The First Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court of the State Council closed the chapter of litigation concerning the establishment of 12 political parties, by announcing the repudiation of appeals presented by claimants requesting the establishment of those parties to the decisions of the ill-reputed Parties Committee, which ended up, as usual, with denying authorization to those parties. The latter include the Al Wasat Party, whose application has been turned down four times in a row over the span of eleven years, and Al Karama Party, which proclaimed itself nearly seven years ago.
In its repudiation of the appeal of parties, the Court relied on the allegation that appealing parties did not fulfill the requisites of establishment stipulated in the Law of Political Parties –after its amendment in 2005 while the case was reviewed by the court- which raised the minimum number of founders of any new party twenty fold (from 50 to 1000 founding members in ten governorates). The Court also considered that the appeal of “Al Karama” Party claimants was filed after the time limit set for appeals came to an end, according to the Law on Political Parties. This claim was denied by the Defense.
In view of the fact that the law deprives parties from the right to challenge the ruling, because lawsuits pertaining to parties are not heard at two levels (by two chambers) appellants had no option except to return to square one and wait for several more years. Thus, they presented new applications to the Political Parties Committee, which the legislator secured the hegemony of the ruling party on its setup, in other words, the ruling party was given the upper hand in selecting its own competitors, or else they would be sentenced, to death! Hence, the logical course was that the “death machine” of the Political Parties Committee, since its creation in 1977, obstructed the establishment of more than 60 parties. Most of the authorized parties “seized” their right to existence through court rulings. Now, the party landscape includes mostly parties that do not exist except in the files of the Parties Committee, due to the smothering terms that the law is replete with and the authoritarian role of the Committee, which practically lead to the exclusion of serious potential parties from political life.
Without going into the details of the controversy over the legal and procedural bases upon which the court built its decision to repudiate new parties, CIHRS reads in this development a clear message, namely that the ruling party is confirming its firm grip over and is closing the political arena before any competing political parties. Furthermore, it is a highly significant indication of the ludicrous claims of political reform and that constitutional amendments that will take place over the upcoming months to further bolster party pluralism, political participation and democratic development, are mere allegations.
CIHRS has previously sponsored the call for repealing the Law on Political Parties and the claim to enact a democratic law that would reinstate the freedom of forming political parties* in order to lift all the restrictions confiscating the right to freedom of organization and launch the freedom to establish political parties in compliance with the criteria and regulations existing in democratic communities. In this context, CIHRS is warning that continued maneuvers and de facto sequestration of the right to peaceful public association is a tacit invitation for violating the legal and legitimate frameworks.
In this connection, CIHRS is reiterating the invitation to different forces and groups aspiring for democracy to put pressure to bear for the enactment of a new law for political parties, on the following bases:
– Adoption of the principle of notification instead of authorization and control exercised prior to the establishment of parties; invalidating the role of the Political Parties Committee;
– Abolish any restrictions on the creation of parties, except those protecting the pillars of the democratic community, such as the prohibition of parties created on the basis of discrimination because of religion, race or gender, or those using violence to fulfill their objectives;
– Natural courts should be the sole competent power and should guarantee the right to litigation at two degrees; thus, the role of “Party Courts”, which are exceptional in nature, should be reconsidered, as they include among their members several public figures, in contravention of the principle of independence of the judiciary and guarantees of impartiality;
– The people, and people alone, should judge whether any party is effective enough and eligible to continue –by either gathering around it or simply forsaking it- which requires full severance with all unorthodox arbitrary terms, such as the stipulation that the party platforms should be “distinguishable”! and that they should have an added value to political life!
Share this Post