[MUSIC] In this lecture, I will discuss the fundamental role given to political parties under the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 11 of the convention protects the right to freedom of association. In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has established that this right also applies to political parties. The right to freedom of association allows for their free establishment and operation. In fact, political parties receive special protection under Article 11. They enjoy a higher level of protection than other associations. That is because according to the court, political parties are essential for the functioning of democracy. They play an important role in channeling political views. In a democratic society, the state does not prescribe one political view to the population. On the contrary, it is the essence of democracy to allow a diversity of political values and opinions to be debated. After all, pluralism is one of the fundamental characteristics of a democratic society. The court, therefore, considers it essential that in a democratic society, there is a variety of political parties representing different political programs. In democratic elections, people must be able to choose between them. Another important draw of political parties is providing members of parliament or providing a president. In doing so, they can contribute to political decision making. Political parties can thus, once their members are elected in political functions by democratic means, exercise political power and have a say in how a country is ruled. Because of this important rule for political parties in the democracy, the European Court has held that only convincing and compelling reasons can justify restrictions on their creation and on their operation. Are democratic states then never allowed to interfere with the existence and operation of political parties? Well, under very strict conditions, this may be possible. In several cases, the court has made clear that in a democracy there is no place for political parties that seek to harm democracy itself. While political parties may have different views on the how social problems should be addressed, or on the how a country should be ruled, most of them do support the basic tenents of democracy. Yet, the ideology or activities of some parties may run counter to democratic principles. Since political parties can exercise real political power, their activities may thus present a true danger to democracy. For that reason, the court has held that states are sometimes, and under very strict conditions, allowed to restrict the rights of political parties, in order to protect democracy. Measures restricting the political participation of political parties include cutting down a party state subsidy, or refusing to register a party for the elections. A prohibition is the most far reaching measure a state can take. Yet, a prohibition of a political party may come across to you as paradoxical. On the one hand, political parties are essential to the functioning of democracy. They therefore enjoy maximum safeguards, with regard to their freedom of association, and for good reason. Giving the state too much power, in this respect, may lead to authoritarian rule. But on the other hand, restrictions may sometimes be necessary to protect democracy itself. Let me give you an example from the case law of the court to illustrate this dilemma. The case is about the Turkish political party Refah Partisi, or in English, the Welfare Party. In the 1990s, the party became the subject of debate because it rejected the secular organization of the Turkish state. Instead, the party believed that Turkey should be ruled by a regime based on Islamic Sharia law. It was a popular party that had a significant number of seats in Turkish parliament. The Turkish constitutional court, however, found that the aim of the party was incompatible with the notion of secularism, which was a key feature of Turkish democracy. The constitutional court therefore considered the party unconstitutional and prohibited it. Refah Partisi then went to the European Court of Human Rights. The party claimed that the prohibition was a violation of its right to freedom of association. After all, in a democracy, political parties should be able to propose changes in the organization of the state. The court, however, considered that a political party is protected by Article 11 under two conditions. First, the means used by the party to realize its political aims must be legal and democratic. As a result, parties that call for the use of violence to bring about changes in the law or the structure of the state are not protected by article 11. Secondly, the changes proposed by the party must be compatible with the concept of a democratic society, including pluralism and non discrimination. With regard to Refah Partisi, the court concluded that the aim of the party, to build a regime based on Sharia law, was incompatible with the concept of a democratic society. The court also noted that the fact that Refah Partisi held a significant number of seats in Parliament meant that the party had real opportunities to put its plan into practice. The court therefore concluded that the prohibition of the party was necessary in a democratic society. This very contested case has often been cited since, as it provides a leading answer to a very difficult question. How to strike a balance in an open democracy between safeguarding the freedom of association on the one hand, and protecting, on the other hand, democratic principles. To put the outcome into perspective, in almost all other cases of state prohibitions of political parties, the European Court found that they had complied with the two conditions. Therefore, their prohibition or dissolution in these other cases was a violation of the freedom of assembly. Democracy is allowed to defend itself, but not at every price. [SOUND]
