In a conveniently timed decision, Burma’s miltary dictatorship once again convicted democracy advocate, elected leader, and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. Her renewed house arrest precludes her active participation in yet another farce election campaign. Suu Kyi’s peaceful resolve is legendary at this point; and it’s telling that her confinement is met with the very same treatment from the international community – isolation in the form of economic sanctions. It’s a form of solitary confinement in public policy; and while it can be useful, it has limits.
As a common disciplinary tactic for prisoners, solitary confinement functions as an institution, providing a guide to inmate behavior. Prisoners adjust behavior accordingly to take into account disciplinary actions, committing offenses more selectively as they weigh them against lengthier solitary confinement (other consequences may also come from other prisoners, subject to the same rationalization). At the other end of the equation, prisons selectively lengthen solitary confinement periods in order to break up prison gangs. But what holds back prisons from simply keeping everyone isolated at all times?
Taken to an extreme, long-term solitary confinement actually worsens inmate behavior by depriving them of what normally regulates human behavior – interaction with other humans. Rather than providing an incentive against worse behavior, long-term solitary confinement reinforces what’s already present. While interaction with other prisoners is certainly wrought with opportunities to worsen behavior, it’s also wrought with opportunities to improve behavior, simply by the merit of social interaction. Lacking full interaction with the global community, Burma’s extended solitary confinement has only solidified its violent, authoritarian regime, leading to more farce elections and a starving populace.
Not too far away, Afghanistan is also heading toward elections, but for the sake of peaceful democracy, incumbent President Hamid Karzai and others have voiced support for taking outlawed, low-level Taliban commanders out of political solitary confinement, before it’s too late. These are family men who the Taliban leadership has paid to isolate themselves, but they very well might wish to choose another life. Given a seat at the table, the hope is that as stakeholders in the democratic process they will gain a greater incentive to choose peaceful means for political action—a choice that untold numbers may have long desired to make. Will they be given the opportunity?
Published Date: August 14, 2009