Experts of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Hold Day of General Discussion on the Right of Persons with Disabilities to Participate in Political and Public Life
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities held a day of general discussion today on the right of persons with disabilities to participate in political and public life. The day consisted of six panel discussions, hearing from Committee members and civil society representatives on a variety of topics relating to persons with disabilities’ participation in political and public life.
Speaking in the first panel discussion on the participation of persons with disabilities in elections were Committee Expert Abdelmajid Makni; Oliver Lewis, Inclusion International; Rui Coimbras, President of the Portuguese Cerebral Palsy Federation; a representative from the International Disability Alliance; Sophia Rinaldis, Director, Disability Rights, Australian Human Rights Commission; and Giordy Peña, a self-advocate with Down syndrome from Peru. Four speakers also spoke from the floor.
Speaking in the second panel discussion on the participation of persons with disabilities in public office were Committee Experts Floyd Morris and Amalia Gamio; Isaac Padrós i Suárez, member of the Parliament of Catalonia; Livio Zilli, International Commission of Jurists; Maria del Mar Galceran gadea, regional parliament in Spain; Cecilia Olivia Cruz Merlin, member of State parliament, Oaxaca, Mexico; a representative of estas; Patricia Scotland KC, Secretary General of the Commonwealth; and Yeaji Kim, Congress woman member of the Republic of Korea.
Speaking in the third panel discussion on the participation of persons with disabilities in local governments were Committee Experts Magino Corporán and Gerel Dondovdorj; Peter Kearns, Independent Living Movement Ireland; Melina Salamin, Sofia De Sousa and Megan Gillion, Fovahm; Joerg Weber, from South Africa; Samantha Pinna, University of Cagliari; Samad Quraishi Centre for Voters Initiative & Action. Two speakers also spoke from the floor.
Speaking in the fourth panel discussion on the participation of persons with disabilities in decision-making processes related to emergencies were Committee Expert Rehab Boresli, who had a statement read on her behalf; Alradi Abdalla, Inclusive Humanitarian Action and Disaster Risk Reduction Advisor at International Disability Alliance; Tom Andrews Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar; a representative of the United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction; and representatives from the town of Ascoli Piceno, who had statements read on their behalf. Four speakers also spoke from the floor.
Speaking in the fifth panel discussion on the participation of women with disabilities in decision-making processes were Committee Expert Mara Gabrilli; Eleonore Laloux, Disability Advocate; Patience Dickson from Advocacy for Women with Disabilities Initiative in Nigeria; Anne-Constance Rossigno, Alliance Enabled Women International; and Jahda Abou Khalil, from Lebanon. Three speakers also spoke from the floor.
Speaking in the sixth panel discussion on intersectionality and diversity of experiences in participation were Committee Expert Laverne Jacobs; Niccolò Vallese, supported by Alex Toselli; Manuela Bernhoeft Pineiro Vazquem; Waqar Puri, Director for Operations and Programs TCI-Global Secretariat; Preethi Lolaksha Nagaveni; Pamela Molina Toledo, Disability Rights Specialist from Latin America; and Marmuthe de Souza Cavalcanti.
Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s thirty-second session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public around 4 p.m. on Friday, 21 March, to close its thirty-second session.
Panel Discussion One on the Participation of Persons with Disabilities in Elections
ABDELMAJID MAKNI, Committee Expert, said he had followed and observed the 2016 and 2021 elections in Morocco and had come to several conclusions concerning the level of access provided to persons with disabilities to enable them to participate in the electoral process. He found that 97 per cent of facilities where voting took place were not accessible locations; 62 per cent of schools and 73 per cent of polling stations were not accessible to persons with disabilities; 95 per cent of polling stations lacked appropriate signage for autistic and other persons with disabilities; 60 per cent of polling booths were not correctly lit and did not have adapted tables; and 100 per cent of polling stations were not equipped for the blind and 62 per cent were not equipped persons in wheelchairs. His observations concluded that schools, which were designed for children, were not accessible for persons with disabilities, which was where the voting took place. While there had been some gains between 2016 and 2021, substantive work still needed to be done with politicians to ensure there was a change in electoral policy and that disability issues were taken into account to ensure broader access to persons with disabilities.
In the ensuing discussion, speakers, among other things, said the right to vote was at the heart of a democratic society. Research across several countries found that a key barrier for persons with disabilities to be able to participate in political and public life was the recognition to make the decision under the law. Many countries still deprived persons with disabilities of their right to vote, based on outdated guardianship laws and insulting and incorrect attitudes that persons with disabilities were unable to cast a vote. It was deeply concerning that nearly 20 years after the Convention was adopted, millions of people with intellectual disabilities around the world were still, by law, not able to exercise their right to vote. The Committee had referred to the need to ensure the participation of underrepresented persons with disabilities, including deaf persons, and persons with psychosocial disabilities. Political parties needed to be engaged directly to generate commitment for the inclusion of persons with disabilities.
There were several issues to consider concerning the rights of citizens with cerebral palsy and other complex disabilities. Many of these people did not have the legal ability to vote and also faced difficulty in accessing polling stations. Polling stations were often upstairs and voting material was not accessible. In the case where people could exercise their right to vote, due to a lack of accessibility, there was often not an option for a secret vote. There needed to be a voting system which took into account persons with complex disabilities like cerebral palsy, and ensured they could use a communication system to vote without any assistance, giving them the right to a secret vote without intimidation. Only this could ensure the election was a free election.
Polling stations should be accessible, and material needed to be developed in line with the needs of each disability. There needed to be guidance and support for families, as often persons with disabilities could not vote as their families would not take them. Many deaf people had the right to vote but did not know who to vote for, or information about the political candidates.
In many States parties to the Convention, persons with disabilities continued to be disenfranchised through domestic legislation. Persons with disabilities in environments such as psychiatric facilities or prisons were not always offered the right to vote, which raised questions about the connection between deprivation of liberty and the fulfilment of rights. Stigma within communities was also a major barrier to persons with disabilities participating in elections, as many believed that persons with disabilities would not be able to make appropriate decisions. Attitudinal barriers needed to be broken down. The Committee was encouraged to make strong recommendations in this regard in their general comment.
The forthcoming general comment should contain election indicators to encourage States to enable persons with intellectual disabilities to participate effectively in elections as a right, as this contributed to a cohesive and inclusive society. The general comment needed to highlight the accessibility of information in the wide diversity of formats. The general comment was a great initiative to consolidate the jurisprudence of the Committee. The general comment was also a chance to more clearly delineate the Committee’s recommendations to support candidates with disabilities to stand for elections and hold office in States.
The conflation by the Human Rights Committee regarding mental and legal capacity should be addressed in the general comment. The permission of the restrictions of the right to vote under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights could excuse States parties to provide adequate support for persons with disabilities. It was critical that the general comment provided general guidance on the contradiction between the Covenant and the Convention. The general comment was an important development, and guidance from the Committee on legal capacity, non-discrimination, and reasonable accommodations were welcomed.
Panel Discussion Two on the Participation of Persons with Disabilities in Public Office
FLOYD MORRIS, Committee Expert, said the general comment set the foundation for the general participation of persons with disabilities in society. Persons with disabilities constituted 16 per cent of the global population. If they were properly organised, they could shift the balance of power in their societies, but so far this had not been able to happen. The general comment could change the situation for persons with disabilities. Mr. Morris had served as a senator in the Jamaican Parliament for 23 years and had contributed to changing legislation to allow deaf persons to drive in Jamaica and had introduced sign language into parliament in Jamaica. If persons with disabilities did not have a seat at the table, there was a tendency to forget them. The Committee was urged to establish clear guidelines for how States parties should treat the situation of participation of persons with disabilities in politics and in public life within the general comment. Many societies perceived persons with disabilities as incapable of making complex decisions, leading to discrimination in political participation. Persons with disabilities must organise themselves to ensure their right to vote was recognised. No recognition equalled no vote.
AMALIA GAMIO, Committee Expert, said those segregated in institutions could not exercise any of their rights, including the right to vote. In many societies, persons with psychosocial disabilities were seen as incapable of making decisions. Persons with disabilities could and should participate in elections. Governments and societies needed to provide them with necessary support, including training in leadership, accessibility, and reasonable accommodation. The Committee issued a strong call to Governments to definitive eradication of institutionalisation of persons with disabilities because the world was waiting for them and for their active participation in political and social life.
In the ensuing discussion, speakers, among other things, commended the Committee’s decision to develop a general comment on article 29 of the Convention which guaranteed persons with disabilities participation in public life. The efforts of the Committee and all those involved in the discussion were reshaping lives. Historically, many States had barred persons with disabilities from participating in public office on the basis of their disabilities. This was based on attitudinal, communicational, physical, and institutional barriers. Persons with disabilities had the right to participate in all spheres of society, and these barriers prevented this participation. The representation of persons with disabilities in parliament remained low. Many States did not have any representation in parliament of persons with disabilities.
The participation of persons with disabilities in politics was essential to ensure their needs and rights were protected and their voices heard. It was vital that they were given opportunities for equality and justice. Everyone must work together to change attitudes and build a more just and human society. It was important to continue the fight for an inclusive and just society. Persons with disabilities who were involved in politics and public life contributed to inclusive policies and raising awareness in society about functional diversity. Through their presence, they contributed to a more just and accessible world. When persons with intellectual disabilities participated in parliamentary processes, they should be provided with reasonable adjustments. Governments should provide awareness raising training on the different types of disabilities.
Often the realities of persons with disabilities remained invisible. Electoral constitutions around the world disqualified individuals from holding public office on the grounds of a mental or physical disability which they said made the person incapable of performing the function required. Some laws of States parties prescribed the removal of individuals due to disabilities, particularly psychological disabilities. The right to decision making and self-determination for persons with intellectual disabilities within the public sphere was often denied. Even when they could hold public office, reasonable adjustment that respected disability traits were perceived as laziness. Women with disabilities faced further barriers to political participation. The voices of persons with disabilities were silenced through inaccessible voting systems, lack of representation in parliaments, and inadequate policy frameworks which failed to uphold their rights; this must change.
Measures had been implemented to guarantee participation in elections for persons with disabilities, including the creation of an accessibility plan; providing personal assistants to persons with disabilities; establishing specific legal frameworks to ensue persons with disabilities had parliamentary representation; implementing legal reforms; introducing assistive technologies; creating a high-level advisory group, placing the voices of persons with disabilities at the centre; and fostering a more inclusive political environment, among others. Measures needed to be accompanied by institutional support that eliminated barriers to full participation.
There was an increasing number of persons with disabilities stepping into leadership roles, which was a step in the right direction. However, despite all the progress made, new challenges continued to emerge. All States parties were called to take bold steps to fulfil their obligations under article 29 of the Convention by increasing the representation of persons with disabilities in public office and fostering decision-making at all levels. Political participation was not a privilege; it was a fundamental right.
The Committee was urged to ensure that the general comment provided guidance on the obligation of States under the Convention to guarantee the right of women with disabilities to hold public office and perform all public functions. Reasonable adjustments for persons with disabilities to hold public office should be addressed in the new general comment. Objectification of persons with disabilities based on their mental status was also a serious form of discrimination; this should also be addressed in the general comment. Persons with disabilities must be able to engage in more active political activities. The work of the Committee could support the political struggles of people with disabilities around the world.
Panel Discussion Three on the Participation of Persons with Disabilities in Local Governments
MAGINO CORPORÁN, Committee Expert, said the participation of persons with disabilities and their families in developing local authority was a huge challenge for democracy. One of these barriers meant daring to participate in politics and elections. Strengthening organizations of persons with disabilities was vital, as was forging alliances. Legislation in countries like Kenya had enabled a shrinking of the gap between persons with disabilities and abled bodied persons, while Canada had shrunk the gap through using accessible technology, and New Zealand had created an access fund to reduce financial barriers for persons with disabilities. Legislation should be developed, along with an implementation plan which would contribute to harmonising local laws with the Convention. It was also important that there was participation of associations bringing together local authorities, town councils and governance to ensure that legislation contained a cross-cutting overview.
GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert, said physical accessibility of the polling stations and the ballot papers were highlighted as key issues to be considered when it came to the participation of persons with disabilities in public life. It was also important to ensure measures such as including quotas to encourage persons with disabilities to run for and hold public office at the local level. Targeted awareness raising or training and capacity building programmes for local decision-making, including election officers, was also important to ensure the participation of persons with disabilities in decision-making. It was vital to ensure electoral processes were conducted in a disability inclusive manner.
In the ensuing discussion, speakers, among other things, said political representation was extremely important for persons with disabilities. They were happy to be heard and to work together to find solutions. It was hoped that one day it would be easier for persons with disabilities to vote, with documents provided in easy-to-read formats. It was hoped that persons with disabilities could be elected and become decision-makers. It was important for persons with disabilities to participate in processes, including at the United Nations.
It would be helpful to develop easy-to-understand training on politics, or to create spaces where persons with disabilities could meet electoral persons and politicians. It was also important to create spaces where persons with disabilities could participate. Political parties needed to really understand the capacities of persons with disabilities. Governments needed to have the sensitivity, vision and inclusivity of disability to maintain good governance.
The Convention had been used as a key training instrument in bodies which supported persons with disabilities who were participating in political and public life.
However, there was almost no research on what happened at the local level following the ratification of the Convention. Ratification was not an end in itself. Who ensured participation in public life and how did commitments translate into real opportunities for participation? Were persons with disabilities actually able to exercise and participate where they lived and engage in issues which affected them? Many officials interviewed had no concept of their obligations under the Convention. Ratification alone did not guarantee the participation of persons with disabilities.
Voting systems and materials often remained inaccessible to persons with disabilities. These groups faced active discrimination when running for office, and were rarely nominated for office. When they did, they faced funding constraints and inaccessible campaigns. The Convention was rooted in legal traditions which emphasised individual rights, which ran counter to many indigenous communities where culture was collectivist.
It was important to strengthen organizations of persons with disabilities at the local level, not just national federations. Local disability leaders needed to be trained to advocate effectively and participate in governance locally. Political participation needed to be accessible through the provision of braille and easy-read format as well as the removal of physical barriers. Political participation needed to be integrated into social development strategies and the mainstream civil society movement. Solutions could not be imposed from above; they must be shaped by local realities.
There had been some best practices pertaining to persons with disabilities, which were positive steps. These included: the accessibility of renowned hiking route the Camino for all persons with disabilities; the ratification of the Convention in several municipalities; and innovative measures implemented to ensure the safety of persons with disabilities in emergency situations.
Panel Discussion Four on the Participation of Persons with Disabilities in Decision-Making Processes Related to Emergencies
A statement read out on behalf of REHAB BORESLI, Committee Expert, said emergency measures needed to take into account the needs of persons with disabilities. Many countries did not include persons with special needs and their representatives in the disaster management teams. Information was often not available in braille or accessible needs and shelters were sometimes not accessible to persons with disabilities. The full and successful implementation of crisis management programmes must comprise persons with disabilities and include them in decision-making during relief and evacuation.
According to the Convention, persons with disabilities had the right to access services and public amenities, including during crises and disasters, and States must provide information in an accessible manner. Persons with disabilities needed to be involved in decision-making and crisis management commissions, their needs needed to be taken into account in emergency plans, and non-discrimination needed to be guaranteed during evacuations.
In the discussion, speakers, among other things, said until 2030, the number of disasters was expected to be more than 40 per cent higher than the current number, leaving 1.3 billion persons with disabilities exposed to the disproportionate impact of disasters. Persons with disabilities had the right to participate in decision-making in emergencies. It needed to be ensured that all measures to include the rights of persons with disabilities were in place, including accessibility features. It was important to remove legal and administrative barriers which prevented persons with disabilities from exercising their political rights during emergencies. Emergencies impacted everyone but had a profound impact on persons with disabilities. It was essential they participated in disaster management governance at all levels.
A thoroughly inclusive humanitarian approach could not be achieved without those affected by the crisis itself. Participation in the decision-making process could never be meaningful without ensuring accessibility. Information on emergency communication needed to be provided in sign language interpretation and braille and easy read format. Without accessibility, participation in decision-making would be symbolic rather than substantive. Reasonable accommodation needed to be provided to enable persons with disabilities to engage meaningfully and substantially. Persons with disabilities, including deaf people, needed basic information on disaster risk and response, and then it needed to be ensured their voices were heard.
A report found that people with disabilities in Myanmar were facing an acute crisis, which was worsening. Accessibility devices were often left behind or destroyed when people with disabilities needed to evacuate from air strikes. Persons with disabilities in Myanmar were an invisible community trapped in the middle of an invisible crisis. More people were killed or injured by landmines in Myanmar than any other country on earth. The availability of prosthetic devices had been blocked by the military junta. Many persons with disabilities were killed when junta forces arrived in their villages because they could not hear warnings or access communication to evacuate. In Myanmar, challenges of armed conflict, discrimination, and lack of resources were compounded by the fact that persons with disabilities were rarely consulted in the planning of humanitarian initiatives. Persons with disabilities must have the recognition and opportunity to fully participate in humanitarian programming and coordination.
In a case of best practice, Ascoli, a village in Italy, had created an emergency management plan. Part of this initiative included a database as a strategic tool, to provide information on emergency contact numbers and the official focal points to be enacted in cases of need. An app provided a multi-channel communication system for users, who could receive emergency updates for the community. The project had involved technical experts, emergency responders and persons with disabilities. A series of training sessions had been held on inclusive emergency management. The plan served as a testing ground for implementing the best practices developed over the years.
The conventional cyclic approach of disaster management no longer captured the complexity and urgency at hand; dedicated focus on prevention was needed. Persons with existing disabilities needed to be involved in disaster risk reduction programming and actions. It was essential that persons with disabilities had the opportunity to decide on their own evacuation process, speak about themselves in emergency consultations, and receive and share information about aid distribution and emergency relief in accessible format. There needed to be equality all across the world, in every country, to be safe in a community; to state the need of those with disabilities; and to have that lineated around the world.
Panel Discussion Five on the Participation of Women with Disabilities in Decision-Making Processes
MARA GABRILLI, Committee Expert, said women with disabilities faced multiple obstacles when it came to participating in public life. Ms. Gabrilli was a senator in Brazil and her participation in parliament had driven several reforms. During the ratification of the Convention in Brazil, all communication channels had been accessible, including translating legislation into sign language, which was a first for Brazil. Unfortunately, these examples remained as exceptions rather than the rule. Persons with disabilities needed to actively participate, not as charity but as agents of change. The real obstacles were not the impairments themselves but rather the lack of accessibility and rehabilitation and the persistence of discrimination. Representation was vital; children and young people with disabilities needed role models.
In the discussion, speakers, among other things, said women with disabilities were capable of extraordinary work in all areas of society if they were given the appropriate support. Those with disabilities were still fully fledged members of society. The participation of persons with disabilities in politics promoted a more inclusive and democratic society where everyone had a voice and the opportunity to contribute to the development and implementation of policies which affected their lives.
Projects had been implemented, including a festival which aimed to bring those with disabilities and those without disabilities together through sporting and cultural activities. This allowed local residents to discover new and inclusive local events. A protocol had also been developed which had 250 signatures and required international feminist forums to be fully accessible for persons with disabilities. There had been success stories of women with disabilities who had broken barriers and assumed leadership roles; these stories could be used to inspire others.
However, many challenges still remained. For example, women in Nigeria were disproportionately underrepresented in the Nigerian parliament. Many women faced discrimination when contesting parliamentary seats, including access issues, such as campaign sites in hard-to-reach areas. Women with disabilities did not have the capacities to fund campaign activities like their male counterparts, due to barriers to education and employment. Gender-based violence and sexual harassment in political spaces had a huge impact on the political representation of women, which could endanger women, and discourage them from seeking office in the future.
Obstacles remained in the area of leadership within organizations defending women’s rights. Women with disabilities should be a part of the leadership in their organizations and have equal rights to participate with men in decision-making. Women with disabilities often faced rigid societal stereotypes and prejudice that undermined their capacities and contributions. High rates of unemployment among women with disabilities limited their ability to participate in political processes.
Recommendations were made regarding the Committee’s general comment. This included that there should be a quota system which allowed women with disabilities to assume political positions and to increase their representation; there should be training programmes to empower women with disabilities to assume leadership roles; technical and financial support should be provided for women with disabilities to encourage them to run for political offices; and public awareness campaigns should be launched to sensitise the community about the rights of women with disabilities to participate in politics. The Committee was encouraged to adopt a broad interpretation of article 29, establishing that States must guarantee pre-conditions necessary for participation.
States should be encouraged to provide training to create opportunities for feminist leadership for persons with disabilities at all levels. Women and girls with disabilities should be consulted in the development of laws and public policies. It was important to develop specific policies which addressed the challenges faced by women with disabilities, ensuring their voices were heard.
If all of society tried and was engaged, the lives of all people would change for the better. It would mean all people could go to school together, could have unfettered access to shops, and could participate fully in sporting events. By supporting women with disabilities, societies could build a more just and inclusive future for all.
Panel Discussion Six on Intersectionality and Diversity of Experiences in Participation
LAVERNE JACOBS, Committee Expert, said intersectionality generally referred to how the study of overlapping or intersecting social identities related to systems and structures of oppression. Recently, legal scholars had started to focus on the way that intersectionality could be used with legal tools to provide redress for intersectional discrimination. The Convention was the first treaty which recognised multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, including that experienced by women and girls, with women with disabilities often not being involved in policy making. Organizations of persons with disabilities needed to be provided with financial support and appropriate infrastructure to effectively engage and support the participation of persons with disabilities.
In the discussion, speakers, among other things, said the Convention defined disability as an evolving concept, focusing on the interaction between individuals with impairments and social barriers that hindered their full participation in society. Projects had been created, including a hotel chain and restaurant which supported the employment of persons with disabilities and trained them in the workplace. A hotel network was being built to bring new opportunities of inclusion to persons with disabilities. A project had also been developed to help adults with Down syndrome to gain more independence and opportunities. This had resulted in increased participation of persons with disabilities in the work force.
Another important social project had been developed which focused on community action, promoting social, educational, and legal services and sports, making them freely available for children and young people in vulnerable situations, including those with disabilities.
However, even after many advancements and years of the Convention, many challenges still remained for persons with psychosocial disabilities. Discriminatory laws stripped them of their legal capacities, and legal, social and attitudinal barriers continued to deprive persons with psychosocial disabilities of the right to vote, run for office, or participate in decision-making processes which impacted their lives. Women with psychosocial disabilities faced further exclusions. Institutionalisation remained the biggest issue to be addressed. It was also important to promote the involvement of persons with Down syndrome in society from an early age.
In India, the intersection of caste discrimination created additional challenges for Dalits with disabilities. The rights granted by article 29 were crucial, but their full realisation required overcoming systemic barriers, including those linked to class and disability. The specific challenges faced by those with disabilities such as social stigma, a lack of education and limited access to resources exacerbated already existing processes. Dalits with disabilities often faced violence when trying to engage in public life.
Latin America and the Caribbean had been recognised as among the most unequal regions in the world. Two systematic obstacles hampered the participation of persons with disabilities there: poverty and stigma. Legal frameworks were contradictory and discriminatory. In some jurisdictions, if a person became disabled while holding public office, removal from that office was permitted. The absence of reasonable accommodation was not considered to be discrimination under domestic legislation.
Political participation was not just about voting; it was about leadership, governance and decision-making. Yet too often, persons with disabilities remained invisible. The world could not claim democracy while excluding millions of persons with psychosocial disabilities from political and public life.
Speakers underscored that the upcoming general comment needed to demonstrate a clear commitment to dismantling legal, social and institutional barriers and called for the elimination of all forms of substitute decision-making. It must emphasise the role of community-based care. The general comment should include precise recommendations for intergovernmental agencies, regulated by international humanitarian rights law, for hiring persons with disabilities.
The Committee was called on to recommend to States the importance of considering a cross-cutting budget to finance the operations of organizations of persons with disabilities. All States must ensure a solid accessible support network, with respect for autonomy and dignity. Genuine inclusion did not impose limits, but opened doors. Governments must invest in community support systems and networks that provided suitable participation. States must include persons with disabilities at all levels of electoral processes to reduce structural barriers.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CRPD25.008E