The conditions for setting up a political party and new parties access to political representation

Romania compared to European countries with consolidated democracy, former communist countries (EU Member States) and states from the ex-soviet space

 

Methodological specifications

In Romania, for the set up of a political party, the minimum number of founder members is very high. According to the Law 14/2003 on political parties¹, the supporting list of a new party must include 25.000 founder members, domiciled in at least 18 of the country’s counties and in Bucharest municipality, but no less than 700 people for each of these counties and Bucharest municipality.

The evaluation of a figure of 25.000 members can not take place but in a comparative report on other states. Romania is considered to be a new democracy, member of the European Union and with a communist past. Most of the times, Romania is compared with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, European Union member states, as they shared the totalitarian communist regime. These states have formed a first group, bearing the name of former communist EU member states. In the past twenty years, much of Romania’s political and institutional effort was directed towards obtaining the political status of democracy, by adopting, most often through imitation and emulation, the institutional structure of the consolidated democracies, especially that of the EU member states. This process was a common one for all former communist states of Central and South-Eastern Europe, but there are also specific elements from one country to another. For this reason, identifying the formal conditions for establishment and operation of political parties in these countries is an element that can not be ignored in such comparative research.

The second group of countries analysed is composed of EU member states with a consolidated democracy. Since all the states in these two groups are consolidated democracies or under consolidation, the comparative perspective has been extended by taking into consideration the countries with uncertain democratic status: the non-EU member states, ex-soviet states. We must not forget that, for almost half a century, Romania was under the sphere of influence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

The next step was to establish samples. We used sampling on quotas, so that, for each group of states, were identified sub-groups to take into account the cultural heritage, territorial positioning and the politic regime.

Thus, for the group of former communist EU member states, we analysed the conditions for the set up and operation of a political party in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary. In the group of the EU member states with a consolidated democracy, we considered² England, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Spain.

The states of the two groups represent the cultural and political traditions of the Western, Central and Eastern Europe. With regard to the ex-soviet, EU non-member states, we were interested in identifying to what extent the conditions for the set up and operation of a political party in Romania get closer to the conditions of establishment and operation of a political party in these states with partially democratic political regimes. We also followed to include the identification of similarities and differences that arise between EU member states and the EU non-member countries regarding the regulations that establish the conditions of access and existence of political formations.

This article aims to provide some answers to some key questions:

1. What is the difficulty degree for the registration of a political party (the exercise of the right of association for political purposes) in Romania compared to EU member states with consolidated democracies, EU member, former communist states, and ex-communist states?

2. Is the legislation on the right of association and the electoral legislation in Romania more prohibitive than the legislation of other states when having in mind the access of new parties to parliamentary representation or local governance?

3. Which are the states most permissive and less permissive on setting up parties and on their representation in parliament or local governance of the states compared?

4. To what extent the provisions on the registration of a political party of Law 14/2003 of political parties affect the political pluralism in Romania?

5. What impact have the legal orders and their interpretation by case-law (particularly the decisions of the Constitutional Court) on political representation in Romania?

The main hypothesis of the research is that, in a democracy, political parties access to local or parliamentary representation is conditioned by the junction of two categories of variables: (i) legislative provisions on the establishment and subsequent operation of a political party and (ii) the type of existent electoral system.

Thus, in this article we have considered that the independent variables concern the conditions for the establishment of political parties and the type of electoral system. The set up of political parties depends on: (a) the minimum number of people needed for the official registration of a political party, (b) the ratio between the minimum number required for registration of a political party and the state population, (c) the quality of the person as required by law for registering a political party (d) the obligation of territorial representativeness for registering a political party.

The type of electoral system affects the appearance of new parties according to the following characteristics: (a) the type of electoral ballot (majority, pluralist, proportional, semi-proportional or mixed), (b) the type of vote (list or candidate), (c) the existence of certain constituencies with a single candidate or with several candidates, and (d) the electoral formula for allocating the mandates.

Specific elements of the specialised literature

In political science, the study of political parties benefits of one of the most constant and inveterate attention. Not infrequently, the experts have spoken, explicitly or implicitly, about the importance of political parties. Giovanni Sartori summarizes the relationship between citizens and parties as follows: „in western democracies the citizens are represented through and by the parties”³. The importance of political parties is so great that modern democracy, namely the representative democracy, can not be conceived outside the political parties.⁴ Ensuring the function of representation of citizens, the political parties formulate public policies and build the inspiring space for the norms of conduct (the legislation).

Regarding the conditions for the establishment and operation of political parties, it can be said that the parties legislate about parties. If the legislation of some countries has a laissez-faire approach on the political parties, the legislation of other countries strictly regulates any detail on the set up, organization, operation and dissolution of political parties.⁵ Many states talk about the importance of political parties also in their own Constitutions.⁶

Most studies on the legal conditions for the establishment of a political party enframe within the cartel-like type parties theory and were treated sporadically, but also precarious, by researchers in political science. There are no exhaustive comparative approaches on consolidated democracies concerning the conditions for the registration of a political party.

Cartel-like type parties theory was formulated by Richard Katz and Peter Mair in 1995⁷. According to the authors, in the consolidated democracies of Western Europe, the political parties overcame their initial “catch-all” party model (catch-all party)⁸ and developed a new model , the “cartel party”. The political reality designed by the new type of party is characterized by the interpenetration between party and state, as compensation for the poor connection between the parties and society. Political participation of citizens greatly decreases, whether we refer to the exercise of voting rights or to the political activism. The essential characteristic of cartel-like type of parties is that they lose their competitive vocation based on ideological reasons. The parties cease to be in an effective competition and generate tacit agreements. They are tempted to protect themselves against the newcomimg parties on the political scene and, thus, to promote legislative provisions that keep them safe from competition. Cartel-like political parties create all the conditions equivalent to an oligopolistic market situation.

One of the few comparative approaches on the conditions for the registration of a political party in consolidated democracies belongs to Anika Gauja. The author compared the law on political parties in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand⁹ and placed the subject of the legislation on political parties at the intersection of political science and law¹⁰. From the comparative analysis on the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand resulted that the legal provisions governing the establishment of a political party seek the creation and/or maintenance of the cartel-like parties. Wolfgang Müller considered that, on one hand, the regulations on political parties represent “the most direct form to intervene in the system of parties”, but on the other hand, that “in democratic systems the expected impact is low” ¹¹.

Lauri Karvonen made ​​a content analysis of the laws on political parties in thirty-nine states and noted that variations on those normative acts are closely linked to the country’s democratic status¹². Not all consolidated democracies have laws of the political parties, and the democracies that have chosen to govern the legal regime of the political parties have done ​​it quite recently, in the second half of the twentieth century.¹³ The author has organized the content of the matter investigated in three categories: restrictions, internal regulation and penalties. One of the research hypothesis that he started from is that “the number and the aim of the restrictions is expected to be negatively correlated with the degree of democratization”¹⁴. Thus, the legislative provisions regarding the registration of parties can be seen both as indications on the mode of internal organization of political parties and as legal restrictions on the operation of a voluntary political association. Karvonen has concluded that all categories of countries studied (consolidated democracies, new democracies, semi-democracies and non-democratic regimes) regulate the internal organization of the parties, including the regime of political parties registration¹⁵. Nevertheless, the author did not do a qualitative analysis of the regulations, but a strictly quantitative analysis of the absence or presence of certain types of legal regulations. The most frequent and severe penalties are to be found in the least democratic states.¹⁶

Legal name of association forms for political purposes. Examples

All analysed states have a legislation on political parties (see Table 1). In general, the regulation is determined by a non-democratic past or, in some cases, by anti-democratic abuses.

More a law aims to regulate the matter in detail, more that state express the wish to take shelter from possible deviations towards non-democratic regimes. At the same time, the role of political parties law is also to guarantee the political pluralism and, therefore, the citizens’ right of association.¹⁷

Among consolidated democracies that have political parties laws, Italy, Spain and Germany have suffered a democratic collapse at some point. The exception is the United Kingdom, which remained a stable democracy, but who also have the least restrictive legislation concerning the set up and operation of political parties.

Until 1998, when the British Parliament adopted the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, the registration of political parties was not regulated by law, and the parties entered the electoral competition without having a defined legal status. With the occasion of several elections, candidates without a real chance to win a seat in the House of Commons used intentionally similar names with those of the three main parties (the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal-Democratic Party), to “steal” some votes (spoiler candidates). Following several incidents of this kind, the British Parliament adopted the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. Today, the regulations on the registration of a political party are covered by the legislative act The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), that repealed the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998.

The law on political parties in Germany is the first law of its kind and is the direct result of the political class wish to prevent a democratic collapse similar to that between the two World Wars, and its political consequences globally. That’s why, the law is specifically designed to block the emergence of parties promoting the Nazi ideology .

Spain adopted the Political Parties Law in 1978, quite in the first years after the fall of the authoritarian regime founded by Francisco Franco, as a way to prevent the emergence of a new totalitarian regime, but also as a mean of defence against the terrorist and separatist threat coming from the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) organization, an organization campaigning for an independent Basque state.

The Law on Political Parties in Finland originated in the need to establish clear rules for public financing of political formations.¹⁸

All the former communist and ex-soviet states have adopted political parties laws in the first years after the fall of the former totalitarian communist regime. On one hand, the aim was to eliminate the risk that society supports a new collapse of the democratic regime and, on the other hand, there was considered the promotion of political pluralism values.

Thus, in the semi-democratic countries, political parties laws aim at restricting freedom of political opponents and blocking political competition by emergence of new political actors. In new democracies, political parties laws aim to stop any possible anti-democratic tendencies manifested at the level of society in transition, while, in consolidated democracies, laws have as reason for their existence an undemocratic past or terrorist threats.

Table 1 – Legislation regarding the matter of the right of association

	Political parties law	Law of civil associations of persons	Others
EU member states with consolidated democracy
England	YES
Belgium		YES
Finland	YES
France		YES
Germany	YES
Italy		YES
Netherlands		YES
Spain	YES
Former communist EU member states
Bulgaria	YES
Czech Republic	YES
Lithuania	YES
Poland	YES
Romania	YES
Slovakia	YES
Hungary			YES
Ex-soviet, non-EU member states
Armenia	YES
Georgia	YES
Moldavia	YES
Russia	YES
Ukraine	YES

As shown in Table 1, in the legislation of 14 states the formations participating in elections are called political parties, while in the legislation of five states are called associations. Only in one state, the law uses the term of civil society organization.

Thence, the way how are called the political parties that appeared as result of exercising the right of association indicates also how the state relates to politics. Associations of people are set up more easily, in general, being sufficient only three founder members. However, not all the states where is used the name of political party apply also a restrictive legislation on the establishment, as in the case of Germany and England (for the registration and operation of a political party a minimum of three members is required).

Also, in the specific legislation of the states with consolidated democracy, the forms of association for political purposes tend to be referred to as associations (a number of five of the eight countries surveyed use the term of association and only three states use the term of political party). The other states surveyed, all former communist countries, use the term of political party, with only one exception (Hungary), which uses the term of civil society organization.

Six out of the total of 20 states admit the affiliation of association forms for political purposes to civil society, while the rest, approach the association of citizens for political purposes as being part of the space exclusively political and feel the need to regulate it per se.

Registration conditions of a political party

To identify the legislation that provides the most difficult procedure for the registration of a political party, we built an analytical model, with measurable scales, considering the following variables: (a) the minimum number of persons needed by a political party to be officially registered, (b) the ratio between the minimum number of supporters/members required for the registration of a political party and state’s population¹⁹ (c) the quality of the person as required by law to register a political party, (d) the territorial representativeness requirement for registering a political party.

a. The minimum number of citizens entitled to vote necessary for a political party to be registered

The conditions for registering a political party may represent a form of restriction on the democratic process of representation. This finding results from the small number of states with consolidated democratic regime that have political parties laws, in conjunction with the fact that most of those who have such specific legislations adopted them recently.

Thus, two of the democracies considered as models for Romania, France and Belgium (the latter especially in the nineteenth century), do not have political parties laws to this day.

The comparison on the conditions for registering a political party as means of increasing the level of difficulty to set up a political party must be correlated with the degree of openness towards the new parties. An overview on the analysed legislations shows that they provide different methods to register a political party, but these methods can be measured based on the degree of difficulty that they imply.

Please note that this paper does not estimate the financial resources and time required to set up a party.

Regarding the minimum number of people, founder members or supporters, which is absolutely necessary for a political party to be set up, this variable can be measured according to the following scale:

– between 1 and 10 members/supporters needed = value 0 (zero),

– between 10 and 100 members/supporters = value -1;

– between 101 and 500 members/supporters = value -2;

– between 501 and 1.000 members/supporters = value -3;

– between 1.001 and 2.500 members/supporters = value -4;

– between 2.501 and 5.000 members/supporters = value -5;

– between 5.001 and 10.000 members/supporters = value -6;

– between 10.001 and 20.000 members/supporters = value -7;

– between 20.001 and 40.000 members/supporters = value -8.

– over 40.001 members/ supporters = value -9.

Given values ​​take into account the results of the research for each country and were considered relevant thresholds and measured as such.

The first level of the scale has value zero. A maximum number of ten members required for registering a political party is small enough in order not to create difficulties, but can not receive positive value because there is the regulation itself, which creates a minimal restriction. The other levels of the scale received negative values because, as we priorly stated, the correlation with facilitating access of political formations to democratic politics life is a negative one.

b. The ratio of the minimum number of members/ supporters for the registration of a political party and state population

To identify the difficulty degree of registering a political party, we reported the number of members/supporters of the party required for the official registration to the whole population of the state. We related to all citizens of a state, as reference population, because the political representation is made at the entire population level and not only in regar to citizens entitled to vote.

The values ​​set for the ratio between the number of members/supporters needed for registration of a political party and state’s population were given in the opposite direction in regard to the previous variable (see paragraph supra, point a), by keeping the same thresholds. Thus, the smaller the ratio is, the higher the negative value is, according to the following scale:

– between 1 and 10 citizens = value -9,

– between 10 and 100 citizens = value -8;

– between 101 and 500 citizens = value -7;

– between 1/501 and 1/1.000 citizens = value -6;

– between 1/1.001 and 1/2.500 citizens = value -5;

– between 1/2.501 and 1/5.000 citizens = value -4;

– between 1/5.001 and 1/10.000 citizens = value -3;

– between 1/10,001 and 1/20.000 citizens = value -2;

– between 1/20.001 and 1/40.000 citizens = value -1

– over 1/1 million citizens = value 0 (zero).

Table 2 – The value of the ratio between the minimum number of people required for registration of a political party and state’s population²⁰

State	Ratio Value
England	–
Belgium	–
Finland	1/1.036
France	–
Germany	–
Italy	–
Netherlands	–
Spain	–
Bulgaria	1/2.821
Czech Republic	1/10.177
Lithuania	1/3.527
Poland	1/38.415
Romania	1/761
Slovakia	1/548
Hungary	–
Armenia	1/16.300
Georgia	1/4.570
Moldavia	1/914
Russia	1/3.452
Ukraine	1/4.845

c. The quality of the person required by law for the registration of a political party

We considered including even the quality required by law to a citizen entitled to vote for joining a political party in the initial phase of registration. It is worth mentioning that, in Hungary, joining a political party takes place as a member of a civil society organization. Therefore, the score chosen was equivalent to the category “persons”, since it is not about the quality of party member.

The scale gives the lowest value to the quality of founder member, as it is more difficult to be achieved, having also the effect of excessive politicization of the society/

Last but not least, the scale assigns a higher value to the quality of supporter, because it allows the preservation of political independence (by not assuming the quality of party member) for the citizen entitled to vote..

The values assigned ​​are the following:

– Founder member = value -2 ;

– Supporter = value -1 ;

– Person = value 0 (zero ) .

d. The territorial representativeness requirement for registering a political party

The express request of the law regarding the adhesion of certain members or the collection of certain signatures from supporters of a determinant number of territorial regions/ local collectivities is an important variable. This means that the state seeks to protect through its legislation the national dimension of representation of citizens through political parties, including the territorial integrity.

Where the law does not impose a certain degree of territorial representation, regional and local parties can be set up relatively easily. The importance of the impact on the representation of citizens and, au fond, on the difficulty of registering a political party determined us to give a high value to this situation: the highest given so far, namely eight (8). Regarding the situation of the countries where there is no such requirement by law, the reference value was 0.

Table 3 – The comparative perspective on the registration conditions of a political party

State	Minimum number of members/ supporters	Ratio between the minimum number required for registration/population	Founder member or supporters	Territorial representativeness	Score total
EU member states with consolidated democracy
England	0	0	-2	0	-2
Belgium	0	0	0	0	0
Finland	-4	-5	-1	0	-10
France	0	0	0	0	0
Germany	0	0	-2	0	-2
Italy	0	0	0	0	0
Netherlands	0	0	0	0	0
Spain	0	0	-2	0	-2
Former communist EU member states
Bulgaria	-5	-4	-2	0	-11
Czech Republic	-3	-2	-2	0	– 7
Lithuania	-3	-4	-2	0	– 9
Poland	-3	-1	-2	0	-6
Romania	-8	-6	-2	-8	-24
Slovakia	-5	-6	-2	0	-13
Hungary	0	0	0	0	0
Ex-soviet, non-EU member states
Armenia	-2	-2	-2	-8	-14
Georgia	-3	-4	-2	0	-9
Moldavia	-5	-6	-2	-8	-21
Russia	-8	-4	-2	-8	-22
Ukraine	-6	-4	-1	-8	-19

As shown in the table above, in Romania, a political party is registered with the greatest difficulty compared to all the countries analysed. The minimum number of founder members required for a party to be registered (25.000) is one of the largest, comparable to the one provided by the Russian legislation (40.000), which is not considered yet to be a democracy.

Law 14/2003 on political parties states difficult conditions for the establishment of a political party, which diminishes the appetite for political activity and blocks the access to the political life of new structures representing the interests of the society. Basically, under the law, at least 1 in 761 Romanians should become a member of a new political party. The ratio is even lower if the reference are the citizens entitled to vote, not the total population.

In Russia, 1 in 3.452 citizens should be a member of a new political party, which means that, compared to Romania, at least at the level of this indicator, the Russian legislation is more permissive regarding the conditions for setting up political parties.

In total, Romania, Russia and Moldova have obtained the lowest scores, below -20. This shows that, from the point of view of the restrictive conditions for setting up a new political party, the legislation of Romania is more like the legislation of the ex-soviet countries, considered to be semi-democracies, and less resembling the one of the former communist countries, members of the European Union. Compared to the ex-soviet countries, the Romanian legislation in matter resembles mostly with the one of the Republic of Moldavia, both by the score obtained in total and the score obtained separately by each variable.

However, the resemblance of Romania with the ex-soviet countries becomes even more obvious if one takes into account the variable of territorial representativeness.

Romania is the only democratic state of the case studies chosen that imposes the territorial representativeness in the process of registration of a political party. Russia, Moldavia and Armenia are considered semi-democracies and by imposing a minimum number of members/supporters from the country’s regions it is aimed to express the state sovereignty and to prevent any territorial divisions that might occur. Russia, Moldavia and Armenia have a high risk of ethnic conflicts and territorial secession.

By analysing the scores obtained based on the three groups of countries it can be observed that the registration of a new political party is easily done in the states considered to be consolidated democracies. The exception is Finland, a quite small country and which requires a quite large number of signatures of supporters for registering a political party.

In the group of former communist states, both Romania, with the highest degree of difficulty for the registration of a political party, and Hungary, one of the states with the lowest degree of difficulty for the registration of a political party, strike a discordant note of all the countries studied.

In the group of ex-soviet states, the scores are not uniform. Russia, Moldavia and Ukraine have a high degree of difficulty for the registration of a political party, while the legislation of Georgia resembles the one of the former communist EU member states.

The trend expressed by the Romanian legislation to increase the number of founder members required for the registration of a new political party is opposed to the trend recorded by the Russian legislation to reduce this minimum number. Thus, in Russia, the minimum number of supporters needed to set up a political party fell from 100.000 to 40.000, while in Romania it increased from 251 (in 1990) to 10.000 (in 1996) and 25.000 (in 2003).

Moreover, in Western European countries, the establishment of a political party does not raise financial and organizational problems as big as in Romania. The registration of a political party is a mere formality in most such countries. Freedom of association is understood in its emphasized liberal dimension, and the access to politics by a political party is a democratic value respected and guaranteed including by the legislation.

The possibility of setting up a local/ regional party

States where the legislation allows the establishment of a exclusively local political party, after a specific procedure and who can participate only in the local elections are very few and represent exceptions to the general rule (the set up of national parties).

In England, there is the possibility of creating minor parties. In Hungary, there is the possibility of creating benefit organizations, which have a different status from that of political parties and may participate only in local elections. In Poland, although we do not have to do with the possibility to set up political parties in the classical sense, the law allows the establishment of local committees that support independent candidates or the ones of certain political parties.

It should also be noted that there are local/ regional parties in almost all the states analysed, but these parties are established upon the legal procedure provided in the national legislation. Their distinctive element is given by the purpose of setting them up – to advocate for the interests of those regions.

A party to participate in the local elections in some regions or local collectivities may be established very easily if the procedure for registration of a political party requires only the set up of an association of three people. Even in countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania, where the minimum number is of 1.000 founder members or supporters, it is relatively easy to set up a local political party. It is also the case of Poland that has a very large number of local parties and a befitting volatility of the parties’ system. In other words, in Poland few local political parties are elected at two consecutive electoral elections²¹. In countries like Bulgaria or Georgia, the law allows the possibility of creating a local or regional party (e.g. the minimum number of 2.500 founder members in Bulgaria can not be regarded as an enclosure to this purpose).

The access of political parties in national parliaments and local governance

From the analysis of the previous variable we have noticed that, in general, consolidated democracies tend to provide more freedom in exercising the right of association: the possibility to easily register a political party or an association that participates in the elections.

Nevertheless, the same democracies are not so open to the new political competitors as the legislation allows in the formal sense. From the registration of a political party to its access in the national parliament and in the local governance is very often a long way. The parties have to pass at least two tests: the registration in order to participate in elections and the electoral competition itself.

The first test depends on the number of signatures and/ or the amounts of money required as deposit for the registration of the candidates. The second test depends on the type of electoral system that is applied in that state and this is of a paramount importance.

Beyond the minimum number of signatures for the registration of a political party, these states have a minimum number of signatures required to support a candidate in the elections. Often, this minimum number of signatures required to enter the electoral competition is high enough to discourage the candidacy.

In addition, the type of electoral system – majority, pluralist, proportional, semi-proportional or mixed – advantages or disadvantages smaller and new parties. The new parties are advantaged mostly by the proportional systems, with low electoral threshold. Depending on the national context and the electoral formula, the semi-proportional and mixed systems somewhat favours the new parties. The pluralist and majority systems disadvantage mostly small and new parties.²²

Registration of candidates in elections

From Table 4, we can deduce the following four models, without taking into account the groups of countries studied:

a. party easily registered and registration of candidates with ease;

b. party easily registered and registration of candidates with difficulty;

c. party registration with difficulty and registration of candidates with ease;

d. party registration with difficulty and registration of candidates with difficulty.

Table 4 – Conditions regarding the registration of candidates for elections

State	Number of signatures necessary to enter the electoral competition for the national parliament	Financial conditions
EU member states with consolidated democracy
England	NO	500 pounds
Belgium	– between 200 and 500 signatures (House) or the support of three members of the House of Representatives – 5.000 signatures (Senate) or the support of two Senate members	–
Finland	– association of citizens entitled to vote from the same district in number of 100’s, to support an independent candidate	–
France	NO	–
Germany	A party that was not represented continuously by at least five representatives in the Federal Parliament or at the Länder level needs: – at least 200 signatures for supporting the political parties’ candidates for the constituencies with a single candidate; – at least 2.000 signatures for supporting a list of candidates from a political party.	–
Italy	New parties (even parliamentary parties that change their logo) should gather: – between 1.500 and 4.000 signatures, to submit party lists for the Chamber of Deputies elections; – between 1.000 and 3.500 signatures, to submit party lists for the Senate elections In some constituencies with a single candidate, the required number of signatures is 300 (e.g. Valle d’Aosta).	–
Netherlands	The parties that are not already represented in Parliament must submit: – 30 signatures from that constituency; – a written agreement of all the candidates on the list.	The parties that are not already represented in Parliament must submit: -11.250 euros for a list of candidates in a constituency. The amount is refunded if the list obtains 75% of the votes of the electoral quota.
Spain	1% of the registered voters of that constituency. The value can range between 800 signatures in Soria, the smallest constituency, and about 40.000 signatures in Barcelona and Madrid, the biggest constituencies.
Former communist EU member states
Bulgaria	Submission of a number of signatures from around the country: – 10.000 signatures for an independent candidate from the constituency in which he candidates; – 15.000 signatures by the parties; – 20.000 by the alliances. .	-15.000 BGN (approximately 7.600 euros) by the independent candidates; -50.000 BGN (approximately 25.500 euros) by the parties; -100.000 BGN (approximately 51.000 euros) by the alliances; The financial deposit is refunded if the party obtains at least 1% of the valid votes. A citizen can support only one candidate, party or alliance.
Czech Republic	– 1.000 supporters for one independent candidate to Senate. Independent candidates can not participate to elections for the Chamber of Deputies.	–
Lithuania		– The equivalent amount of an average salary for the candidates in constituencies with a single candidate. – The equivalent of ten average salaries for political parties (non-refunding).
Poland	The set up of an electoral committee by all parties, alliances or by an association of voters. Voters’ electoral committees need 15 members and 1.000 signatures to be created. – 5.000 signatures to propose a list of candidates in a constituency (Sejm). – 2.000 signatures to propose a single candidate (Senate). But the number of signatures is not necessary anymore if an electoral committee proposes lists of candidates for half of the constituencies.	–
Romania	Independent candidates: 4% of the total number of voters registered on the permanent electoral lists of the uninominal college in which they candidate, but not less than 2.000 voters for the Chamber of Deputies and 4.000 voters for the Senate.	– Each political party, political alliance, electoral alliance, organization of citizens belonging to national minorities, independent candidate must make proof of a deposit to the account of the Permanent Electoral Authority, with a value of 5 minimum gross salaries per country for each candidate.23 –
Slovakia	NO	16.596 euros refundable if the party or the coalition obtains at least 2% of the votes.
Hungary	Political parties can submit lists for the places allocated by proportional method at regions level only if they have candidates for at least one quarter of the single member constituencies or at least two candidates for single member constituencies, to submit lists of candidates in the same region. Independent candidates need 750 signatures to enter the competition for a place in a single member constituency.
Ex-soviet, non-EU member states
Armenia		– 8 millions AMD (approximatively 15.685 euros) to enter the competition according to the proportional system. – 1 million AMD (approximatively 1.960 euros) to enter the competition organized according to the election by majority vote. – The amounts are refunded if a party obtains at least a mandate by proportional representation or, namely, if it obtains at least 5% of the votes according to the election by the majority vote or wins a mandate.
Georgia	– 1.000 signatures for the parties already represented in the Parliament. – 25.000 signatures for the parties without representatives in the Parliament. – The signatures of 1% of the citizens entitled to vote from a constituency in order to submit an independent candidature by an association with at least five voters	Beside the signatures of 1% of the citizens entitled to vote from a constituency, the associations of five people have to deposit the amount of 5.000 GEL (approx. 2.300 euros).
Moldavia	NO	–
Russia	-150.000 signatures for non-parliamentary parties – Independent candidates can participate in elections only included on the parties lists.
Ukraine	NO	–

In the first model, party easily registered and registration of candidates with ease, we included the following countries: England, France, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Hungary, noting that in the Czech Republic and Lithuania a political party is registered a bit more difficult than in England, France, Netherlands or Hungary (see Table 3).

In the second model, party easily registered and registration of candidates with difficulty, we situated the following countries: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland and Georgia, noting that Belgium requires a relatively small number for the House of Representatives and a large number of signatures for the Senate.

In the third model, party registration with difficulty and registration of candidates with ease, we introduced the following countries: Finland, Romania, Slovakia, Moldavia and Ukraine.

In the fourth model, party registration with difficulty and registration of candidates with difficulty, can be included: Armenia, Bulgaria and Russia, stating that Armenia is the most moderate state of the model, because it does not require a registration number of signatures, but only an amount of money reimbursed if the party obtains at least a mandate by proportional representation, or at least 5% of the votes as majority rule, or wins a mandate.

The role of the electoral system

No matter how difficult are the legal barriers that a party has to pass, to get into the electoral competition – the establishment and registration in the elections, the type of electoral system is the one that decides, in the end, regarding the ease with which a party obtains the representation in the national parliament or in one of the institutions of local governance. For this reason, it is necessary that the models specified in the previous sections to be nuanced based on the variable of the electoral systems.

England is the only country in the study which has a pluralist electoral system, in single member constituencies, in which seats are allocated to the candidate who receives most of the votes. This type of ballot tends to give rise to a system of two parties and makes it very difficult for a new party to enter the political scene. The pluralist systems of the type “fist pass the post” favour large parties²⁴. Obviously, the disproportionality it can reach is often very detrimental to small parties. Thus, the Liberal Democratic Party, the third largest party in the English Parliament, won 16.8% of the votes in 1997, but received less than 10% of the seats in Parliament²⁵. Moreover, it is important to mention that England has this type of ballot both for the election of the members of the House of Commons and for the election of local governors.

Unlike England, France has a majority rule system in two rounds, which means that small parties are encouraged to participate in the first round, because “they believe they have nothing to lose”²⁶. As Robert Elgie noted, the competition between several parties was encouraged also by the fact that, after 1990’s, the parties that submit at least 50 candidatures in the elections for the National Assembly receive public money²⁷. However, only a few of them manage to pass the quite high electoral threshold, 12.5 % of the votes obtained in the constituency where they candidate. It is very difficult for the new and small parties to obtain a sufficient number of votes to enter the second round of elections.

The Netherlands is one of the states that allow greater access to the new parties on the politics stage, at least at the present stage of analysis. In the Netherlands only 3 people are required for the establishment of a political association, 30 signatures for the registration of candidates in elections and 11.250 euros refundable deposit if the list obtains 75 % of the votes of electoral quota. In addition, the Netherlands has one of the world’s most proportional electoral ballots. The Netherlands applies a proportional representation with closed lists, and preferential at the same time, for the House of Representatives. The voter have at disposal only one vote for a candidate on the list of a party. An elector may vote for any candidate on the list as he prefers or, if he does not prefer any candidate of the party, he will check mark the first candidate on that list. The votes obtained by all candidates on the list are gathered to the account of the party they belong to and are allocated in accordance with the order on the party list. The ballot does not have a legally predetermined electoral threshold, but it imposes to the parties to obtain at least 25% of the electoral quota (Hare quota) calculated at national level, which represents about 0.67% of the total valid votes cast. Allocation of the mandates takes place at national constituency level by using the d’Hondt method. However, even if the Netherlands has a lower threshold, the fact that allocation of mandates occurs at the level of a single, national, constituency, by using the d’Hondt method, it makes the system not to be so open to the new parties, thus favouring the large parties.

Belgium applies a proportional system with a moderate electoral threshold of 5%. Allocation of seats takes place in each of the 11 multi-member constituencies and not at national level, and the registration to the elections for the House of Representatives is subject to the submission of a small number of signatures, between 200 and 500. Therefore, Belgium, along with the Netherlands, is one of the most open democracies towards the promotion of the political initiative. However, the formula for the allocation of the seats, the d’Hondt method, moderates this openness, favouring the large parties.

Finland has a relatively difficult procedure to set up a political party, but once established, the political party is more likely to enter the parliament, since the ballot is a proportional one and the allocation of the mandates is not restricted by a legal electoral threshold. But it must be mentioned that the d’Hondt method of allocating the mandates favours the large parties.

The regime of setting up a political party in Italy is not so much regulated legislatively, making the Italian system of parties to change continuously. The ease of setting up a party determines the participation to (and winning of) the elections by numerous parties, but they are part of electoral alliances. The parties and alliances are aided by the proportional electoral system to enter Parliament and, at the same time, restricted by the relatively high threshold.

The set up of parties in Poland is easily done. Also, the participation in local elections is relatively permissive because of the special provisions concerning the provisional electoral committees. Polish system of parties is one of the most volatile in Europe. A distinctive feature of this system is the very large number of parties acting locally. Political practice shows an increased importance of the local level of governance in Poland (localism), but this is accompanied by an electoral and parties volatility, which makes the Polish party system to be one of the most unstable in Europe.

In Hungary, political parties are easily established, the legislation thus encouraging political pluralism. Nevertheless, the electoral threshold of 5% and the two rounds majority rule ballot hampers the access of new parties on the political scene.

Russia has the most closed system of parties between those studied. The constituent elements of the closed system are the very large number of signatures required for the registration of a political party, the very large number of signatures required for the registration of candidates to elections, a proportional representation, with vote for closed party lists, a threshold of 7% and the allocation of mandates taking place in only one constituency, at national level, with more members, by applying the d’Hondt method.

The access of new political parties to representation in Romania

In Romania, the access of the new parties to parliamentary or local representation is difficult. Whether it proposes national and local candidates or only locally, the registration of a new party is made with the signatures of 25.000 founder members, which is quite excessive. The number is, definitely, the same, because there are no different provisions for the establishment of local political parties towards the provisions for the national parties.

The access of new parties in Parliament is hampered by several factors. The first category of factors includes the pre-election factors, previous to the electoral competition: (i) the large number of supporting signatures required for registration, (ii) the obligation that people who support the new party to be founder members, therefore to have political affiliation, (iii) the obligation of territorial representativeness of the signatures.

The second category of factors includes factors related to the electoral system: (i) the electoral competition takes place in single member constituencies (uninominal constituencies²⁸), (ii) the electoral threshold is quite high and it is applied for the scores obtained by parties at national level, (iii) two of the formulas for allocating the mandates, an absolute majority of 50% +1 of the votes and the d’Hondt method favour large parties.

The electoral competition in single member constituencies tend to polarize voters’ preferences. In other words, two parties or alliances become more important and they are the same to dispute the majority of available seats in Parliament. Small parties, and especially the new ones, are disadvantaged by the competition in single member constituencies. The electoral threshold of 5% for parties, 8% for two-party alliances and 8%+1% for each extra party is calculated from the total votes obtained by a political party at the national level and not at constituency level, that is the county²⁹. If the electoral thresholds would be calculated at the constituency level it would increase the chances of crossing the electoral threshold for smaller parties. Obviously, here we need advanced studies to discover the advantages and disadvantages of such legislative changes.

The absolute majority of 50%+1 of the votes cast in a college is very difficult to obtain by a new party. Suppose that a known candidate of a new party would get this score, still, if his party does not obtain at least 5% of the total of votes nationally, he will not receive the seat regardless of its very good or exceptional result. This election Design makes, once again, to be disadvantaged the parties who wish to operate at county level.

Conclusions

Freedom guaranteed by law to exercise the right of association for politic purpose is not sufficient for a party to have effective access to parliamentary representation or local governance. The degree of democracies’ openness towards the political representation of the new parties depends not only on the registration conditions (and operation) of a political party, but also on more complex factors such as the electoral system, the system of parties, the electoral formula

Consolidated western democracies have a specific way to function, the result of a long democratic experience, and the configuration of the system of parties is hard to be changed by the new political parties. In general, the procedure for registration of a party is relatively easy, but the chance for it to enter the Parliament are small, either because of the restrictive conditions for the registration of candidates, either because of the electoral system, which involves also the high electoral threshold.

In Romania, although the electoral system hampers the access of the new parties to political representation, the decisive factors are the pre-election ones. In Romania, a political party is registered with the greatest difficulty of all countries examined, conclusion drawn from the model of analysis developed in the previous sections.

In post-communist Romania, compared with other countries (including with ex-soviet, non-EU member states), there was a trend of hampering the access of new parties on the local political stage and in the Parliament of the country. This trend is obvious when we relate to the growth (in several stages) of the number of founder members needed for a party to be registered, and also of the electoral threshold to be reached by a political formation to obtain mandates in the Romanian Parliament.

Romanian legislation not only that it does not encourage the political pluralism, but even seeks perversely to eliminate it. That is why the parties in Romania have very small chances, almost non-existent, to be formed upwardly. The Romanian system of parties is not capable to reflect Romanian social cleavages, also due to the very difficult conditions to set up a political party.

The law on political parties in Romania obliges to value uniformity throughout the country. The number of 18 counties, required for the territorial representativeness necessary to establish a political party, is chosen precisely to exceed the number of counties in any historical region of the country. None of the historical regions of Romania – Moldavia, Wallachia, Transylvania, Banat and Dobrogea – does not have 18 counties as integral part.

The representation is the most important aspect of modern democracy, because democracy today can only be representative³⁰. The democratic logic is to first have a plurality of ideas, interests and desires expressed by political parties or by political associations. Subsequently, it is necessary that the legislation of the democratic state to permit access of such parties to free and fair electoral competition, the only one that can decide correctly which of these ideas, interests and desires are sufficiently representative to be taken to the supreme forum of enactment, the parliament.³¹

Parties and associations that remain outside the legislative body are themselves representative, but only for a smaller population of people whose ideas, interests and desires are heard during the electoral campaign.

Law on political parties in Romania does not encourage political representation and electoral competition, because it confuses the political pluralism with the political representation. Romanian democracy logic is reversed: first representation, thereafter pluralism. Democracy itself is affected.

Bibliography

– ASLUND Anders and MCFAUL, Michael (ed.), Revolution in Orange. The Origins of Ukraine’ Democratic Breakthrough, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, 2006.

– AVONON, Dan, „Parties Laws in Democratic Systems of Government”, The Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol. 1, no. 2, 1995.

– BENOIT, Kenneth, HAYDEN, Jacqueline, “Institutional Change and Persistence: The Evolution of Poland’s Electoral System, 1989–2001”. The Journal of Politics, 2004, 66, pp 396-427.

– BARNETT, Hilaire, Understanding Public Law, Routledge-Cavendish, 2009.

– BÉRTOA, Fernando Casal, WALECKI, Marcin, „Party Regulation and its Effects on the Polish Party System (1991-2011)”, (IPSA RC. 20), The Legal Regulation of Political Parties, Working Paper 22 Mai 2012.

– BIRCH Sarah, Electoral Systems and Political Transformation in Post-Communist Europe,Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

– DALTON, Russell J., WELDON, Steven A., “Public Images of Political Parties: A Necessary Evil?”, West European Politics, 2005, Vol. 28, No. 5, 931 – 951.

– ELGIE, Robert, „France: Stacking the Deck”, in The Politics of Electoral Systems, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005.

– GALLAGHER, Michael, MITCHELL, Paul (eds.), The Politics of Electoral Systems, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005.

– GAUJA, Anika, Political Parties and Elections: Legislating for Representative Democracy, Farnham, Ashgate, 2010.

– HLOUŠEK, Vít, “Seeking a type: The Czech party system after 1989. Politics in Central Europe”, Politics in Central Europe, 2010, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 90-109.

– KARVONEN, Lauri, „Legislation on Political Parties: A Global Comparison”, Paper presented at the Southwestern, Political Science Association 2005 Annual Meeting, New Orleans, March 23-26, Panel PS 73: “Rediscovering Democracy”, Aie-Rie Lee, Chair.

– KATZ, Richard S., MAIR, Peter, „Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: the emergence of the cartel party”, Party Politics, 1995, Vol. 1, p 5-31.

– KIRCHHEIMER, Otto, “The Transformation of the Western European Party Systems”, in Joseph LAPALOMARA and Myron WEINER, Political Parties and Political Development, Princeton University Press, 1966.

– LIJPHART, Arend, Sisteme electorale si sisteme de partide, CA Publishing, Cluj-Napoca, 2010.

– LUNDELL, Krister, “Disproportionality and Party System Fragmentation: Does Assembly Size Matter?”, Open Journal of Political Science, 2012. Vol.2, No.1, pp. 9-16.

– MILLARD, Frances, „Poland: Parties without a Party System”, 1991-2008, Politics & Policy, Vol. 37, NO. 4, 2009.

– MÜLLER, Wolfgang, „The Relevance of the State for Party System Change”, Journal of Theoretical Politics Vol. 5, no. 4, 1993, pp.419-454.

– SHUGART, Matthew Soberg, WATTENBERG Martin P. (eds.), Mixed-Member Electoral SystemsThe Best of Both Worlds?, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001.

– PITKIN, Hanna, The concept of representation, University of Press, Los Angeles, 1967.

– PREDA, Cristian, SOARE, Sorina, Regimul, partidele si sistemul politic din Romania, Nemira, 2008.

– SARTORI, Giovanni, „Representational systems”, in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol.13., p.471.

– SARTORI, Giovanni, Teoria democraţiei reinterpretată, Polirom, Iaşi, 1999.

– TAAGEPERA, Rein, SHUGART, Matthew S., Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems,Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989.

– WATT, Bob, UK Election Law: A Critical Examination, Routledge-Cavendish, 2006

Normative acts

ENGLAND

– Registration of Political Parties Act 1998.

– The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)

ARMENIA

– The Law of the Republic of Armenia on political parties

BULGARIA

– The Law of 2009 on political parties

FINLAND

– The Law of 1969 on political parties

POLAND

– The Law of 1997 on political parties

– The Sejm and Senate elections Law of 2001

HUNGARY

– Law CLVI on Public Benefit Organisations

– Act CLVI on Public Benefit Organisations

– Act II of 1989 on the Right of Association

BELGIUM

– The Act of June 27, 1921 on non-profit associations

– The Act of 1989 on the limitation and control of expenditure in respect of elections

– The Belgian Electoral Code

CZECH REPUBLIC

– The Law of 1991on association in parties and political movements

– The Law 247 of 1995 on the election of the Parliament of the Czech Republic

FRANCE

– The Act of July 1, 1901 on the associations

– The Law 88-227 of March 11, 1988 on financial transparency in political life

GERMANY

– The Law on political parties of July 24, 1967

– The Federal election law enacted on July 23, 1993 (Federal Laws Gazette I pp. 1288, 1594)

GEORGIA

– The Organic Law on Political Unions of Citizens of 1997

– The Election Code of 2011

LITHUANIA

– The Act of March 23, 2004 on political parties and organizations

– The Act of 1992 on the election of the Sejm

MOLDAVIA

– The Law of the Republic of Moldova on Parties and Other Socio-Political Organizations of 1991

– The Electoral Code. Law 1381- XIII of 21.11. 1997

– Law 294 on political parties, of 21.12.2007

ROMANIA

– The Decree-Law 8 of December 31, 1989 on the registration and operation of political parties and public organizations in Romania

– The Law 27 of April 26,1996 the Political Parties Law.

– The Political Parties Law 14 of January 9, 2003, republished in the Official Gazette no. 550 of August 6, 2012.

– The Law 35 of March 13, 2008 for the election of the Chamber of Deputies and of the Senate and for the amendment and completion of Law no. 67/2004 for the election of local public administration authorities, of the Law 215/2001 on the local public administration and of Law 393/2004 on the Statute of local elected officials.

– The Law 129 of June 23, 2011 concerning the amendment of Law 67/2004 for the election of local public administration authorities

RUSSIA

– The Federal Law on political parties 2001

SLOVAKIA

– Law 85 of February 4, 2005 on political parties and political movements

– Law 333 of May 16, 2004 on the election of the National Council

– Law 333 of May 16, 2004 on the election of the National Council

SPAIN

– The Organic Law 58 of 1978 on political parties

– The Organic Law 6 of 2002 on political parties, hereinafter called the Law

UKRAINE

– Public Associations Act of 1992

– The Law on political parties of 2001