By Rohan Gunaratna
Introduction
Former terrorists and supporters are running for office from Syria to Lebanon, Afghanistan to Pakistan, Gaza to West Bank and Spain to the UK. It is a deeply divisive issue. There are valid arguments surrounding both civic rights and national security.
Arguments against allowing terrorists to run for office concerns security and public safety, rule of law, and systemic integrity. While opponents argue that allowing individuals with histories of violent extremism or plotting against civilians to hold office poses a fundamental threat to democratic institutions and public safety.
Critics contend that upholding strict ethical and criminal standards is essential. Many believe anyone convicted of serious crimes should automatically be disqualified from public trust.
Public concern frequently centers on the idea that permitting terrorists to stand for election mocks the political system and normalises exclusivist, extremist and violent ideologies.
Arguments for potential inclusion under certain legal systems include rehabilitation and democratic rights, and, voter discretion.
In some jurisdictions, legal systems are built on the principle that individuals who have served their sentences and demonstrated rehabilitation should have their full civic rights restored.
Supporters of this perspective argue that the ultimate power to vet and judge candidates should lie with the electorate. They believe voters are capable of assessing a candidate’s background and deciding whether they are fit to represent them. In practice, eligibility rules vary significantly worldwide. Many democracies enforce strict disqualification laws for anyone convicted of terrorism or violent crimes, while others rely on voters to reject candidates with extreme backgrounds at the ballot box.
The Context
British parliamentarians debated whether convicted terrorists should be banned from standing for public office, after a petition calling for a change in the law passed more than 203,000 signatures.
The debate follows the case of Shahid Butt[1], who stood as an independent candidate in Sparkhill at the recent Birmingham local elections despite being convicted in Yemen in 1999 over a terror plot targeting the British consulate in Aden, an Anglican church and a hotel. Butt was not elected, receiving 453 votes – but the fact he was allowed on the ballot at all has triggered serious questions over Britain’s election laws.
At the moment, the UK Government says it has “no plans” to change the disqualification rules, meaning historic or foreign terrorism convictions may still not automatically stop someone standing for local office in England.
Labour and Conservative politicians voiced concerns about Butt’s suitability when he announced his candidacy as an independent. Butt commented: “If they think I’m an extremist, then I can’t change that opinion—at the end of the day it comes down to the people of Sparkhill.”
Butt was one of eight Britons and two Algerians convicted in Yemen in 1999 for plotting to blow up an Anglican church and a Swiss-owned hotel. The prosecution argued these plots were part of a militant campaign to drive Western influence out of Yemen and establish an Islamic state.
Background
In the UK, a petition was submitted banning anyone convicted of terrorism offences from standing for public office. In response, the UK plans to introduce a new legal disqualification so people convicted of terrorism offences in the UK or abroad cannot stand as candidates or hold elected office, including local councils.
This is needed because current local election disqualification rules focus mainly on recent imprisonment thresholds for example, being sentenced to 3 months or more within the last 5 years. The existing legislation may not prevent individuals with serious historic convictions from standing today. The Electoral Commission notes that the returning officer cannot confirm whether a candidate is disqualified and candidates self-declare their eligibility when submitting nomination papers.
Conclusion
The British legislation could be a game changer in the fight against terrorism. To create a norm and an ethic against terrorism, it is necessary to permanently ban parties and personalities that had either participated or supported terrorism in the past.
When radical ideology is consumed, it is very difficult for the affected person to change. An addiction, those inflected once will keep on going back to exclusivism, extremism, violence and terrorism. When inflected with such an ideology, that person’s DNA is difficult if not impossible to change.
In November 2025, when Israeli soccer club Maccabi Tel Aviv played Aston Villa in a Europa Conference League match, Butt used social media to call on Muslims from around the country to travel to Birmingham to show solidarity with Palestinians and to prevent the Israeli team’s supporters from, in his words, “desecrating” and “dirtying” the city. In one post, he referred to the visiting fans as “IDF babykillers,” according to Birmingham Live.
Rather than building bridges between communities, Butt played identity politics. A former foreign terrorist fighter, Butt’s ideology has not changed fundamentally[2]. Multiculturalism, diversity and inclusivity should be introduced to societies to build a harmonious living.
The time is right for governments worldwide to take action to prevent former terrorists or parties that engaged in politically motivated violence especially against civilians from engaging in politics. If former terrorists or their supporters engage in politics, there is a likelihood of them legitimising and justifying the use of violence to advance their political aims.
—
Rohan Gunaratna is a professor of Security Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at the Nanyang Technological University. He is a trainer for law enforcement, national security and military counter terrorism units; and is the author and editor of over 30 books.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ESgOieQpBcU&ra=m
[2] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ESgOieQpBcU&ra=m