Political parties

Loading...

From the course by Utrecht University

Human Rights for Open Societies

146 ratings

Utrecht University

Human Rights for Open Societies

146 ratings

Human rights are under pressure in many places across the globe. Peaceful protests are violently quashed. Voting is tampered with. And minorities are often excluded from decision-making. All of this threatens the ideal of an open society in which each of us can be free and participate equally. A solid protection of human rights is needed for an open society to exist and to flourish. But it is often an uphill battle to work towards that ideal. Equip yourself and learn more about what human rights are and how they work. In this course, we will introduce you to one of the world’s most intricate human rights systems: the European Convention on Human Rights. You will see when and how people can turn to the European Court of Human Rights to complain about human rights violations. You will learn how the Court tries to solve many of the difficult human rights dilemmas of today. We will look, amongst other things, at the freedom of expression and demonstration, the right to vote, and the prohibition of discrimination. And we will address the rights of migrants, refugees, and other vulnerable groups. And, of course, we will see whether it is possible to restrict rights and if so under what conditions. You will even encounter watchdogs and ice cream in this course. We invite you to follow us on a journey of discovery into the European Convention!

From the lesson

Human rights and democracy

Open societies require a democratic form of government. But how are human rights and democracy linked? In this part of the course, we focus on what democracy entails from a human rights perspective. We also address what voting rights are and how political parties are protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. Finally, we take a look at the protection of political rights in countries in transitions from war to peace and from dictatorship to democracy.

Political parties9:10

Meet the Instructors

Antoine Buyse
Prof. dr.
Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Utrecht Law School
Janneke Gerards
Prof. dr.
Jurisprudence, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Utrecht Law School
Paulien de Morree
dr.
Jurisprudence, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Utrecht Law School

[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]

Explore our Catalog

Join for free and get personalized recommendations, updates and offers.

Coursera provides universal access to the world’s best education, partnering with top universities and organizations to offer courses online.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. All rights reserved.

Download on the App Store

Get it on Google Play