All societies have closed institutions. In some cases, these are literally closed to members of the
public and to their inhabitants, for example maximum security prisons or asylums, others may be partially open
but the nature of the institution shields it from general contact with the public, for example detention centers,
special homes, hospitals for chronically ill people. Others may create an aura of closedness, which
makes it difficult for nonmembers to enter: military institutions, some religious houses, and police
stations in some countries.
In these closed institutions, with few exceptions, people are either already participating in society,
or will return to that society at some point in the future. In institutions where there is a ready contact between the
members and the outside world, education can happen during this contact.
In some cases, there may be little or no contact and while it may not be possible for the members,
inmates, or patients to vote in a particular election, it may still be necessary for them to have
opportunities to learn about democracy and citizenship.
This section suggests three things that must be balanced in managing the security of programmes
conducted in closed institutions:
- the security of the staff
- the security of the participants
- the efficacy of the programme
Programme Choices
Educators talk about the hidden curriculum of schools: what is taught not during the lesson, but as
a result of the environment within which the lesson takes place. Prisons pose a particular problem
if they are primarily designed as places for restriction and punishment, while military bases operate on an
authority system somewhat at odds with what is generally considered democratic behaviour
between people.
Because of this, special programmes need to be developed, and a variety of methods found to
ensure the efficacy of this programme.
Security
Having established this, arrangements have to be made to deal with general security issues: access
to the institution, contact (or lack of contact) between educators and inmates, relationships to the
staff of the institution, and their relationship to those participating in the programme. Such
discussions should take place well in advance of the initiatiation any programme and the specialised
nature of the work suggests that a specialised staff take responsibility for it.
Using Existing Specialised Staff
Many closed institutions have visitor programmes, welfare and psychiatric services, religious
chaplaincies, formal educational studies, and vocational education. Contact with the most
appropriate of these is essential as these are people who have already forged a working relationship
with the institution and know its organisational culture, regulations, limitations, and opportunities.
Such experience may have been hard won. Election administrators should not jeopardise this by
sending inexperienced staff to conduct programmes. It may be better to orient existing educators
and other visitors with the information and materials needed and have them conduct the
programme on a proxy basis.
