ELECTORAL PROCESS

In terms of the laws relating to candidacy procedures, there have been no changes to the law during the period under review, and the process remains open, transparent and in line with international best practice. Indeed, the Australian Electoral Commission is prominent in advising a wide range of newly emerging democracies about international best practice procedures in terms of all aspects of election management.

The electoral process in Austria meets the standards required of a liberal democracy. Since 1945, there have been no significant doubts expressed about the openness and fairness of elections. However, a debate has emerged recently over the extent to which e-voting should be considered a potential violation of the secrecy of ballots. The use of e-voting systems in electing student representatives at universities – which is seen as the first step toward widespread e-voting in elections for public office – has been stopped due to concerns that such systems do not meet secrecy requirements and therefore fair and free voting standards.
The Austrian constitution explicitly excludes one party, the Nazi party (NSDAP), from participation in the electoral process. Any group seen in this tradition could be excluded from elections by order of an administrative decision. Such decisions can be contested – as happened in the 1980s with regard to some extreme fringe groups – with the final decision resting with the Constitutional Court.

Canada receives the highest marks with respect to the fairness of procedures for registering candidates and parties. There are virtually no barriers to becoming a candidate for election. Almost all Canadian citizens 18 years or over can present themselves as candidates for federal elections. Exceptions include members of provincial or territorial legislatures, certain judges, election officers, persons who were candidates in a previous election but who did not conform to the expense reporting rules, and persons imprisoned in a correctional institution. There is no cost to being a candidate in a federal election. A $1,000 deposit is required, but this is reimbursed if the candidate’s official agent submits the electoral campaign return after the election within the prescribed time. Administrative procedures are not onerous (a nomination form is required containing signatures by 50 or 100 persons residing in the constituency in which the candidate wants to run, with the number depending on the electoral district’s population).

Electoral registration procedures are fair and transparent. In order to found a party, three citizens aged 18 or over need to submit the party statutes, backed by 1,000 signatures. The 1991 law on political parties and movements sets down conditions that exclude parties that lack democratically elected organs, break the law, aim to remove the democratic foundations of the state or to take power for themselves, restrict the freedom of other parties, or threaten morality and public order. In the period under review, the most controversial issue was the attempt by successive governments in 2008 and 2009 to ban the Workers’ Party (Dělnická strana), a far-right organization that claimed to have almost 1,000 members and received over 1% of the votes in the 2009 European Parliament elections. The case was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court on March 4, 2009, on the grounds that a serious threat had not been demonstrated. The government tried again after the necessary six-month delay and received a favorable Supreme Administrative Court judgment on February 17, 2010. The Workers’ Party then appealed to the Constitutional Court on March 15, thereby delaying implementation of its dissolution.

The basic rule is given by Section 30 of the Danish constitution: “Any person who is entitled to vote at Folketing (parliamentary) elections shall be eligible for membership of the Folketing, unless he has been convicted of an act which in the eyes of the public makes him unworthy to be a member of the Folketing.” It is the unicameral People’s Assembly (Folketing) itself which in the end decides whether a conviction makes someone unworthy of membership.
In practice, political parties play an important role in selecting candidates for elections. It is possible to run in an election in a personal capacity, but extremely difficult to be elected that way. Given the relatively high number of political parties it is reasonably easy to become a candidate for a party.
There is also the possibility of forming a new party. New parties have to collect a number of signatures to be able to run, corresponding to 1/175 of the number of votes cast at the last election.

The electoral process in Finland is free and fair. Since 2000, the constitution has included provisions granting Finnish citizens the right to participate in national elections and referendums. Registered political parties have the right to nominate candidates; however, since 1975, under the principle that all voters should have the right to influence the nomination process, electoral associations of at least 100 enfranchised citizens have also the right of nomination. Still, the role of these associations has been marginal.
In a similar manner, candidates for presidential elections can be nominated by any political party that is represented in the Finnish parliament at the time of nomination. Candidates may be nominated also by groups of at least 20,000 enfranchised citizens. Presidential candidates must be Finnish citizens by birth; people under guardianship and those in active military service cannot be candidates in parliamentary elections. The procedure for registering political parties is regulated by the Party Law of 1969. Parties which fail to elect representatives to parliament in two successive elections are removed from the list of registered parties. However, by gathering the signatures of 5,000 supporters, a party may be registered anew.

The electoral process is fair at all levels, and controls by ad hoc commissions or the judiciary ensure a smooth running of elections. There are some restrictions to assure that only serious candidates stand for the presidential election. These include a requirement that each potential candidate has to obtain 500 signatures of support from elected persons, such as mayors or senators, from a third of French “départements,” or counties, to prove his or her political relevance. In addition, candidates must pay a deposit of €15,000. But these restrictions do not limit the political pluralism of candidates. Fraud is exceptional and limited to a few places such as Corsica or overseas territories. Some limitations are also imposed on anti-constitutional parties espousing terrorist or violent means to power. Obviously these restrictions are exceptional and checked by administrative tribunals.

The last general elections, held in September 2009, showed again that Germany’s democratic electoral process is both sound and fair. Germany’s Basic Law ensures that members of the German Bundestag, the country’s lower parliamentary house, are elected in general, direct, free, equal and secret elections, serving for a legislative period of four years.
The Political Parties Act (PPA) sets general criteria for the treatment of political parties and candidates. While independent candidates have to fulfill a signature-gathering prerequisite in order to be eligible to stand for election, parties must meet strict organizational requirements. If parties have continuously held at least five seats in the Bundestag or in one of the parliaments of the federal states throughout the last legislative period, they are allowed to contest the election and to submit their nomination lists without any initial approval by the Federal Election Committee (FEC). All other parties have to formally notify the Federal Returning Officer (Bundeswahlleiter, FRO) of their intention to compete in elections at least 90 days before the election is held. On the basis of the FRO assessment, the FEC rules on each party’s eligibility to participate in general elections. Due to the fact that the formal criteria stated in the PPA are vaguely formulated and open to interpretation, some political parties have argued that the decision on parties’ eligibility risks falling prey to subjectivity. In its recent Election Assessment Mission Report, the OSCE called for definition of “a set of precise, objective and measurable criteria to determine which parties and associations are eligible to participate in elections” (OSCE 2009: 12).
Parties that defy the constitutional order can be prohibited by the Federal Constitutional Court, but no party has been subjected to the last resort of banning for more than 50 years. However, active debate on a possible ban of the rightist National Democratic Party (NPD) has been renewed since December 2008.
It is evident that the German judicial and administrative systems show a high sensitivity with regard to the fairness of the electoral process and the rights of parties. Nevertheless, an incident dating from the last general election is worth mentioning. The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the urgent motion of two small parties whose lists of candidates for the general election had been dismissed in all federal states by the local state election commissions. As expected, the judges rejected the complaints as inadmissible, ruling that there was no right to appeal until after an election. Although there has not been the slightest concern in the public debate that this exclusion might have been influenced by any political factors, or that the FRO may have been influenced by the established parties, the judgment drew critical commentary from some lawyers. For instance, some constitutional lawyers complained about the lack of legal redress for small parties following cases where they have been barred from the electoral lists. Although this is perceived as a legal gap, the Federal Constitutional Court has so far not shown any intention to close it.

Greece has been a stable democracy since the 1974 transition to a democratic system. In order to participate in elections, parties must register with the country’s highest civil court (Areios Pagos). Parties submit their lists of candidates to the same court, which does not decide on any substantive issues, but performs a purely procedural function. It simply checks whether parties and candidates fulfill the requirements of the constitution. An example is the age requirement – candidates must be at least 25 years old. A second example is the requirement that government and regional officials, such as general secretaries of ministries or prefects, must resign from their official post well in advance of election day in order to be admitted as candidates for a parliamentary seat. The reason for this requirement is to avoid allowing candidates to use their official post to boost their candidacy. Essentially, the court plays a purely formal role, without examining matters such as whether a party is insolvent, or whether a party advocates the overthrow of Greece’s liberal democratic regime. In practice, this means that extreme parties are fully entitled to compete in elections.

Every citizen 18 years or older can run for parliament, with the exception of Supreme Court judges (Hæstiréttur), those who have been convicted of a serious felony after having reached 18 years of age, and those who have been sentenced to four months or more in custody. With a change in the electoral law in 2009, the parliament’s Ombudsman (Umboðsmaður Alþingis), who was previously barred from running for a parliamentary seat, was granted this right. The legal restrictions on Supreme Court judges and those with a criminal record do not apply in local elections, but the 18-year-old minimum age is the same. In local elections, citizens from other Nordic countries who have maintained a permanent residence in Iceland for three consecutive years can be candidates. The registration process for candidates and parties is completely transparent and fair.

Electoral law presents no restrictions in party registration. Party lists, complete or partial, are made up for each of the four electoral districts by political parties or groups of candidates. The lists are introduced, either by 100 voters registered in the district or by an elected MP from the district (whether an incumbent or about to leave office), or by three communal councilors elected by the district.
The lists can be as small as a single individual; this creates the possibility of small, ad hoc, single-issue parties. During the most recent elections for example, an “Association of Divorced Men” which had announced its participation eventually made an alliance with the Alternative Democratic Reform Party (Alternativ Demokratesch Reformpartei, ADR), which was itself founded as single-issue party seeking equal pension rights for all.

Electoral law and articles 53 – 56 of the constitution detail the basic procedures
for free elections at the European, national, provincial and municipal levels. The independence of the Election Council (Kiesraad), the organization responsible for supervising elections, is stipulated by law. Whereas all Dutch citizens residing in the Netherlands are equally entitled to run for election, some restrictions apply in cases where the candidate suffers from a mental disorder, a court order has deprived the individual of eligibility for election, or the name of the candidate’s party is believed to be hazardous to maintaining public order.
In international comparison, the Dutch electoral system is highly accessible. Anyone possessing citizenship, even minors, can initiate a political party with minimal legal and financial constraints.

The registration procedure for political parties and individual candidates in New Zealand, as specified in the 1993 Electoral Act, is fair and transparent. Compliance is monitored by the independent and highly professional Electoral Commission. If there have been problems, these were on the part of political parties which were late in submitting necessary documents. According to the Electoral (administration) Amendment Act 2010, the tasks of the Electoral Commission and of the chief electoral office (the organization of elections and referendums) will be combined in the electoral commission starting from October 1, 2010. The aim is to avoid duplication of functions and to enhance efficiency. These changes will not affect the fairness of the electoral process.

Procedures for registering candidates and political parties are considered to be fair, and have not been questioned or debated publicly in recent years. No candidate or party faces discrimination. The only requirement for starting a party is to collect at least 5,000 signatures from Norwegian citizens who have the right to vote.

Registration procedures are fair and transparent. There are different requirements for registering candidates and parties with the National Electoral Commission for established parties (i.e., those already represented in parliament and having at least 15 MPs, which is the minimum number to form a parliamentary club) as opposed to new parties and non-party candidates. Unlike the former, the latter need to document 5,000 supportive signatures in at least half of the national constituencies. This requirement creates some barriers to electoral participation, especially for non-party candidates, but has not really stifled competition. In order to prevent a discrimination of ethnic minorities, parties representing such minorities can take part in the elections when they gather the required signatures in five different constituencies only.

The procedures for registering candidates and parties are fair and transparent, and were not changed in the period under review. Candidates for presidency must be nominated by at least 15 MPs or must document support by at least 15,000 voters. The registration of parties that want to take part in the national elections requires 10,000 signatures. Moreover, registered parties must make a deposit of about €16,500, which is returned only to those parties that receive at least 3 percent of the vote. The deposit has been criticized for serving to discriminate against small parties. Since its introduction in 2004, however, the decline in the number of parties participating in the national elections has been insignificant.

During the period under review, the electoral process was free and fair. The electoral system leaves the nomination of candidates to the political parties and their organizations. The legal framework of candidate nomination does not discriminate against any group or individual. The selection of the respective top candidates of the Swedish parties is an event intensively observed by the media and the public.
Since the national election in 1998, there is the opportunity to indicate preferences not just for a particular party but also for specific candidates. However, as of today, few voters have exercised the opportunity to indicate support for a particular candidate. This voting has been used by approximately 25% of the electorate and a declining trend is observable.

There are no doubts that Switzerland’s formal procedures correspond closely to the democratic ideal. However, some problems have emerged due to the country’s small size, its strong dependence on other countries, the opportunities to free ride in the international and particularly European communities, and the extremely large share of immigrant workers.
With regard to active and passive voting rights, there is the obvious problem that more than a fifth of the total Swiss population and a quarter of the country’s civilian workforce hold foreign citizenship, a much higher share than in other countries. Furthermore, the rules on naturalization are rather strict, making the acquisition of Swiss citizenship costly, time-consuming and frequently even insulting for applicants. For example, citizenship can be claimed only after 12 years of residence, while the administrative process of naturalization takes about one to three years, including interviews and a considerable cost of about €2000 for a family with two small children. Thus, according to some commentators, the strict rules governing naturalization and the sheer size of the foreign population transform the “quantitative” problem of every modern democracy (some adult inhabitants face discrimination on grounds of their nationality) into a qualitative problem: If a quarter of the social product is produced by foreigners, and if more than a fifth of the voting-age population is not entitled to run for public office, the legitimacy of parliament and government and the legitimacy to rule on behalf of the total population (which is hugely more than the citizen base) is arguably called into question. Others argue, however, that while the economy is globalised, democracy functions only on the basis of a national society which identifies itself in terms of citizenship. This includes the (constitutional) right to define who is eligible for citizenship. According to this view, migration certainly creates new problems, in that the “demos” and the resident population do not coincide. Yet, without any restrictions on immigration or the acquisition of citizenship, small democracies would soon disappear from the map.
To date, Switzerland has dealt with these problems somewhat slowly and hesitantly. For example, some notable liberalizing changes were adopted with regard to naturalization (e.g., costs have been substantially reduced) and with regard to passive voting rights in some cantons and local communities. In contrast, driven by strong right-populist movements, the public discourse has shifted to an emphasis on the “us-them” dichotomy.

State laws set conditions for ballot access, such as specifying filing deadlines and the number of signatures required for nominating petitions. The requirements may be a burden for smaller third parties or independent candidates in general elections; or for weaker or late-starting candidates in primary elections (to determine party nominations). But parties and candidates that are otherwise able to win seats, or even symbolically significant vote shares, rarely have difficulty with ballot access. There have been no claims of patterns of discrimination on the basis of party, race, or other factors. Ballot access has not been controversial, and no major problems were reported in the last election cycle.

Electoral registration procedures are fair and transparent, and did not change during the period under review. The registration of candidates and parties is relatively straightforward. Only ten founding members are required for registering a party, and a number of parties outside the mainstream are registered. In the 2010 elections, two new parties made it into parliament. However, some problems have arisen with regard to the registration of candidates. For the first time, even smaller parliamentary parties, including the Hungarian Democratic Forum (MDF), struggled to collect the 750 signatures required for candidates for parliamentary elections. One reason was that Fidesz, the main opposition party, tried to crowd-out other parties by collecting much more than the required signatures for their own candidates.

Candidacy procedures are fair and do not overtly discriminate against parties or groups. However, the manner in which political parties are funded makes it difficult to launch a new party and protects the political status quo.
To be eligible for election to the Dáil Éireann, the lower house of parliament, a person must be a citizen of Ireland, over 21 years of age and not otherwise disqualified from election to the Dáil. Certain categories of persons are disqualified. These include members of any local authority, members of the European Commission, judges, advocates general or registrars of the European Court of Justice, members of the Court of Auditors of the European Community, members of the national police force (the Gárda Siochána), full-time members of the defense forces, civil servants whose contract of employment does not explicitly state that they may be a member of the Dáil, persons of unsound mind, persons presently in prison serving a term greater than six months, persons in a state of undischarged bankruptcy, the president, members of the Seanad or upper house of parliament, and the comptroller and auditor general.

Registration regulations are defined by national laws and enforced by the judiciary. The bureaucratic requirements for validating voter signatures, required in order to present party lists and candidacies, are fair and nondiscriminatory but are rather burdensome, and may in some cases make this presentation difficult (particularly for smaller groups). In fact, in the recent regional elections of March 2010, some of the local lists of one of the major parties (Popolo della Libertà) were rejected, largely as a result of human error on the part of the person in charge of delivering the list. However, in spite of some minor barriers, the procedures have regularly enabled even very small parties to participate in elections.

Japan has a fair and open election system. The conditions for the registration of candidates are transparent, and the registration process is efficiently administered. However, candidates have to pay a deposit of 3 million yen (about €26,700 as of June 2010), which is returned if the candidate receives at least a tenth of the valid votes cast in his or her electoral district. The deposit is meant to deter candidatures that are not serious, but in effect presents a hurdle for independent candidates. The minimum age for candidates is 25 in the House of Representatives and 30 in the House of Councilors, the upper house.

In both law and in fact, individuals and political parties enjoy largely equal opportunities to register for and to run in elections. The laws are adhered to in reality.
Parties espousing racist, fascist or regionalist values are all constitutionally prohibited, as are parties whose names are directly related to specific religious communities. Moreover, while independent citizen lists can run in municipal elections, they are barred from contesting legislative elections.
The requirements for running in elections are relatively onerous. Candidates for legislative elections must be affiliated with a party. This has been a feature of Portuguese democracy since its very outset, facilitating the consolidation of the Portuguese party system and reinforcing parties’ hold on the political system. While there is no consistent movement advocating an end to this situation, a poll carried out in April 2009 showed that the overwhelming majority of Portuguese (78%) considers that independent lists should also be allowed to contest parliamentary elections.
Parties require the legally verified signatures of 7,500 voters to be formed. However, this did not impede four new parties from running in the September 2009 legislative elections. Moreover, the number of parties contesting the 2009 legislative elections increased vis-à-vis the 2005 elections, from 11 to 16.
Moreover, the most restrictive elements of the legislation are largely moot. The barring of parties is relatively rare, having occurred most recently in 1995. Indeed, a small extreme-right party (Partido Nacional Renovador) was allowed to contest the 2009 legislative and local elections. Moreover, after the Constitutional Court considered enforcing a 2003 political party legislative provision stipulating that parties with fewer than 5,000 party members should be disbanded – an action that, in 2008, would have affected virtually all parties aside from those with parliamentary representation – the legislation was changed in May 2008 to remove this condition.

The United Kingdom’s procedures for the registration of parties and candidates for general elections are fair and transparent, and there is no evidence of regulatory discrimination. Parties can easily and cheaply be registered, with only a few restrictions, mostly concerning party names (which must not be offensive, obscene or misleading). There are no restrictions on the content of party programs, but a deposit requirement exists. To register as a candidate, there is no need to belong to a registered party; candidates can also run as independents. There is a deposit requirement of £500, as well as a signature requirement (the nomination paper has to be signed by at least 10 voters); moreover, the candidate in question must not be in prison, must not have previously offended against the electoral law, must not hold military or government office, and must have no bankruptcy, insolvency or mental health problems. Hereditary peers entitled to a seat in the House of Lords were also not allowed to run for a seat in the lower chamber; the reform in the House of Lords has had the consequence that hereditary peers who no longer hold an upper house seat are now in principle entitled to run for the House of Commons, although no such case has yet transpired.

Because the great majority of parliamentary seats are usually “safe” in the sense of usually being won by a particular party, the parties which control these seats effectively choose the expected winner of the election. This is sometimes exploited by the party hierarchy to ensure that a preferred candidate is selected, and therefore elected.

Standard legal restrictions for candidates, such as requiring a certain number of signatures to run in an election, are fair and justified in the need to prevent an explosion in the number of candidates. In practice, such restrictions may represent a serious hurdle for some small or local parties or candidates. One reason is that the registration process has been expertly mastered by the main parties and not by individual or independent candidates.
In the most recent legislative elections in the period under review, some candidates complained that some electoral restrictions were used unfairly by administration officials. They went to the courts, and the judge overturned the administrative decision.
Within the party organizations, especially with the more established political parties, core party leaders largely control the candidate selection process, mostly through informal mechanisms. There are some de facto limitations, especially for applicants who are less well-connected, to obtain “good” or eligible ballot positions. Such mechanisms granted exist in all democracies, but they are particularly strong in Belgium given the strength of the party organizations.

In general terms, candidates and parties face no discrimination in the process of registration. Nevertheless, substantial conditions are imposed on the registration of new parties, parties winning less than 5% of the electoral vote and independent candidates. Once registered, the binominal system (in which the two top vote-getters in each congressional district are declared winners) tends in most cases to lead to the electoral success of candidates representing only the two main coalitions. Successful exceptions include independent and small-party (such as the Communist Party) candidates that sometimes act on their own and sometimes in conjunction with one of the two major party coalitions.

Party registration is a formal process, governed by law. Registration gives the legally registered party significant advantages, such as guaranteed access to state funding and to the media. The requirements for party registration are rather restrictive, and require the enrollment of at least 60,000 members, with at least 3,000 apiece in a minimum of 20 states. Alternatively, a party can show that it has at least 3,000 members in each of Mexico’s 3000 electoral districts. Even then, a party must satisfy a significant number of additional procedures before registration is complete. These include approval of its statement of principles and system of internal organization by the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE). Party recognition can also be revoked on a number of grounds, including illegal behavior and lack of electoral support. A party stands to lose its registration unless it achieves at least 2% of the vote in national elections, though this stipulation was not tightly enforced after the 2006 elections. By the same token, the IFE has an oversight unit devoted to making sure that the registered parties conform to the law. The only significant area where one might see discrimination is that independent candidates are not allowed to stand for office in national elections. There are good reasons for this provision, but it nevertheless involves some reduction in voter choice.

All election affairs are managed by the National Election Commission (NEC), an independent constitutional organ. Registration of candidates and parties for national, regional and local levels is done in a free and transparent manner. Individual candidates without party affiliation are allowed to participate in national (excluding party lists), regional and local elections. Candidates can be nominated by political parties or by registered electors. Although the National Security Law (NSL) allows state authorities to block registration of “left-wing,” pro-North Korean parties and candidates, there is no evidence that this had a real impact in the 2008 parliamentary elections or the 2010 local elections. However, deposit requirements for persons applying as candidates are relatively high, as are ages of eligibility for office.

Legal procedures for registering candidates and parties remain essentially flexible and inclusive (under Organic Law 5/1985). Parties must simply present a series of documents to the Register of Political Parties at the Ministry of Interior. Virtually every Spanish adult is eligible to run for public office, including EU citizens in local and European Parliament elections. The only restrictions on candidacies contained in the electoral law apply to specific public figures (the royal family, some public officials, judges, police officers and members of the military) and to those who have been convicted of a crime. Fair registration is protected by a number of guarantees, which are overseen both by the electoral administration and the courts, including the Constitutional Court through a fast-track procedure. Legislation on gender parity (Organic Law 3/ 2007) requires party election lists to have a balanced gender representation, with each sex accounting for at least 40% of the total number of candidates.
That said, the legal regulation on political parties (Organic Law 6/2002, supported by both major parties, PP and PSOE) allows the banning of those parties that are “irrefutably” associated with “conduct…incompatible with democracy, prejudicial to constitutional values, democracy and human rights,” a provision linked to the fight against separatist terrorism in the Basque Country. This legal innovation, combined with judicial decisions, has led to the dissolution of the Basque extreme nationalist political organization Batasuna, and the recent dissolution or suspension of other minor parties directly or indirectly connected to ETA terrorism. The possibility of declaring a party illegal as a consequence of its members’ “repeated and serious” public defense or tacit support of terrorism in speeches and statements has raised questions as to how far political discrimination can go in excluding candidates with a radical ideology. However, during the period under consideration, two separate judgments established that the system is not discriminatory (under a unanimous ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on June 30, 2009), but that any disproportional restriction that violates the freedom of association or the right to participate will be overturned (under a ruling by the Spanish Constitutional Court on May 21, 2009, in which the barring of the Iniciativa Internacionalista party from participation in the European Parliament elections was overturned as an interference with fundamental rights and freedoms). However, as these judgments suggest, some risk exists that the pressing social need that has led to this regulation may be used in the future for unreasonably preventing some candidatures.

Political parties can be established by the submission of the required documents to the Ministry of Interior Affairs by at least 30 eligible Turkish citizens (according to the Political Parties Act (PPA), Article 8). However, the office of the chief public prosecutor may examine the constitutionality of the foundation and activities of a political party at any time after its establishment. The 1982 constitution (Article 68) states that “the statutes and programs, as well as the activities of political parties, shall not be in conflict with the independence of the state, its indivisible integrity with its territory and nation, human rights, the principles of equality and rule of law, sovereignty of the nation, the principles of the democratic and secular republic; they shall not aim to protect or establish class or group dictatorship or dictatorship of any kind, nor shall they incite citizens to crime.” According to Law No. 2820 on Political Parties (Articles 78, 81 and 82), parties cannot be founded on regional, racial, communitarian, religious or sectarian grounds. Since 1963, when the Constitutional Court started to supervise the activities of political parties, a total of 27 political parties have been shut down, mainly on the bases of separatist or non-secular activities. The constitution (Article 76) and the relevant laws contain certain conditions determining conditions that candidates for office must meet. Although the constitution, Law No. 298 on the Basic Principles of Elections and the Electoral Registry, Law No. 2839 on Deputy Elections, and Law No. 2972 on Local Administrations Elections contain provisions for fair and orderly elections and do not discriminate against any political party or candidate, the nomination process is rather centralized, antidemocratic and exclusionary due to the relative freedom given to the parties’ central executive committees in determining the candidates (Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, Article 37). The 10% electoral threshold that parties must meet in order to win parliamentary representation (Law No. 2839 on Deputy Elections, Article 33) is a major obstacle for all small political parties. However, in 2008, the European Court of Human Rights found the 10% threshold excessive but not a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. An independent candidate who secures the majority of the votes in his or her electoral district can be elected without regard to the nationwide threshold. Therefore, in the last parliamentary elections of 2007, pro-Kurdish candidates entered the elections as independents (independents received 5.3% of votes nationwide) in mostly Kurdish electoral districts, and were elected to parliament without any obstacle. However, three right-wing parties that received more than 2% and less than 6% of the vote did in fact fail to enter parliament due to the national threshold. In the last parliamentary elections, the candidates winning parliamentary seats represented about 88% of the valid votes actually cast, as compared to just 54% in 2002 . In local municipality elections, a simple plurality system of vote-tallying is in effect.
On December 11, 2009, the Constitutional Court shut down a party due to “support of terrorism,” a criteria accepted for the outlawing of parties in the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. This was the seventh party with roots in this particular strain of Kurdish politics to be banned since the early 1990s. Previous closures have been made on the grounds of “separatism.”