the United States, a candidate for the U.S. Congress must be resident in the state in which he is standing. Candidates for the Philippines House of Representatives must have been resident in the district for which they are standing for a minimum of one year. In Ecuador, candidates must have been born or resident for three years in the province. In Namibia, twelve months of continuous residence in a local authority area is required to qualify both as an voter and as a candidate for the local authority.
Age
Candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives must be at least twenty-five years old (compared with the voting age of eighteen), while the minimum age for the Senate is thirty, and for the presidency thirty-five. In Namibia, a presidential candidate must also be at least thirty-five. Other age barriers include thirty-five for senators in Bolivia, Colombia, and the Philippines, and forty for senators in Belgium and Italy.
Finances
Bankruptcy or insolvency is an occasional barrier, especially in countries influenced by the Westminster Model: for instance, in Australia, Britain, Fiji, India, Ireland, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa, and Sri Lanka.
Criminal Record
Countries where those with criminal convictions are barred include: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Britain, Colombia, Fiji, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Namibia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Zimbabwe.
Mental Disability
Insanity or being of unsound mind is a bar in some countries, including Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Britain, Fiji, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Malaysia, Malta, Namibia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland (which also precludes 'feeble-mindedness' - something that cynics might suppose would disqualify a great many politicians), Turkey, and Zimbabwe.
Other Personal Disabilities
Bolivia and France - failure to have completed military service; Costa Rica, Italy, and the Philippines - illiteracy; Mauritius - inability to read and speak English; and Costa Rica - relatives of the President of the Republic.
Incompatible Offices
Current service in the armed forces and in civilian branches of the public service are the most important source of incompatibility with candidature for elective office. Among many examples are: Britain, Germany, Jamaica, India, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Turkey, and Zimbabwe.
Government contractors are barred from candidature in Australia, Ecuador, Fiji, India, Jamaica, Mexico, and elsewhere.
There is no shortage of more surprising or unusual types of disqualification. Practising lawyers and clergymen in Catholic orders are disqualified in Argentina, as are members of the Royal Family in Britain, university professors in Turkey, primary school teachers and keepers of brothels in Luxembourg, salaried Rabbis in Israel, registrars of mortgages in Greece, and legal representatives of foreign companies in Ecuador.
Ideology
It seems reasonable that candidates who advocate the destruction of the state, who are committed to terrorism, or who are opposed to democracy should be barred. Yet it is difficult to draw a line between banning those who wish to use democratic structures only to ruin them, and those who are followers of unpopular ideologies which should nevertheless be tolerated in a pluralist society. The limits of tolerance depend partly on the condition of the state at the time of the election. There can be a greater tolerance for seemingly extreme views in peacetime than during the emergencies of war.
There is always a danger that restrictions of the rights of allegedly disloyal, anti-democratic, extreme, or violent elements will be enforced in an unfair manner. Restrictions on candidatures on ideological grounds may serve as an excuse by an authoritarian regime to hamper opposition, or they may be applied unevenly. It is open to comment that restrictions in post-war West Germany on anti-democratic persons were applied with greater vigour to Communists than to those with Nazi records. The restrictions on Communists in the United States during the Cold War is another controversial matter. Richard Katz reports that Communist candidates are still banned in nine out of fifty U.S. states
Other examples of ideological tests are Indonesia, where candidates must be loyal to Pancasila as the basic ideology of the State, and Iraq, where candidates must uphold the principles and aims of the July 1968 revolution. (It may be objected that these examples, cited by Goodwin-Gill, are not of practices in pluralist democracies.)
Religion
According to the constitution, the Argentinean president must be a Roman Catholic. In Iran, candidates must either have a belief in and an active obligation to Islam, or must belong to a recognized religious minority.
The main sources of information in this entry are Richard S. Katz, Democracy and Elections. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, especially Table 14.1. For the section on ideology, Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, Free and Fair Elections: International Law and Practice. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, 1994, pp. 54-55. Additional information was supplied by Gerhard Tötemeyer.
Draft Only
