HUMAN-RIGHTS watchers gulped when Turkey stripped more than 100 parliamentarians of their immunity from prosecution on May 20th. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the country’s increasingly authoritarian president, said that Turks “do not want to see guilty lawmakers in this parliament”. These words would strike a chord in many other places. In 2014 one-third of the MPs elected to India’s parliament faced criminal charges. In Brazil around three-fifths of congressmen face accusations of criminal wrongdoing. Despite this, most developing countries—and some western European ones—grant blanket immunity from prosecution to lawmakers, often to the displeasure of their own citizens. Why are these politicians placed above the law?
There are two general systems of immunity. Britain, America and others grant “narrow” immunity: MPs can vote and speak freely in Parliament or Congress without worrying about potential lawsuits or criminal charges. The “wider” concept of immunity is more controversial: some fortunate lawmakers enjoy immunity from all kinds of prosecution, which can only be lifted with a parliamentary vote. Its critics say such a system lets politicians act with impunity and encourages criminals to run for office. They are right. Romania’s parliament spent much of 2015 refusing to lift the immunity of an MP accused of taking bribes. In 2006 an untouchable Egyptian MP denied wrongdoing even after customs found 1,700kg of Viagra illegally imported in his company’s name. And in 1982 Pablo Escobar, a murderous drug baron, won immunity after his election to Colombia’s House of Representatives. These cases undermine public faith in institutions and democracy itself.
