In Sunday's New York Times coverage of London's close call with car-bombs, there was this:
"In July 2005, four suicide bombers killed 52 people on London’s transit system, and another set of attacks failed two weeks later, bringing home to Britain fears of homegrown terrorist attacks among its disenfranchised South Asian population. Witnesses said the two men in the Glasgow attack were South Asian."

Christopher Hitchins quoted the above in a commentary published in today's Slate Magazine. The use of the word 'disenfranchise' was discussed in the "fray" (bulletin-board comments) on Hitchins article. One reader had this to say:

"Hitchens seems to interpret the New York Times' use of 'disenfranchise' literally, viz. 'to deprive of civil or electoral privileges' (the actual definition according to the OED). I applaud him for this, because this really is the only proper definition for the word, but I think what the Times actually meant, rather than 'disenfranchised,' was 'disaffected.' The word 'disenfranchised' is used very loosely and freely in this country (perhaps originating in the electoral mishaps in the past two presidential contests), and I think that it has finally acquired a new, popular definition which has little to do with its etymological roots."

What do Wordcrafters think? Has the word "disenfranchise" come to be used loosely? To me, its use would be irresponsible in this context unless the Brits were withholding voting rights, or perhaps making it very difficult for Muslims to become citizens, but I don't know that that's true.

When I read Winston Churchill, he talked about the "franchise", where Americans would talk about universal suffrage. I've heard the term "disenfranchised" used in a context that doesn't involve voting, so it seems to have taken on a broader meaning.

What I want to know is, how can you be "disenfranchised" when you never had the franchise in the first place?

quote:

disenfranchised

I would never use this word to mean other than deprivation of voting rights. "Disaffected" or more likely "disadvantaged" would be my probable choice were I wanting to describe a group.

Having said which, since it seems that many of those involved in the present terrorist plots are actually hospital doctors (a reasonably well-paid and well-respected profession), I don't think they could be described as either disadvantaged or disaffected.

Their use of "disenfanchised" is wrong. As suggested, I imagine the writer meant "disaffected". I can't say I've seen this error before, so it is probably not particularly prevalent over here.

I would also add that the use of the phrase "south Asian" attributed to witnesses is unlikely. We'd have said "Asian" with no qualifier.

"disenfanchised"

Do all foreign-born South Asians in the UK have the right to vote?

So far as I know, only citizens of the UK can vote, provided they are 18 or over and fulfil certain other requirements. So, those who are citizens of another country wouldn't be able to vote. I'd not call them "disenfranchised", though, as they should have the vote in their own country. Perhaps some refugees might be thus described, but they are not disenfranchised by us.

Wouldn't you say that to be disenfranchised you had to be enfranchised in the first place? Someone who has never had the right to vote surely can't be described that way.

quote:

Originally posted by bethree5:
"Hitchens seems to interpret the New York Times' use of 'disenfranchise' literally, viz. 'to deprive of civil or electoral privileges' (the actual definition according to the OED). I applaud him for this, because this really is the only proper definition for the word, but I think what the Times actually meant, rather than 'disenfranchised,' was 'disaffected.' The word 'disenfranchised' is used very loosely and freely in this country (perhaps originating in the electoral mishaps in the past two presidential contests), and I think that it has finally acquired a new, popular definition which has little to do with its etymological roots."

I always sort of thought that one of the meanings of the word was "disaffected", but no, that's not in any dictionaries I checked. I can't find any usage notes about it.

quote:

So far as I know, only citizens of the UK can vote, provided they are 18 or over and fulfil certain other requirements.

I haven't checked but I have a feeling that citizens of the Republic of Ireland, living in the UK, are allowed to vote in our elections (although we are not allowed to vote in theirs.

Yes, I agree that "disenfranchised" was not used correctly in that article. However, I have noticed a much looser use of the word in the health care community. Everyone it seems is "disenfranchised" these days.

The favourite phrase in the British media about healthcare at the moment is "postcode lottery". The National Health Service theoretically provides everyone with the best possible care free (although we do of course pay for it through our taxes). Because of budgetary constraints some areas refuse to supply patients with some of the newest (and more expensive) drugs. Others may have modern facilities which others cannot match. More controversially, some refuse to extend expensive treatment to certain people such as the clinically obese or to smokers. This means that the level of healthcare received is variable, depending on the area in which you live.

There is also the matter of healthcare in Scotland compared with that in England and Wales. In England the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) decides whether a particular drug should be prescribed on the NHS. The Scottish equivalent often allows new drugs to be prescribed that have been refused permission by NICE, often because of a perceived lack of proper testing or on grounds of expense. A "postcode lottery" is sometimes mentioned in these circumstances as well.

The phrase is also used outside healthcare, such as the cost of housing. A house in London is likely to cost quite a lot more than a similar property in, say, Newcastle or Manchester.

I've not heard that phrase used here, Arnie, though those same circumstances exist here, too. I wasn't able to find international comparisons of health care expenditures on the Internet (except for very old figures), but I know we are way up there, even though our system is socially unjust. In fact, I will never forget a physician telling me that he was at an international conference sitting next to a physician from a small country. They had both heard a presentation on the annual U.S. expenditures on health care. The physcian from the small country asked my colleague from the U.S., in all sincerity, "I don't understand how you could spend that much on health care." Literally, he didn't think it was even possible to spend that much. Amen!

The latest OECD figures are for 2000 - rather old, I agree. But then the USA spent more money per person, in both private and public funding, than any other country. In 2000 the USA spent a total of $4,631.00 per person on health care, both public and private, far and away the highest expenditure in the world. Of that expenditure, a surprisingly large proportion was public expenditure - $2,051.00 (the third highest in the world). Switzerland, the next biggest spenders, trailed at just $3222.00 total expenditure.

The UK, where the healthcare system is mainly public, spent $1,764.00, of which most, $1,429.00 was public expenditure.