The verification process for qualifications must be in accordance with the law.
The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs suggests that there may be two basic
approaches to the process:
- a minimal requirements approach, with legal recognition granted as a matter of
administrative routine upon submission of the party's name, symbol, officers, charter and perhaps
a small list of member; and
- a more stringent approach, with added requirements for evidence (eg. through signatories or
reliable public opinion polls) of a large number of members and/or supporters, perhaps with a
minimum geographical distribution in the country, a party manifesto and a significant
registration fee.
- Additionally, restrictions against anti-democratic platforms or programs may also apply (eg.
fascist parties or parties aimed at fostering racial, ethnic or religious hatred). Accepted inter-
national electoral standards, however, establish the precept that no unreasonable limitations may
be placed on the right to establish political parties or other associations to seek government
offices through the electoral process.'
In framing requirements to comply with either the minimal or stringent requirements there is a
need to ensure that the administrative consequences have been considered, as stated in
Accountability.
The logic of requiring high standards of accountability is that care should be taken to foresee and
to avoid rules that are unnecessarily hard to comply with and police.
A vivid illustration is the following example, taken from a note sent in 1997 from the Australian
Electoral Commission to International IDEA about the implications of a problem faced by
foreign officials responsible for helping to administer elections in Cambodia. This resulted from
the requirement 'that each party should have 5,000 members who were registered voters.'
Because of the volume of names involved - around 100,000 - computerised
checking had to be used... This, however, intersected with a second problem, the lack of a
standard method of rendering a particular name in Khmer text, which meant that a name of the
same person as captured on a party's list of its own members. Of course when the names are
spelt differently, the computer is unlikely to find a match. This was very messy to sort out. The
Cambodian case illustrates a principle ... it is one thing to have what looks on the face of it like a
sensible legal requirement; it is quite another thing to be able to implement it in practice, and an
unworkable or unenforceable law merely brings itself into discredit.
