Political parties may enter into cooperation agreements on a variety of issues, including joint participation in elections, joint formation of a government after elections, offering external support to an existing government that merges with several parties to overthrow another party, changing elements of the political system, or jointly establishing specific policies. In this context, it is interesting to examine the characteristics of political alliances in relation to an electoral process. Alliances between parties can take very different forms and degrees. Judicial precedents are essential to the integration of the electoral system. Such an assertion implies a very important change: electoral disputes are no longer resolved exclusively by the political authorities, but also by the judicial authorities (on the one hand, there are cases where the settlement of electoral disputes takes place before the courts; on the other hand, other cases can be considered as cases of mixed systems, in which political and judicial authorities play a role in resolving electoral disputes). The political authorities settled electoral disputes on the basis of political criteria. Electoral disputes are now resolved by special electoral tribunals that settle disputes according to legal criteria). Electoral processes have been regulated by the courts, and the judgments of electoral tribunals and electoral judges (which can be considered precedents) have become crucial to understanding what the electoral law should be. This is the classic political model. However, we can find a legal perspective behind British parliamentarism. Elective appeals in the fifteenth century under Henry IV of Lancaster were settled by the firm (which can be seen at the origin of the courts of equity). The chancellor was a high-ranking officer of the crown and was the king`s advisor.
Finally, the courts of the Chancellery had the power to change the counting of votes. In 1604, however, Parliament annulled an electoral judgment of the courts of chancery (ignoring the inconformity of King James I), setting a precedent whereby members of Parliament were empowered to judge their own elections. These powers were valid until a legal reform in 1868. It is important that the EC`s mandate to participate in electoral reform processes be governed by Article 11(7) of the 1992 Constitution, which states: In common law systems, judicial precedent may be considered the origin of the law (in contrast, in civil law systems, the law enacted is considered the origin of the law). According to legal concepts such as stare decisis or ratio decidendi, the reasons for previous decisions must be taken into account in order to resolve new and similar cases. The right to vote is not defined by codes and laws, but by judicial opinions. The choice of an electoral system must be integrated into a legal framework that adequately regulates social structures and political differences. Such a settlement must organize a representative political system responsible for resolving social conflicts through arbitration. It can therefore be said that the choice of an electoral system can be made more easily if certain objectives are set from the outset (e.g.
a higher degree of legitimacy or proportionality of the results, or a strong representation of political groups at regional level, etc.). On the basis of these considerations and taking into account the social, political, geographical and historical conditions of each country, electoral systems are chosen. In order to facilitate the important role of authorised political representatives in the polling station while ensuring that they act within appropriate limits, it may be useful for the legal framework, possibly including a code of conduct, to require at least authorised political representatives to declare that: in cooperation with the EU monitoring mission deployed in December 2012, The MEC organised a joint roundtable with the The overall objective was to discuss “next steps towards Malawi`s historic tripartite elections in 2014”, with a focus on exchanging views and setting priorities for the pre-electoral phase (EU EFM Report 2013: 42). The round table was attended by about 100 representatives of the Government, the Legal Commission, civil society organizations, religious organizations, the media, the police, political parties and the international community. The Round Table adopted the document “Points of consensus”, a section of which was devoted to legal electoral reform. Second, political parties that did not have much technical knowledge of the system strongly advocated the introduction of biometric verification as a precondition for voting. Ahead of the 2012 elections, the electoral atmosphere quickly warmed, potentially threatening the country`s stability. The EC accepted the request by adopting a “buy your peace” approach with the introduction of legislation that could probably have been better managed at the administrative level. The failure of numerous verification kits led to the rejection of the election results by the main opposition party, threatening democratic stability. The study of electoral processes can be divided into fifteen groups that are similar from a legal point of view.
These questions cover a broad spectrum, including: As with international standards, the legal design, reform and implementation of an electoral system must not ignore the reality or the cultural, economic, legal, social and political context. The application and interpretation of constitutional, legal and regulatory provisions must be consistent with the context. This applies regardless of whether the system is supranational or regional (European Union or Central American Parliament), national (of each country), state, autonomous, departmental, municipal, cantonal or district. As a general rule, those wishing to stand for election must meet certain criteria in addition to the right to stand for election. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure that the candidacies are serious and to prevent an unlimited number of candidates without meeting the minimum requirements to participate in the election, which would only cause confusion and require additional public funding. One. Presentation of candidates Although there are different possibilities in different legal frameworks, candidates are usually presented and supported by political parties. The prevalence of candidates` association with political parties is due to reasons inherent in representative democracy, which aim not only at fair representation of citizens, but also at forming majorities with sufficient electoral support to allow sufficiently stable governments. Political parties respond to this need by allowing the integration of candidates and by having the means of political support beyond the constituency level. The dominant role of political parties is not without criticism, most often in consolidated democratic systems. The problems identified in relation to political parties are: excessive influence or power of internal structures or mechanisms; the professionalization of political activists, thus hindering the emergence of alternatives; whereas political parties sometimes focus on resolutely defending their interests; a growing gap between politicians and ordinary citizens, etc. However, this criticism should not obscure the irreplaceable role of political parties.
On the contrary, the dysfunctions of political parties should be resolved in favour of the democratic system. In a democratic and open society, a political party experiencing such dysfunctions is faced with a dilemma; Either it is able to develop and solve these problems, or public criticism will gradually undermine the credibility and perhaps even the legitimacy of the party. In addition, opposition parties would strengthen or, in the absence of a satisfactory alternative, increase abstention until new political parties or groups emerge to replace or dominate those opposed to change.
