THEROLEOFPOLITICALPARTIESI
NTHEPOLITICALPROCESSOSCEHumanDi
mensi
onSeminar

OSCE Human Dimension Seminar

THE ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE
POLITICAL PROCESSCONSOLIDATED SUMMARY

Warsaw, 18-20 May 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 3
II.
CONCLUSIONS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 4
III.
AGENDA AND ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS ....................................... 7
IV.
PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................ 8
V. SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS .......................................................... 8
Working Group I................................................................................................... 10
Working Group II ................................................................................................. 12
Working Group III................................................................................................ 15
Working Group IV ................................................................................................ 17
ANNEX I: ANNOTATED AGENDA .................................................................... 20
ANNEX II: OPENING AND CLOSING REMARKS........................................... 30
ANNEX III: INFORMATION ON SPEAKERS, MODERATORS, AND
INTRODUCERS.................................................................................................... 412

I.

OVERVIEWThe Human Dimension Seminar on The Role of Political Parties in the
Political Process (Warsaw 18-20 May 2011) provided an opportunity for
representatives of the participating States, experts, and civil society actors toreview the unique role of political parties in democratic political processes.
The Seminar took the OSCE’s body of commitments as a starting point for
discussion, and examined how far these commitments were being
implemented and what challenges existed in their implementation. In sodoing, participants were called upon to consider how political parties are
grounded in the OSCE commitments’ overall vision of pluralistic democracy.
The Seminar also offered participants an opportunity to consider three crucial
issues from a closer perspective: the equal participation of women and men inpolitical life as mediated through political parties; the legal regulation ofpolitical parties; and the growing importance of e-democracy tools as meansof increasing participation and representation in the political process.
Seminar participants – from all three branches of government, as well as
academia and civil society – shared their experiences and proposed solutions
to help address these challenges. The Seminar participants were aided by theexpertise and insights of the keynote speaker as well as the introducers andmoderators of the four working group sessions.
It was noted during the Seminar that despite the centrality of the issue to the
OSCE’s body of human dimension commitments, this was in fact the first
Seminar devoted exclusively to the topic of political parties. Nevertheless, therole of political parties in the political process has been addressed before in
human dimension events with a different emphasis. It is worth highlightingthat the 2006 Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting on Strengthening
Democracy through Effective Representation included a working session onpolitical parties. More recently, the 2010 Supplementary Human Dimension
Meeting on Promoting Gender Balance and Participation of Women in
Political and Public Life included a session on measures to promote women aspolitical party members and decision-makers.
Discussions during the Seminar highlighted that greater awareness is neededof the importance of political parties for observance of the overall set ofcommitments that the OSCE participating States have undertaken, and for thevision of institutions and practices which these commitments describe. Many
speakers raised specific issues regarding the implementation of concrete
OSCE commitments, particularly with respect to the need to protect thepluralism of political organizations at all stages of the political process. While
much of the discussion focused on the differences in legal cultures regarding
the operating frameworks of political parties, the importance of reconcilingthe need for regulation of political parties with the human dimension
commitments was evident. In this regard, discussions were enhanced by the
recent release of the OSCE/ODIHR – European Commission for Democracy
through Law (Venice Commission) Guidelines on Political Party Regulation.
Political parties are often referred to as the “gatekeepers” of democracy.
Accordingly, throughout the Seminar participants highlighted how political3

parties play a key role in facilitating women’s access to political leadership anddecision-making in public office. Seminar discussions also highlighted theimportance of a comprehensive approach to ensuring the equal participationof women and men in political parties. Such an approach requires thatpolitical parties pay attention to the internal functioning of their party
structures and systems and that they actively adopt practices and proceduresthat promote gender equality and women’s leadership. Participants
highlighted that any measures adopted to increase women’s representation
should result in their “meaningful” participation.
The Seminar was also the first opportunity – in an OSCE context – to consider
in-depth the emerging and increasingly important topic of technology in the
democratic process, often referred to as “e-democracy.” This broad discussion
allowed participants to share different experiences and case studies of newtechnologies being used to broaden access, participation, transparency, andrepresentation in political life. While many perspectives were offered on thisissue, a consensus among participants was also evident: communication,social networking, and internet-based applications are transforming thepolitical process and political parties. At the same time, many participants
underlined the need for fundamental democratic values, including thoseenshrined in the OSCE commitments, to be respected online as well as offline.
Many calls were made for further engagement of the OSCE in this area.
The Seminar was not mandated to produce a negotiated text. The main
conclusions and recommendations of the Seminar are included in Section II ofthis Summary. Recommendations put forward by delegations of OSCE
participating States and Partners for Co-operation, internationalorganizations, and NGOs are wide-ranging and addressed to various actors
including OSCE institutions and field operations, governments, parliaments,
courts, and civil society. Seminar conclusions and recommendations have no
official status and are not based on consensus; however, they should serve as
useful indicators for the OSCE in setting priorities and planning its
programmes aimed at democratic governance and effective participation andrepresentation. Documents from the Seminar are available at:
http://www.osce.org/event/hds_2011

II.

CONCLUSIONS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2011 Human Dimension Seminar was chaired by Ambassador Janez
Lenarčič, Director of ODIHR. The Chair addressed the opening and theclosing plenary sessions (see Annex II), underlining the need for strong,accountable, and independent political parties in guaranteeing multiparty
democracy and pluralism. He expressed appreciation to the participants fortheir contributions to the Seminar, and thanked the speakers from nongovernmental organizations who were able to foster dialogue on politicalparties in the political process. The Chair made the point that political parties
play a fundamental role in ensuring the full implementation of OSCE
commitments, and expressed the view that the Seminar provided an excellent
forum for exchanging experiences and good practices. He recalled that the4rationale behind holding Human Dimension Seminars is facilitation of suchexchange on particular human dimension issues between experts andpractitioners of the participating States. Therefore he called on participating
States to demonstrate their commitment to making future seminars a successby attending and sending experts to participate. Moreover, he promised that
ODIHR will continue providing assistance to the participating States in theareas discussed throughout the Seminar. The following conclusions and key
recommendations emerged from the plenary and working group sessions.
Conclusions
Multiparty political landscapes help ensure the observance of principles of
equality and effective participation in democratic institutions. In many
participating States, there are still challenges to promoting pluralism,
recognizing the value of political parties, and fulfilling the commitment tointegrating opposition parties into the parliamentary system.
Protecting multiparty democracy requires that participating States abide by
their commitments and put in place safeguards for pluralism. Arbitrary
decisions of executive and judicial authorities should not undermine the clear
obligations of States to protect the fundamentals of democracy, particularly
fair electoral competition among both candidates and political parties. Level
playing fields between political parties and candidates should also be
guaranteed in order to promote and increase overall political participation.
The encouragement and promotion of equal opportunity for full participationof women and men in all aspects of political and public life is a key OSCE
commitment. Political parties play a key role in realizing this commitment. It
requires that political parties pay attention to the internal functioning of theirstructures and systems and adopt initiatives to enhance women’s equal accessto party resources.
Measures to support internal democracy may include developing clear andtransparent rules of procedure for selecting candidates, nominating members
to decision-making roles, and determining access to party resources andopportunities. These measures will prove most successful whencomplemented by targeted initiatives to promote women’s participation, suchas the adoption of voluntary quotas, gender equality policies, and capacity
building programmes.
While legal regulations concerning political parties vary greatly amongst
OSCE participating States, OSCE commitments should be reflected in such
regulation where enacted. Moreover, implementation and realization of key
elements of pluralism, including preventing the abuse of state resources forthe benefit of ruling parties, should be ensured. Excessively rigid or nontransparent regulation should be avoided so that real competition can exist.
Increasing participation and representation further requires providing citizens
the tools necessary to hold politicians and government accountable. Citizens
also need access to non-classified data in order to contribute to society andenhance the democratic process. Participation can also be enhanced through5new e-tools and technologies, particularly providing access to information onpolitical parties and the electoral process in the participating States.
Key recommendations
To the participating States













•
•

Human dimension commitments, including those on fundamental
rights and freedoms, need to be respected in order to allow for a vibrantmultiparty democracy
OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Guidelines on Political Party
Regulation, as well as the Copenhagen and Moscow Documents, should
be considered and respected in practice when developing newlegislation
Where enacted, political party regulations should serve thedevelopment of multiparty democracy and not curtail it
Participating states should seek ODIHR expertise in undertaking
legislative reforms on political parties
The importance of public financing in creating a level playing field forpolitical parties needs to be considered
Opposition parties need to be integrated into parliamentary systems,
for instance by giving them important oversight chairmanships as well
as appropriate funding to support their work in parliaments
More thought needs to be devoted to how to encourage, facilitate, andwhere appropriate support practical cooperation between politicalparties across borders, including the sharing of information, ideas andexpertise
OSCE participating States should explore different types of quota
systems, both legal (legislated quotas) and voluntary (internal politicalparty quotas) to increase women’s meaningful participation in politicalparties
OSCE participating States and civil society should strengthen their cooperation in supporting women political candidates, by facilitating
networking as well as equal access to skills and resources
Full respect for freedom of association for minority women should beensuredOSCE participating States should promote e-democracy tools that canbe used to reach out to women and vulnerable groups, and contributeto the achievement of gender equality in democratic processes

To the OSCE, its institutions and field operations••

The OSCE should deal more intensively – through meetings or projects– with the issue of political and parliamentary culture, including
through developing recommendations on political parties in thepolitical process.
The OSCE should support participating States to ensure that politicalparties have access to and contact with relevant internationalorganizations and parties abroad

6

•








III.

ODIHR should stand ready to provide assistance and expertise on thevariety of measures available for promoting women’s participation inpolitical parties as well as in political and electoral processes more
broadly
OSCE/ODIHR should support further democratization of all internal
processes within political parties
OSCE/ODIHR should facilitate the establishment of initiatives tosupport solidarity among women and promote networks of women in
civil society for the advancement of gender equality in politics
The OSCE should support gender equality education for youth
members of political parties and promote girls’ active participation
The OSCE should co-operate more actively with internationalorganizations such as Council of Europe, UNDP and International
IDEA, among others, to promote women’s participation in local politics
and create opportunities for women within political party structures
In considering e-democracy, OSCE should address how its
commitments can be guaranteed and implemented online as well as
offlineAGENDA AND ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS

The Seminar on the Role of Political Parties in the Political Process wasorganized in Warsaw on 18-20 May 2011 by ODIHR in cooperation with the
Lithuanian Chairmanship of the OSCE in accordance with PC Decisions No.
988 of 10 March 2011 (PC.DEC/988) and No. 994 of 31 March 2011
(PC.DEC/994).
This was the 27th event in a series of specialized Human Dimension Seminars
organized by ODIHR further to the decisions of the CSCE Follow-up Meetings
in Helsinki in 1992 and in Budapest in 1994. The previous Human Dimension
Seminars were devoted to: Tolerance (November 1992); Migration, including
Refugees and Displaced Persons (April 1993); Case Studies on National
Minorities Issues: Positive Results (May 1993); Free Media (November 1993);
Migrant Workers (March 1994); Local Democracy (May 1994); Roma in the
CSCE Region (September 1994); Building Blocks for Civic Society: Freedom of
Association and NGOs (April 1995); Drafting of Human Rights Legislation(September 1995); Rule of Law (November /December 1995); Constitutional,
Legal and Administrative Aspects of the Freedom of Religion (April 1996);
Administration and Observation of Elections (April 1997); the Promotion of
Women’s Participation in Society (October 1997); Ombudsman and National
Human Rights Protection Institutions (May 1998); Human Rights: the Role ofField Missions (April 1999); Children and Armed Conflict (May 2000);
Election Processes (May 2001); Judicial Systems and Human Rights (April
2002); Participation of Women in Public and Economic Life (May 2003);
Democratic Institutions and Democratic Governance (May 2004); Migration
and Integration (May 2005); Upholding the Rule of Law in Criminal Justice
Systems (May 2006); Effective Participation and Representation in
Democratic Societies (May 2007); Constitutional Justice (May 2008);

7

Strengthening the Rule of Law in the OSCE Area, with a special focus on theeffective administration of justice (May 2009); Strengthening Judicial
Independence and Public Access to Justice (May 2010).
The Annotated Agenda of the Seminar is supplied in Annex I. The Seminar
was opened on Wednesday 18 May 2011 at 10:00 and closed on Friday 20 May
2011 at 17:00. All plenary and working-group sessions were open to allparticipants. The closing plenary session in the afternoon of 20 May focusedon practical recommendations emerging from the four working groupsessions. The plenary and working group meetings took place in accordancewith the Work Programme. Ambassador Janez Lenarčič, Director of ODIHR,
chaired the plenary sessions. The Rules of Procedure of the OSCE and themodalities for OSCE meetings on human dimension issues (PC.DEC/476)
were followed, mutatis mutandis, at the Seminar. The guidelines fororganizing OSCE meetings (PC.DEC/762) were also taken into account.
Discussions were interpreted into all six working languages of the OSCE.1
IV.

PARTICIPATIONThe Seminar was attended by 235 participants, among them 110
representatives of 41 OSCE participating States,2 seven participants of two
Mediterranean Partners for Co-operation (Algeria, Morocco), and ten
representatives of fiveinternational organizations (Community of
Democracies, Council of Europe, International IDEA, UNDP, World Bank).
The Seminar was also attended by 27 representatives from 14 OSCE field
operations (OSCE Presence in Albania, OSCE Centre in Astana, OSCE Officein Baku, OSCE Centre in Bishkek, OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina,
OSCE Mission in Kosovo, OSCE Mission to Moldova, OSCE Mission toMontenegro, OSCE Mission to Serbia, OSCE Mission to Skopje, OSCE Officein Tajikistan, OSCE Project Co-ordinator in Ukraine, OSCE Project Coordinator in Uzbekistan, OSCE Office in Yerevan). Seventy-eight
representatives of 69 NGOs3 took part in the Seminar.

V.

SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Ambassador Janez Lenarčič, Director of ODIHR, opened the seminar.
Welcoming remarks were made by Deputy Foreign Minister Evaldas
Ignatavicius, on behalf of the Lithuanian OSCE Chairmanship, and Ms.
Grażyna Maria Bernatowicz, Under-Secretary of State, Ministry ofForeign Affairs of Poland.
1

According to paragraph IV.1(B)1. of the OSCE Rules of Procedure (MC.DOC/1/06), working
languages of the OSCE are English, French, German, Italian, Russian, and Spanish.
2 This number includes experts from Ministries of Justice, courts and judicial councils of theparticipating States.
3 This number includes political party representatives, universities, advocacy groups,
democracy support foundations, research and academic institutes, and schools.

8The keynote address was delivered by Judge Alexandru Tanase, of theConstitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova. He stressed the importanceof fair competition among political parties and of providing a true “levelplaying field.” The development and stabilization of democracy requires thecontinual evaluation by participating States of political party regulations andlevels of internal party democracy. Judge Tanase argued that political parties
should be open to internal renewal and change, while higher levels of
accountability and openness towards the media, civil society, and the public
are required of today’s political parties.
The keynote speaker further emphasized that beyond legal barriers, real
representation can be hindered by the effect of different political systems on
different groups in society. Specifically, women remain under-represented inpolitical life and decision-making in most OSCE countries. Political parties
have the capacity to be key vehicles for representation, but they can also be
obstacles to change if they do not abide by the tenets of pluralism andmultiparty democracy. Political parties are anchored within the overall
institutional architecture and processes of the democratic state. Nevertheless,fundamental conditions must be in place in order to ensure that the interestsand ideas of party members and supporters are made known to party leaders.
These conditions include mandating that regulatory authorities remain
neutral and objective in dealing with political party registration, political party
finance, and the overall regulation of party activities.
According to Judge Tanase, political pluralism requires that parliaments finda role for opposition parties to contribute to the policy process. Parliament is
the institution where political parties should be able to compete andcollaborate for the good of society. Equal and fair participation in parliament
requires all parties – government and opposition – to be responsible
stakeholders in important public debates. The keynote speaker made it clearthat there are sensitivities in regulating political parties but only free,vigorous, and vibrant political parties can give a voice to the people, and inturn give meaning to democracy.
After the opening plenary session of the Seminar, discussions took place infour consecutive working groups. The following reports are prepared on thebasis of notes taken by ODIHR staff and presentations of the Rapporteurs,
who summarized the working group discussions at the closing plenary session.
These reports cannot exhaustively convey the details of the working group
discussions but rather aim to identify their common salient points. The
recommendations from working groups were not formally adopted by the
Seminar participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of any
participating State.
The Seminar also provided for informal side-events during lunch breaks. A
schedule as well as titles and descriptions provided by the organizers of theside events are available at: http://www.osce.org/odihr/77445.

9

Working Group I
Political Parties and the OSCE Commitments
Moderator: Prof. João Carlos Espada
Chair of European Civilization, College of Europe, Warsaw,
PolandDirector, Institute for Political Studies, Catholic University ofPortugal
Introducer: Dr. Aleksander Kynev
Head of the Regional Programme, Foundation for Information
Policy Development, Russia
Rapporteur: Mr. Thomas Lenk
Counsellor, Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of
Germany to the OSCEThe first working session addressed the OSCE commitments that relate to therole of political parties in the political process. Participants discussed thedegree to which commitments have been implemented in OSCE participating
States and addressed challenges related to their implementation.
To begin discussion on the topic, the introducer stated that a form of“mimicry” of political pluralism had emerged in some states, in which politicalparties were simply cosmetic and did not reflect the reality of social diversity.
He stated that political party laws can be an instrument of party systemdevelopment in one country but a method for stifling parties in another. As
the introducer explained, there are ways in which party regulations can hinder
political party emergence: registration requirements, restrictions on regionalor minority party formation, and party funding requirements – in particular,
public funding. In some cases such instruments have been used by rulingparties to monopolize political power and abuse state resources. The
introducer called for the OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Guidelines, aswell as the Copenhagen and Moscow Documents, to be observed andrespected in practice. He emphasized that these commitments should be
utilized to specify and focus participating State regulations and legislation onpolitical party regulations, while also restricting excessive state interference inpolitical party activities.
A number of speakers found that the right legal framework alone did not
suffice to guarantee democracy. They emphasized the need for it to becomplemented by the appropriate political culture, which includes therelationship between majority and opposition parties, parliamentary speaking
and debate culture, as well as the way in which politicians deal with failures
and mistakes. They underlined that opposition parties need to be integrated
into the parliamentary system. Some participants pointed out that theircountries had made important progress in this respect. One speaker cited themeasures in the new constitution of his country to restrict domination of thesystem by one party, which apparently had increased the legitimacy of thesystem. Others said their governments had made efforts to implement the10

OSCE commitments, citing a variety of indicators, such as the number ofpolitical parties and the constitutional and legal framework on political parties
in their countries. By contrast, some noted that the development of a genuine
multiparty democracy was a historic process that required substantial time.
Furthermore, they argued that not all commitments could be implemented
one by one, as ethnic, security and economic considerations need to be
simultaneously taken into account. One speaker observed that some parties in
his country were not interested in seeking power, but happy to stay in
opposition only to criticize.
Some participants questioned whether the leaders of their countries had
sufficient good will to tolerate the emergence of real political parties. They
described a situation in which multiple parties were registered formally, butwhere meaningful pluralism was belied by legal and other limitations of party
formation and party work, and threatened by arbitrary decisions of executive
and judicial powers. One participant argued that many OSCE participating
States pretend to strive towards multiparty democracy, and the OSCE
pretends to believe them.
Another participant concluded that party regulations were a critical element ofmultiparty democracy but that there exists no universal rule for such
regulations. He considered that the aim should always be to regulate while notcurtailing unnecessary the work of political parties. He called on the OSCE toremember and enforce those commitments expressed in the Copenhagen
Document that explicitly call for international support for the development ofpolitical parties, noting that it had become very difficult in some countries to
conduct party activities.
A number of speakers mentioned the current movement for greater
democracy in the Arab world, and asked how popular energy could bechanneled into the party system instead of into creating an anti-party culture.
On a more general note, participants agreed that dissatisfaction withdemocracy was widespread, and could also be found in establisheddemocracies. Speakers reflected on how this could be countered.
Guaranteeing internal democracy in political parties was cited as crucial toengaging citizens in political parties. Other speakers underlined the need forgenerational changes in politics, a broad social dialogue and ways of including
marginalized groups, such as women, minorities, youth, and rural
populations. Attention was draw to the fact that national political parties
cannot deal with problems of a transnational nature alone. There was also
some discussion regarding the relative merit, as well as impact on politicalpluralism and the dynamism of political parties, of proportional andmajoritarian electoral systems.
In his concluding remarks, the introducer stated that too much focus on theelectoral system was not useful; rather, the key issue in need of attention wasaccess to the system itself. He underlined that political parties are the productof several factors and political party legislation is only one of them; theseparation of powers/institutional design, electoral system, political culture
and political traditions also matter. He noted that all OSCE commitments
need to be respected to ensure a free multiparty system that respects basic
11human rights such as freedom of association and freedom of assembly.
Finally, he called on participating States to reference the OSCE/ODIHR –Venice Commission Guidelines in drafting legislation.
Specific recommendations included:
To the participating States
•

•

•

•

•
•
•

Human dimension commitments, including those on fundamental rights
and freedoms, need to be respected in order to allow for transparent,
accountable multiparty democracy
OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Guidelines on Political Party
Regulation, and the Copenhagen and Moscow Documents in particular,
should be taken into consideration by participating States, political parties,
and other stakeholders in developing new regulations
Opposition parties need to be integrated into the parliamentary system, forinstance by giving them important oversight chairmanships as well as
appropriate funding to support their work in parliament
The importance of public financing based on objective, fair and reasonable
criteria in creating a level playing field for political parties needs to beconsidered
Political party regulations should serve the development of multiparty
democracy, and not curtail it
More thought needs to be devoted to how to increase political parties’ cooperation across borders
Ways to increase political participation of women, youth and of
marginalized groups should be looked into

To the OSCE, its institutions, and field operations
•
•

•
•
•
•

ODIHR assistance should be made more specific and more focused inorder to prevent excessive state interference in political parties
The OSCE should deal more intensively – through meetings or projects –with the issue of political and parliamentary culture, including throughdeveloping recommendations on political parties in the political process.
The OSCE should consider compiling good practices from participating
States for enhancing political parties’ accountability to the electorate
The OSCE should provide real, practical support to ensure that politicalparties can receive international assistance
ODIHR election observers should objectively describe the situation andnot shy away from criticism
The OSCE and other multilateral organizations should take a look at voter
education and advocacy as a way of consolidating democracy in the longerterm
Working Group II
Equal Participation of Women and Men in Political Parties

12Moderator: Prof. Alla Kuvatova
Executive Director, Association of Women’s NGOs on Gender
Equality and Prevention of Violence against Women, Tajikistan
Introducer: Ms. Maria Rauch-Kallat
Vice-President of the European People’s Party Women’s Group
Former Federal Minister for Health and Women, Austria
Rapporteur: Ms. Anna Esko
First Secretary
Permanent Mission of Finland to the OSCE
The second working session addressed the equal participation of women andmen in political parties. As a starting point, the moderator, Ms. Alla Kuvatova,
highlighted the role of political parties as “gatekeepers” of democracy,emphasizing a political party’s ability to limit and facilitate access to power.
The introducer, Ms. Maria Rauch-Kallat, described the political participationof women in her country, Austria. She stressed the importance of encouraging
solidarity among women politicians who are supportive of gender issues.
Moreover, she emphasized the need to be vigilant, as gains in gender equality
in the political sphere can be easily lost. The introducer listed several
challenges that women face in politics. These include female modesty and lackof self-confidence, negative public opinion about the presence of women inpolitics, division of labour within families, and the predominance of maleoriented structures in political parties. The introducer highlighted that efforts
to promote women’s participation within political parties must be matched byinitiatives to transform public opinion about women’s presence in politics andcombined with training of women to help facilitate their access to politics.
Moreover, the introducer addressed the question of quotas and recommended
their use while highlighting the importance of strategic career and/or
campaign planning, not hiding one’s achievements, identifying a mentor,
consistently seeking and applying for good opportunities, being well prepared
and well trained, building and using networks, and nurturing politicalambition.
The subsequent discussion of the working group was lively, and a number of
speakers drew attention to the need to provide education and training for
women, so that they can improve their political skills and gain confidence inthe political arena. It was also noted that there is a need to transform politicalculture and to improve the image of politics, thereby making politics more
appealing and accessible for women. One speaker also referred to the role ofthe media and the need to improve how women are portrayed in the media.
Participants discussed different quota systems and other measures and targets
in national strategies intended to increase gender equality. Whilst often
effective, it was emphasized that quotas may sometimes be used for the wrong
reasons. A number of speakers underlined that mentoring and identifying
promising women to enter politics are important additional measures toensure a comprehensive approach to increasing women’s politicalparticipation and work in political parties.
13

Speakers in the second working group also addressed the role of parties asgatekeepers, and different ways to support women’s participation werediscussed. It was mentioned that there is a need to work both inside andoutside the parties, to cooperate with men, with civil society, and across party
lines. The importance of local-level capacity building was stressed, as were
opportunities for women’s participation at local and regional levels.
Participants debated bottom-up versus top-down approaches, highlighting theneed for parties to function bottom-up in order to be representative, whereas
top-down change is also required to ensure and enforce equal opportunities
for women within political party structures.
It was emphasized that women need to learn from each other, become proactive, and use the support from different institutions and the international
community. One speaker also pointed out that it is important to analyze why
the situation has not changed and why women have not made use of all theavailable opportunities.
A number of NGO representatives referred to shortcomings and challenges insome OSCE participating States regarding their election system and politicalparty legislation and regulations.
Specific recommendations included:
To the participating States
•

•
•

•
•
•

Different types of quota systems, both legal (legislated quotas) andvoluntary (internal political party quotas) to increase women’s
meaningful participation in political parties should be explored
Political parties should be encouraged to develop clear and transparent
criteria for candidate selection based on merit
Political parties should be encouraged to organize capacity
development training for women, both candidates and active
politicians, in the area of public speaking, campaigning, andnegotiation
Respect for freedom of association for minority women should beensuredEfforts to improve women’s representation in the media should
continue
Electronic democracy [e-democracy] tools that can be used to reach out
to women and vulnerable groups, and contribute to the achievement ofgender equality in democratic processes, should be promoted

To the OSCE, its institutions, and field operations••

The OSCE/ODIHR should aim to increase its programme support forthe democratization of internal processes within political parties
The OSCE should facilitate the establishment of women’s networks atcivil society level

14

•

•

•
•

The OSCE should co-operate more actively with internationalorganizations such as UNDP, NDI, and IDEA, among others, topromote women’s participation in local politics and to create
opportunities for women within political party structures
The OSCE field operations should support female political party
members to put forward their proposals on how to increase women’s
participation in political life
The OSCE should support gender equality education for youth
members of political parties and promote girls’ active participation
The OSCE should continue supporting political parties, NGOs,
women’s networks and participating States to empower women

To NGOs, international organizations, and other actors
•
•

•
•

Women and girls’ participation in educational and professional
initiatives, such as political leadership academies, should be supported
Political parties should have clear and transparent criteria forcandidate selection, specifically with the aim of promoting equal
opportunities for men and women.
Study visits for female political party members to exchange experiencesand good practices should continue to be supported
Political parties should be encouraged to adopt voluntary gender
quotas and to take other positive action measures at party level,
particularly regarding decision-making structures and nomination
processes

Working Group III
Regulations Regarding Political Parties in National Legislation
Moderator: Prof. Daniel Smilov
Programme Director, Center for Liberal Strategies, Bulgaria
Introducers: Justice Andrzej Rzepliński
President, Constitutional Tribunal, Poland
Mr. Sergej Muravjov
Executive Director, Transparency International, Lithuania
Rapporteur: Mr. Hendrik Roggen
Belgium
The first introducer of this Working Group, Justice Andrzej Rzepliński,President of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, stated that since politicalparties stand at the heart of pluralistic democracies, legislation should allow
for a wide spectrum of political parties. He stressed the need to prevent
parties from having too much control over the State bureaucracy because
parties that are too strongly linked with the State authorities may have the15power to transform the legal system in a way that eliminates politicalcompetition.
Justice Rzepliński also touched upon the question of the prohibition ofpolitical parties. In his view, political parties are a fundamental component inrealizing the right to freedom of association. The law should be tolerant evento radical, anti-systemic parties, as long as they reject violence and accept asystem of regular, free elections and do not militate against fundamental
rights and freedoms. The best way to monitor and support political parties isby keeping them registered within the legal field.
The second introducer, Sergej Muravjov, Executive Director of Transparency
International Lithuania, stressed that political party regulation is not a goal in
itself. He highlighted that the general public has a low level of trust inpoliticians and invited discussion on accountability and transparency.
Thought should also go into finding ways to motivate people to follow rules ontransparency and accountability. He stated that the regulation of politicalparties cannot be done through a patchwork approach: a comprehensive
platform is necessary. Sergej Muravjov concluded by asking whether theparticipating States are genuinely interested in making the regulatory
framework on political parties work effectively in practice.
One speaker noted that the regulation process is an evolving one and that it
aims at strengthening political parties and making sure they represent thevarious groups in society. Another speaker pointed out that strategies
regarding political party regulation should be adapted according to the level of
democracy in a country.
An additional speaker pointed to the need for trust between society and theState, and emphasized that a state that is opposed to political parties isdetrimental to society. The danger of rigid regulation was also noted, as thiscan lead to the elimination of real competition.
The OSCE and the United Nations were called upon by another speaker topool efforts in ensuring that international standards are implemented innational legislation.
Many participants gave examples of the registration processes for politicalparties in their countries, which often involve the collection of a number ofsignatures. Some speakers suggested that the numbers of required signatures
are too high and disproportionate to the number of inhabitants. Others
disagreed with this assessment.
A speaker pointed out that a holistic approach is needed to ensure effective
participation of persons belonging to national minorities in public life, andconsidered that this should not be confined to mere representation, butshould also include influence on the decision-making process. This speakerargued that the goal of effective representation of persons belonging tonational minorities in political life can be achieved through making electoral
systems more minority friendly, for example by introducing open party lists.

16

While one speaker was of the opinion that electoral thresholds hamper
effective participation of minorities, another disagreed, pointing out thatminority candidates can be part of broader political parties and still defend
their beliefs adequately.
Several participants made reference to the work and guidelines of the Councilof Europe’s Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO) and valued its workon political party funding. It was recommended that ODIHR carry out acomparison of the different pension systems for politicians in order to get afull picture of their earnings.
ODIHR was also asked to stipulate in its recommendations that state funding
should be sufficient to enable parties to operate in a meaningful way.
Specific recommendations included:
To the participating States- Political parties should be prevented from abusing state bureaucracy
and resources- Political party laws should be tolerant even to radical, anti-systemic
parties, as long as they reject violence and accept a system of regular,
free elections and do not militate against fundamental rights andfreedoms- Participating states should seek ODIHR expertise in undertaking
legislative reforms on political parties- When amending political party regulations and laws, participating
States should consider the OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission
Guidelines on Political Party Regulations
To the OSCE, its institutions and field operations-

The OSCE and other main international organizations should pool theirefforts to ensure that international standards on political party
regulations are implemented in national legislation
ODIHR may recommend that state funding should be at sufficientlevels to enable parties to operate in a meaningful way

Working Group IV
E-democracy: Increasing Participation and Representation
Moderator: Mr. Simon Delakorda
Director, Institute for e-Participation, Slovenia
Introducers: Ms. Sheila Krumholz
Executive Director, Centre for Responsive Politics, United States
Mr. Vladimir Churov

17Chairman, Central Election Commission of the RussianFederation
Mr. Hannes AstokExpert, e-Governance Academy, and former Member ofParliament, Estonia
Rapporteur: Mr. Simon Deignan, Attaché, Permanent Mission of Ireland to
the OSCE
In the fourth working group, the introducers spoke on a variety of topics
relating to the connections between new technologies and participation inpolitical processes. First, increasing citizens’ access to non-classified data
should be a goal for every government and a variety of examples of how data
can be used by groups to positively contribute to society was provided to theparticipants. The introducers further outlined the ways in which technology
can be used in the electoral process, from giving access to information on
party platforms, expenses and results, to e-voting. The introducers also noted
the growth of citizens groups on social forums and asked whether these should
be given a more important or more formal role in decision making.
In the discussion itself, all participants agreed that e-democracy can increase
access to information, allow for better transparency and trust, augment thelevel of discussion and debate, and allow for more accountability andparticipation. Some stressed the importance of social networks, while others
underlined the need for education in order to allow effective access to theinternet across society.
A number of participants intervened to showcase examples of e-democracy intheir countries. These included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Micro-democracies on social networks
E-tools for public procurement
Online questionnaires for people to assess what party best represents
their voting interests
The introduction of e-parliaments in national assemblies
Automatic legislative procedures
E-participation to increase youth involvement and translation into
different languages
Legislative tracking systems for voting and spending.

There was a comprehensive debate on whether the internet leads todemocracy or simply enhances it. A number of participants felt that edemocracy could not transform authoritarian regimes into democratic ones
and that e-democracy could not be a substitute for real democracy. They madethe point that online activity does not automatically lead to action and thatwithout proper identification it is difficult to negotiate with online movements
as political forces. They stressed that e-democracy primarily improves thequality of democracy in established democracies. Others called for optimismand noted that the internet has reduced the transaction costs for social

18

actions; they gave examples of how social media and e-resources have beenused by opposition parties in democratizing countries. There was also somediscussion about the pros and cons of e-voting. Two advantages are that it can
reduce costs and allow for voting from inaccessible areas for people with lowlevels of mobility, while the main disadvantage is that it can sometimes fail toguarantee voter secrecy.
Specific recommendations included:
To the participating States• Citizens should be provided with tools to hold politicians accountable,
which will in turn increase credibility and trust• Investment should be made to explore possible uses of social media
because its role in democracy is increasing steadily• Political analysis capacity should be built in order to better assess theimpact of e-democracy on democratic governanceTo the OSCE, its institutions, and field operations
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Advice should be offered to countries wishing to introduce e-voting andmore e-democracy applications
The OSCE should act as a platform for discussion on how to use
technology to increase participation and build a better quality
democracy
Online activity should be monitored for signs that governments may beusing the internet as a surveillance tool
A seminar dedicated to e-democracy should be organizedAccountability and transparency in the OSCE region and openness of
public organizations through e-tools should be promoted
Best practice guidelines on government data availability should be
provided
The OSCE should act as a knowledge centre for e-voting
The OSCE should partner with Transparency International to make etools more relevant

To NGOs, international organizations, and other actors•••

Political parties and civil society should utilize e-democracy in the fightagainst corruption
These organizations should advocate for data to be placed online, andcommend politicians who take an online platform
Academia should be encouraged to set up online voter aids

19

ANNEX I: ANNOTATED AGENDA
2011 HUMAN DIMENSION SEMINAR
The Role of Political Parties in the Political Process
Warsaw, 18-20 May 2011
I. Introduction
Human Dimension Seminars are organized by the OSCE/ODIHR inaccordance with the decisions of the Conference on Security and Co-operationin Europe (CSCE) Summits in Helsinki (1992) and Budapest (1994). The 2011
Human Dimension Seminar will be devoted to The Role of Political Parties in
the Political Process in accordance with PC Decisions No. 988 of 10 March2011 and No. 994 of 31 March 2011.
In numerous CSCE and OSCE documents, the participating States haveconfirmed the importance of political parties for a pluralistic democracy and alasting order of peace, security, justice and co-operation. Importantly, in the
Copenhagen Document (1990), participating States committed themselves to“pluralism with regard to political organizations” and “a clear separation
between the State and political parties; in particular, political parties will
not be merged with the State.” (Paragraph 5.4)
In the Copenhagen Document, the participating States further committed
themselves to “respect the right of citizens to seek political or public office,individually or as representatives of political parties or organizations,
without discrimination; respect the right of individuals and groups toestablish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other politicalorganizations and provide such political parties and organizations with thenecessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on abasis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities.”(Paragraphs
7.5 and 7.6)
In the Moscow Document (1991), participating States further affirmed that
“democracy is an inherent element in the rule of law and that pluralism isimportant in regard to political organizations.” In relation to women’s accessto public and political life, the OSCE Ministerial Council, in Athens in 2009
(Decision No. 7/09), called on participating States to promote the equal
participation of women and men in political parties and to ensure morebalanced participation of women and men in political and public life,
especially in decision-making.
Political parties, as collective platforms for the exercise of individuals’
fundamental rights to association and expression, act as “bridges” between
citizens and the institutions of the state. Through the active engagement of
their members and supporters, political parties develop and formulate policy

20

positions and programmes. Likewise, through internal processes, they act asmechanisms for the selection of candidates for election to democratic
institutions. Thus, they help to ensure that the will of the people is reflected indemocratic processes. At the same time, political parties provide clear meansfor people to exercise their right to hold those in power to account, by offering
alternative policy options and the possibility of a peaceful change ofgovernment through democratic elections. Indeed, democracy derives its
essential dynamism, openness and capacity for innovation from competition
among political parties and candidates.
The OSCE’s commitments and its past deliberations have also underlined theinteraction between political parties and the political process. The Moscow
Document clearly underlined that legislation must be formulated in a way thatreflects “the result of an open process reflecting the will of the people, either
directly or through their elected representative.” (Paragraph 18.1) This “openprocess” and its relationship with the political parties have been considered inprevious Human Dimension events. For instance, at the 2004 Human
Dimension Seminar on Democratic Institutions and Democratic Governance,
former ODIHR Director Christian Strohal noted in his conclusions thatpolitical parties help to “effectively articulat[e] the aspirations of significant
parts of the population” and that the “extent to which political partiesfunction democratically both internally and in relation to one another iscritical in making democracy work.”
This seminar on the role of political parties in the political process thus
follows up on previous OSCE meetings on Electoral Processes (SHDM 2004),
Democratic Institutions and Democratic Governance (HDS 2004),
Strengthening Democracy through Effective Representation (SHDM 2006),
Effective Representation and Participation in Democratic Societies (HDS2007), Democratic Lawmaking (SHDM 2008), and Gender Balance and
Women’s Participation in Political and Public Life (SHDM 2010).
II. Aims
The 2011 Human Dimension Seminar on The Role of Political Parties in the
Political Process will review mechanisms for ensuring the unique role ofpolitical parties in political processes, based on OSCE commitments. The
seminar will review existing and new challenges to, and opportunities for,strengthening the role of political parties in the OSCE region, thereby
assessing the lessons learned in over two decades of OSCE assistance todemocratization processes.
The overall goal of the Seminar is to reinforce and recall the importance ofpolitical parties to the OSCE’s notion of pluralistic democracy, accountability
and participation in political life. Seminar participants may offer
recommendations for participating States and the OSCE, in particular on such
issues as political party legislation/regulation, internal party democracy,
women’s equal participation in political life, e-democracy, political parties inparliaments, as well as political parties and civil society.

21

The Seminar will focus especially on how political parties, as fundamental
democratic actors, relate to citizens, resident non-citizens, other components
of civil society, and state institutions such as parliament. One of the OSCE
objectives, according to Article 26 of the Copenhagen Document and othercommitments, is to support participating States in developing political parties
and multiparty systems and to ensure that all political actors work to preserve
this system regardless of which party is in power.
The Seminar will discuss relevant experiences and recommendations in fourWorking Groups. By means of introduction, the first Group will recall theunique standards contained in the OSCE commitments on political parties.
The second Working Group will look in detail at the implementation of OSCE
commitments for the equal participation of men and women in political life,
through political parties and processes. The third Working Group willconsider the policy challenges inherent in regulating political parties, and how
regulations can be reconciled with the OSCE commitments in this field.
Finally, the last Working Group will consider a new topic in the OSCE context,
looking at how e-democracy tools can increase participation andrepresentation in political parties and political processes.
This Human Dimension Seminar can be a platform for exchanging goodpractices among the participants regarding political parties and their role in
the political process. It will build on the OSCE’s innovative commitments
concerning democracy and political parties. Furthermore, it will provide an
opportunity to review OSCE experiences and to analyse lessons learned thus
far from OSCE activities related to the role of political parties in participating
States. The Seminar may also provide an opportunity for experts to discuss
potential reform efforts and areas for possible future OSCE engagement.
III. Participation
Representatives of OSCE participating States, OSCE institutions and field
operations, and inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations will
participate in the Seminar.
The Seminar will be especially enriched by the participation of:- Authorities responsible for drafting, regulating, overseeing, enforcing
or adjudicating disputes in the field of political party legislation;- Representatives of political parties;- Bodies responsible for monitoring gender equality and encouraging
women’s participation in public and political life;- Experts on democracy and governance support from national
ministries or development agencies;- Representatives of bodies involved in implementing e-democracy
projects.
For this purpose, participating States are requested to publicize the Seminarwidely and to include, wherever possible, such representatives in theirdelegations.

22

The Mediterranean Partners for Co-operation as well as other Partners for Cooperation are invited to attend and share their experiences concerning the roleof political parties in the political process.
All participants are encouraged to submit in advance written interventions on
their respective work and proposals regarding the subject of the Seminar,
which will be distributed to delegates. Participants are also encouraged tomake oral interventions during the Seminar. While prepared interventions arewelcomed during the Plenary Sessions, free-flowing discussions andexchanges are encouraged during the Working Group sessions.
IV. Organization
The Seminar venue is the “Novotel Warszawa Centrum” Hotel in Warsaw,
Ulica Marszałkowska 94/98.
The Seminar will open on Wednesday 18 May 2011 at 10 a.m. It will close on
Friday 20 May 2011, at 6 p.m.
All plenary sessions and working group sessions will be open to allparticipants. The plenary and working group sessions will take place
according to the Work Programme below. Four working group sessions will beheld consecutively. They will focus on the following topics:
1. Political parties and the OSCE commitments
2. Equal participation of women and men in political parties
3. Regulations regarding political parties in national legislations
4. E-democracy: increasing participation and representation
The closing plenary session, scheduled for the afternoon of 20 May 2011, will
focus on practical suggestions and recommendations for addressing the issues
discussed during the working group sessions.
A representative of the ODIHR will chair the plenary sessions.
The Rules of Procedure of the OSCE and the modalities for OSCE meetings onhuman dimension issues (Permanent Council Decision No. 476) will befollowed, mutatis mutandis, at the Seminar. Also, the guidelines fororganizing OSCE meetings (Permanent Council Decision No. 762) will betaken into account.
Discussions during the Plenary and Working Group sessions will beinterpreted from and into the six working languages of the OSCE.
Registration will be possible during the Seminar days from 8:00 until 16:30.
By prior arrangement with the OSCE/ODIHR, facilities may be made available
for participants to hold side events at the Seminar venue. A table fordisplay/distribution of publications by participating organizations andinstitutions will also be available.

23

WORK PROGRAMME
Working hours: 10 a.m. – 1 p.m. and 3 – 6 p.m.

Morning
Afternoon

Wednesday
18 May 2011
Opening
plenary session
Working Group I

Thursday
19 May 2011
Working GroupII
Working GroupIII

Friday20 May 2011
Working GroupIV
Concluding
plenary session

WORK PLAN
Wednesday 18 May 2011
10:00-13:00 Opening Plenary Session
Welcome and introduction from the Seminar Chair
Ambassador Janez Lenarčič
Director of the OSCE/ODIHR
Welcoming Remarks
Ms. Grażyna Maria Bernatowicz
Under-Secretary of State
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
PolandMr. Evaldas Ignatavicius
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
Lithuania
Keynote Speaker:
Judge Alexandru Tanase
Judge of the Constitutional Court and Former Minister of Justice of Moldova,
15:00-18:00 Working Group I:
Political parties and the OSCE commitments
Moderator: Prof. João Carlos Espada
Chair of European Civilization, College of Europe, Warsaw,
PolandDirector, Institute for Political Studies, Catholic University ofPortugal
Introducer: Dr. Aleksander Kynev
Head of the Regional Programme, Foundation for Information
Policy Development, Russia

24

Rapporteur: Mr. Thomas Lenk
Germany
OSCE participating States have undertaken commitments by which theyrecognize the central role that political parties play in democracy and its
processes. They have specifically committed themselves to respect the rights
to establish political parties and organizations,4 seek political and public
offices as representatives of political parties and organizations,5 fair electoralcompetition among candidates as well as political parties, and access to themedia.6 In this regard, political parties can be seen as structures throughwhich individuals join together and collectively exercise their recognizedrights to freedom of expression, association and assembly.7 These are specificcommitments related to the establishment and activities of political parties.8
Furthermore, the Copenhagen Document encourages practical international
co-operation for the shaping of “vigorous democracy” (Paragraph 26). The
OSCE has been guided by this acquis in its actions and programmes tosupport and strengthen political pluralism. The commitments have also
served as an example for other actors at the global level and in the OSCE
region.
The role of political parties as vehicles for participation, political debate andcompetition is sensitive and complex. Nevertheless, the importance ofpolitical parties to the health of political participation and democracy makes it
important to assess the advances that have been made and challenges faced in
the implementation of these commitments. This discussion can be the basis
for recommendations and action by participating States as well as OSCE
structures. Issues that can be covered in this session include:-

Implementation: How has the implementation of the commitments onpolitical parties been monitored and reported on? How has
implementation of these commitments advanced and improved? Whichcommitments have been particularly challenging in theirimplementation? How have these challenges shaped our understandingof the commitments? Are additional commitments andguidance/advisory documents needed to help participating States
tackle these challenges?

-

The political process: How can greater participation in the politicalprocess be encouraged? What is the link between multiparty systems,
pluralism in institutions and processes, and the OSCE commitments?
What steps can be taken to ensure that there is a clear separation
between the state and political parties?

-

The OSCE, its Institutions and Field Operations: What work has been
done by the OSCE to strengthen awareness and implementation of

4

Copenhagen Document (1990), Paragraph 7.6.
Copenhagen Document (1990), Paragraph 7.5.
6
Istanbul Summit Declaration (1999), Paragraph 26.
7
Copenhagen Document (1990), Paragraphs 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3; Istanbul Summit Declaration (1999),
Paragraph 26.
8These commitments should be considered along with the general recognition of the importance ofpluralism with regard to political organizations in OSCE States. See Copenhagen Document (1990),
Paragraph 3.
525

OSCE commitments on political parties and the political process? How
has this work evolved? In what directions should programmatic
assistance move?
Thursday, 19 May 2011
10:00-13:00 Working Group II
Equal participation of women and men in political parties
Moderator: Prof. Alla Kuvatova
Executive Director, Association of Women’s NGOs on Gender
Equality and Prevention of Violence against Women, Tajikistan
Introducer: Ms. Maria Rauch-Kallat
Vice-President of the European People’s Party Women’s Group
Former Federal Minister for Health and Women, Austria
Rapporteur: Ms. Anna Esko
Finland
OSCE commitments emphasize that inclusive, democratic governancerequires the equal participation of men and women in political and public life.
Yet across the OSCE region, women are systematically under-represented inpolitical and public office. Furthermore, their particular needs and concerns
often go unaddressed in policy platforms. As “gatekeepers” of democracy,
political parties play a critical role in facilitating women’s equal access to andparticipation in the political process.
Legislated gender quotas constitute an effective “fast-track” method forincreasing the number of women in elected public office, particularly aspolitical party candidates. However, in the absence of a holistic approach totheir implementation, quotas can actually serve to marginalize women within
political processes and institutions. Furthermore, it is often the internal
regulatory frameworks governing political parties themselves that create
direct and indirect barriers to women’s effective participation. A
comprehensive approach to increasing women’s participation andrepresentation should therefore include a variety of voluntary measures
focused specifically on addressing internal party barriers. These may include
capacity building, awareness raising of political party members, coalitionbuilding, developing equal opportunities policies and gender equality
strategies, and designing targeted interventions to create a truly equal playing
field for both male and female political party members.
This session will present an opportunity to discuss the range of voluntarymeasures beyond legally binding quotas to increase women’s participation aspolitical party members, leaders and candidates for public office, in line withrepresentative democratic principles. Session participants will also explore
conceptual differences between women’s “representation” and women’s“participation” in political parties, and the consequences of these differences
on women’s political engagement. Drawing on good practices fromparticipating States, the session will focus on exploring both “supply- and26

demand-side” factors that may incentivise political parties to prioritise
women’s participation as a critical component of a pluralistic political process.
15:00-18:00 Working Group III:
Regulations regarding political parties in national legislation
Moderator: Prof. Daniel Smilov
Programme Director, Center for Liberal Strategies, Bulgaria
Introducers: Justice Andrzej Rzepliński
President, Constitutional Tribunal, Poland
Mr. Sergej Muravjov
Executive Director, Transparency International, Lithuania
Rapporteur: Mr. Hendrik Roggen
Belgium
The role of political parties in the democratic process is well-known andestablished. However, in striving for the effective implementation of the OSCE
commitments on political parties and pluralism, one of the key issues in
implementation arises over the regulation of political parties. Legislation onpolitical parties is still a relatively recent phenomenon, even in states with anestablished history of multiparty democracy. Thus, different traditions, withvarying degrees of, and emphases in, regulation have emerged, without
however precluding the possibility of common elements, derived fromdemocratic principles. Regulation customarily covers such points as: party
registration and territorial representation requirements, decision-making
procedures on registration and appeals, sanctions, obligations and rights ofmembership, party funding, internal party democracy, and the supervision ofpolitical parties.
In this session, participants will look at the way in which OSCE commitments
have been implemented through national, legal, and regulatory frameworks
on political parties. They will look at how regulations can affect pluralism,
equal representation, participation, and transparency. The session willencourage discussion on how to strike a balance between the non-interferenceof states in internal operations of political parties and introducing regulations
that would ensure a level playing field.
Issues such as financing, registration, membership and territorial
requirements have been regulated in various ways by OSCE participating
States; the session will provide an opportunity to survey good practices in theregulation of these and other matters. In this regard, the Guidelines on
Political Party Regulation, developed over the last two years by ODIHR
together with the Venice Commission, can provide varied examples of statepractice on the regulatory frameworks applied in participating States as well
as offer a clear outline of the relevant human rights obligations. The
Guidelines also deal with issues that can be discussed in this session, such as
the role of independent candidates and their right to run for office free from27

political party association and the issues related to the funding of politicalparties, particularly receiving of public funds.
In addition, this session can feature the efforts of civil society to analyze andmonitor the implementation of political party regulatory frameworks in OSCE
participating States. Participants may also wish to discuss and consider the
impact on political pluralism of inadequate, unclear, or excessive regulation ofpolitical parties. In this latter context, participants may also want to consider
the benefits and drawbacks of different models of political party regulation,
administration, and enforcement.
Friday, 20 May 2011
10:00 – 13:00 Working Group IV
E-democracy: increasing participation and representation
Moderator: Mr. Simon Delakorda
Director, Institute for e-Participation, Slovenia
Introducers: Ms. Sheila Krumholz
Executive Director, Centre for Responsive Politics, United States
Mr. Vladimir Churov,
Chairman, Central Election Commission of the RussianFederation
Mr. Hannes AstokExpert, e-Governance Academy, and former Member ofParliament, Estonia
Rapporteur: Mr. Simon Deignan
IrelandFew areas of our societies have not been affected by the rapid emergence of
new information and communication technologies. In recent years, there has
been in particular a marked acceleration in the use of social, interactive, andparticipatory internet-based technologies that allow the average online user –and citizen – to easily generate, share, and discuss information. These
innovations have also affected the mechanisms of democracy to the point
where there is a growing body of practices that is collectively referred to as “edemocracy”, difficult to ignore in any discussion on democratic life. Part ofthis “e-democracy” has been observed in the way political parties and thepolitical process operates.
This session will look at how political parties and the political process arechanging through the introduction of new information and communication
technologies, creating opportunities for greater participation, representation,accountability and transparency. At the same time, participants should
consider the impact that these innovations could have on the implementationof OSCE commitments, and what role the OSCE and ODIHR might have in28

developing an understanding of the possibilities and challenges of such newtools.
Thus, participants could consider:-

How e-democracy tools have been able to increase internal party
democracy, in particular by increasing citizen input into (party) policy
and manifesto development, and candidate selection;-

The impact of e-tools on political campaigning, including through tools
for citizens to compare and contrast party programmes, for citizen
grass-roots organizing within political campaigns-

E-tools for increasing accountability and transparency; for instance,
monitoring political and campaign finance; keeping track ofparliamentarians’ assets, interests, activity and voting records;-

How e-tools have increased possibilities for citizen input into policy
making, legislation drafting and decision making processes (e.g.
through e-petitions, public commenting on draft legislation);-

The possible impact of e-tools on the participation of groups that aresocioeconomically,geographically,
culturally,orphysicallydisadvantaged, and are as such often under-represented in public andpolitical life; Whether or not e-tools are actually able to reach out tootherwise excluded groups of citizens or if they are only “engaging thealready engaged”;
What lessons can be learned from projects to use e-democracy tools;
what potential pitfalls should be considered; How this work has
evolved, and in which direction it should go.

-

15:00-18:00 Closing Plenary Session
Rapporteurs’ summaries from the Working Groups
Statements from Delegations
Closing Keynote Speaker
Ms. Lina Petroniene
Head of Division for Political Party and Campaign Funding Control
Central Election Commission of Lithuania
Closing Remarks
Amb. Janez Lenarčič
Director of the OSCE/ODIHR
Closing of the Seminar

29

ANNEX II: OPENING AND CLOSING REMARKSOPENING REMARKS
Ambassador Janez Lenarčič
Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let me extend a very warm welcome to everyone here at the 2011 Human
Dimension Seminar on the role of political parties in the political process. I
believe it is only fitting that vital topics of pluralism and multiparty democracy
are discussed as we celebrate the 20th anniversary of ODIHR.
I am delighted that we have a large number of participants here, including
many distinguished members of parliaments and representatives of NGOs andpolitical parties. I am confident that they will contribute with authority onquestions relating to democratic institutions, effective representation, andwomen’s participation in political life.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Lithuanian OSCE
Chairmanship, and in particular the Chairman of the Permanent Council,
Ambassador Renatas Norkus, for promoting this Seminar as an opportunity toevaluate to which extent our commitments on political pluralism and politicalparties are being implemented.
During these three days, we will have the opportunity to discuss important
issues such as pluralism, multiparty democracy, the equal participation of
women and men in political parties, and e‐democracy. You all will be able toanalyze the unique role that political parties play in democratic processes,
recognizing that democracy goes beyond democratic elections and thatpolitical parties must form its foundation.
We all know that without strong and independent political parties, societies
cannot ensure stability and good governance. Political parties should protect
effective representation and participation through vibrant debate andcompetition. This requires a political environment in which political partiesare developed and political awareness among citizens promoted.
It has been said that a primary criterion for democracy is equitable and open
competition for votes between political parties without government
harassment or restriction of opposition groups. And indeed, the vibrancy ofpolitical parties in modern democratic societies determines how effectively
people are represented in government.
Yet we are holding this Seminar at a time when political parties throughout
the OSCE region are facing serious obstacles, including the lack of adequate

30

financing, weak legitimacy among citizens, unequal access to media and otherresources, and restrictions on their public activities. We often hear that“political parties have little capacity to effect change in society” – this criticism
is still pervasive. All of us face the continued challenge that political parties
are perceived as corrupt and dominated only by narrow interests. In many
countries, there is a common view that all political parties are the same; they
have vague platforms, or do not represent vulnerable groups.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The WG this afternoon will address the implementation of OSCE
commitments related to political parties. Starting from the OSCE’s
Copenhagen Document, the OSCE has set clear obligations to protect
democracy. Among them is notably the recognition that there should be fairelectoral competition among both candidates in elections and political parties.
Respect for the role of political parties contributes substantially to thelikelihood that governments will reflect the will of the people.
The WG tomorrow morning will deal with equal participation of women andmen in political parties. Also here, we have a clear normative basis: OSCE
Ministers have stressed the importance of gender equality in all aspects of thepolitical process most comprehensively in MC Decision No. 7/09 on Women’sParticipation in Political and Public Life. This WG should reflect on the
progress that has been achieved thus far, the persistent challenges that hinder
women’s access to decision‐making in political parties, and measures politicalparties can adopt to promote women's participation as leaders,
decision‐makers and candidates for public office.
The third WG will be devoted to the regulation of political parties in national
legislation. Participants will focus on how OSCE commitments should bereflected in the regulatory and operating frameworks of political parties. Let
me only add here that OSCE/ODIHR together with the Venice Commission
recently developed Guidelines on Political Party Regulation which we will
present during this Seminar, and we invite all those present to carefully
consider this document in their future activities.
In our fourth and final WG we will, for the first time in a Human Dimension
Meeting, discuss the issue of participation in ‐ and representation through ‐new technologies and e‐tools. The average person is increasingly able to bringchange to all levels of government through increased online information
sharing and networking tools; political parties are learning to adapt as well.
This WG will reflect on the relationship between OSCE commitments and newtools of technology that can have a direct impact on democratic participation.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Political parties and political pluralism are central to ODIHR’s work in thefield of democratic governance and elections. Our work has focused on
assisting states in putting in place the elements of a multi‐party democraticsystem, in particular through legislation. For instance, ODIHR’s opinions on31

political party laws and related legislation have helped a number ofparticipating States reform their legal framework.
Upon request from participating States and OSCE Field Operations, we haveprovided expertise on various issues related to political parties, including onparty finances and the abuse of state resources. In a number of countries, ourOffice has worked with local think tanks to foster dialogue on reforming
political party legislation and regulation. We have also carried out expert
assessments of legislative systems and provided recommendations on
improving the openness, transparency, and efficiency of democraticlawmaking.
My hope for this Seminar is twofold: first, that we will openly discuss the roleof political parties for political pluralism and the challenges they sometimes
face; and second, that this conversation will provide real momentum for
implementing concrete steps to guarantee the promises of democracy that the
OSCE participating States have made to their citizens and to each other.
Thank you.

32

OPENING REMARKS BY JUDGE ALEXANDRU TANASE
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like to start by thanking the Lithuanian Chairmanship of theOrganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, as well as the Office for
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, for giving me the honour todeliver the keynote address at the opening of this Human Dimension Seminaron “The Role of Political Parties in the Political Process”.
It is a point of special pride for me that I am able to participate in thisSeminar in the context of a number of auspicious anniversary celebrations in
the OSCE: twenty years of the work of ODIHR, and two decades of theground-breaking declarations and documents – including the Paris Charter,and the Copenhagen and Moscow Documents – which deepened andexpanded the base of political principles that shape this organization’s work in
the field of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. These anniversaries– and their coincidence with the twentieth anniversaries of the momentous
changes in Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia, reflect how deeply the work of the OSCE organization has been entwined withthis period. I deeply hope that my remarks may do justice to this occasion, andmay be a valuable contribution to this seminar.
With your permission, I would like to shape my remarks around somereflections that grow out of the milestones of my career. I am especially
fortunate to have looked at, and dealt with “political parties in the politicalprocess” as a lawyer, political party leader, and as an official in all threebranches of government. I worked as a lawyer, advocating cases all the way to
the European Court of Human Rights, which had an effect on political parties
in Moldova. I have also been involved as a leading founder of a political party,
and as a candidate, and later MP, for that party in parliament. Later, as
Minister of Justice, I had direct responsibility for the oversight of politicalparty regulation. Thus, I have litigated for parties, participated and lead aparty, and been a regulator of parties.
If we look back twenty years, to 1990 and 1991, we will find that many
countries in the OSCE region were in Moldova’s position: attempting to startanew on the path of multi-party democracy, but faced with the legacy ofsystems that enshrined fundamentally different ideas about parties and theirrole in the political process. To illustrate this, I can recall the way in which theConstitution of Soviet Union enshrined the Communist Party as the “core of
the political system” and as the “leading and guiding force of Soviet society”.
Similarly, here, in Poland, the Constitution, specifically recognized that “thePolish United Worker’s Party” would have the “leading role among politicalforces in society”. It is remarkable to consider how far we have come sincethese days. Twenty years’ later, no participating State of the OSCE has such“leading party” provisions in its constitution. This must be seen as a majorachievement. Nevertheless, as the saying goes, “old habits die hard”. Whileleading parties are no longer inscribed in our constitutions, the idea that the33

party of those in power counts more than other parties still unfortunately
echoes in our minds and practices. This must change.
In many transition countries, moving away from the idea that the ruling party
is “the Party” or is “first among equals” has not always been easy. Too often,
we have seen situations where parties, once they gain power, use the power ofthe state to intimidate, harass, and obstruct the work of other political parties.
In my own career, I became involved with the launching of a party – theLiberal Democratic Party of Moldova. As a former political party leader andpolitician, I can assure you that the thought that one is entering an “unfair
competition” with a dominant party or parties can be a major deterrent topolitical participation and engagement. Thus, I call on you today to keep inmind how our democracies can be strengthened to provide a true “levelplaying field” for all political parties, and in which the tools of office are used
to govern in the name of all, and not to attack in the name of few.
In terms of the party system and political parties, the transformation took
place at at least two levels. The first level would be the introduction of the ideaof equal and fair competition among several political parties – “pluralism inpolitical organizations”, as the OSCE Moscow Document of 1991 refers to it.
Thus in many other countries, the transition to democracy brought with it adynamic increase in the number of political parties registered and operating in
the political system. This led to new challenges – not least, how to regulate
the registration, operation and role of these parties in the democratic system.
These are issues which continue to be contentious and crucial to the rightdevelopment and stabilization of democracy, and I hope and expect that thisSeminar – in particular Session III, on the regulation of political parties – willaddress some of these key issues in depth.
The relationship of the public, to the party has also changed. With the changes
twenty years ago, the notion of “top-down leadership” disappeared, to be
replaced with the idea that political parties should be based on the impulses
and activities of its members from below, and should be open to internal
renewal and change. In other words, not only is democracy defined by politicalparties, but political parties should be defined by “internal democracy”. I
would argue that the emergence of this idea in post-communist countries isonly part of a wider phenomenon seen in all democracies. Parties are less andless seen as “machines” with “bosses”, “oligarchs”, and “barons”, and more astransparent organizations in which individual members – and their voices andvotes – carry greater weight. Parties are also less frequently seen as closed
private clubs, but rather as public goods, from whom much is expected anddemanded. Higher levels of accountability and openness towards the media,
towards civil society, and the public at large are all required of parties today.
Both of these levels – the relationship between parties, and the relationshipbetween the public and parties – are crucial to how we think about politicalparties in the political process. Parties – we often hear – are vehicles totransmit the ideas and interests of citizens from the grassroots into theinstitutions of governance. Indeed, the relevance of political parties has now
been firmly anchored within the overall institutional architecture andprocesses of the democratic state. Modern elections, parliamentary systems,

34and the way in which governments are formed out of these, are unthinkable
without political parties.
Speaking as someone who has helped to establish a party, run as its candidate,
and won an election, I can say that I have been part of this mechanism oftransmitting “ideas and interests” from citizens to governance. However, if
this mechanism is to work, I would argue that three fundamental conditions
need to be in place. First, there needs to be a way for the ideas and interests ofparty members and supporters to actually make themselves known to party
leaders. In other words, internal party democracy is a key vehicle forgenerating genuine political choice that has roots in society. Second, choicemust be varied: unless real political pluralism exists, political parties cannot
be said to represent the people. In this context, we have to think carefully
about why we restrict the formation and registration of political parties – dounnecessarily high or arbitrary barriers exist for creation and registration of
new political parties? Let us be honest about the way in which such barriers
can limit and deter participation, and think carefully about how regulation canbe designed that does not hinder the rights of citizens to participate in thepolitical process. Parties must be able to compete and win freely and fairly inelections. This is crucial if multi-party democracy is to have any meaning atall.
Third, beyond legal barriers, we should also think about the ways in which real
representation can be hindered by how our political systems impact
differently on diverse groups in society. For instance, women remain underrepresented in political life in most OSCE countries – not enough women areelected into institutions from political parties. We must ask ourselves sometough questions about how political parties – as key vehicles of representation– can be obstacles to change as well as forces for reform in this aspect, and I
hope that the Second Working Group of this Seminar will address these issues
in depth.
** *Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,Once within the institutions of government, parties do indeed have a crucialrole to play in shaping the political process. As a former member ofparliament, I would suggest that a crucial and complex element is therelationship between parties and parliaments. I would offer a number ofreflections in this regard.
Parties are fundamental to structuring the work of modern parliaments,
providing discipline and clarity in debating and voting procedures. At thesame time, as parties offer choice and a contrast of policies in society at large,
so parties in parliament must represent a spectrum of voices, ideas andinterests in the political process. In modern democracy, the legislature is the
only branch of government where the multi-party system is permanently
recognized.

35

How parliaments deal with the political parties sitting within them should
thus be a key measure of how pluralism is respected as a whole. Genuine
pluralist parliaments need to find a role for the opposition parties tocontribute to the policy process – and that also means having an actual
legislative and policy process with parliaments at its core. A parliament inwhich draft laws can be analyzed, debated and amended, backed up by
genuine expertise and the input of civil society. A parliament in which all
members can ask questions - to hold the government and other members toaccount. All too often, however, parliaments are subjected to a “winner-takesall” approach, in which the ruling party, from the commanding heights of theexecutive, uses parliament merely as a formal mechanism for approving laws.
Laws are “rubber stamped” onto the statute book with little real discussion,
consultation, evaluation, or compromise. One of the side effects of this is that
quality loses out to efficiency in the lawmaking process – laws are adopted
simply too quickly.
Parliament is the institution where political parties should be able to compete
and collaborate for the good of society. Where one party dominates, and the
opposition is excluded from policy processes in parliament, politics canbecome tense, polarized and “zero-sum”. As a result parliament becomes its
worst caricature – a chaotic arena of bitter confrontation, leading many toquestion its use. Worse still are situations where the opposition is not even inparliament. Such situations in the long-term damage both political parties aswell as the institution of parliament itself. Multi-party democracy andpluralism – its wealth of ideas, diversity of views, and tolerance of dissent cannot be said to fully exist, I would argue, if it is not reflected in parliament.
And parliament cannot fulfil its role if this diversity of views is not adequatelyreflected in it.
Furthermore, parliaments as forums of debate, discussion, and decision are
crucial for helping to shape the essence of multi-party democracy –alternatives and choices. Where parliaments do not debate and decide, parties
outside government cannot have a chance at presenting themselves to citizens
as alternative stewards of the people’s trust. Equal and fair participation inparliament requires all parties – government and opposition - to be
responsible stakeholders in public debates. We must think of parliament as
one of the great stabilizing mechanisms of democracy – where parties in
opposition have participated fully and fairly in parliament, the more likely
they will be to act as stakeholders in the system of government as a whole. On
the other hand, when the opposition is shut out of parliamentary debates andprocedures, or even out of parliament as a whole, the opposition is only likely
to grow weaker or more radical. Weak parliaments and weak parties thus feedon each other in a vicious circle. I would urge you – in your deliberations overthe coming days – to consider this essential relationship between parties andparliament, and what recommendations and good practices can be formulated
to create robust multi-party democracy with plural and strong parliaments.
*
* *

36

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have mentioned earlier that the proper regulation of political parties has
been one of the key challenges in building pluralistic party systems. Indeed, I
believe this issue is fundamental, and I strongly welcome the fact that the
OSCE ODIHR has in 2010, together with the Venice Commission, published
Guidelines for Political Party Regulation.
In my career – as a lawyer and as a Minister of Justice – I have had to engage
deeply with this issue, and would like to share some thoughts on it. As
Minister of Justice, I worked hard to ensure that regulatory authorities remain
neutral and objective in dealing with the process of political party registration,
political party finance, and regulation of party activities. It was, and still
remains, my strong belief that regulations must always be applied in an
objective and non-discriminatory manner, and that parties should be subject
to the same regulatory provisions and be provided equal treatment in theimplementation of regulations. It is also crucial to ensure that parties have theright to appeal decisions by regulatory bodies before a court of law, and that
authorities can be held accountable for their decisions.
The sanctions, if any, which are applied to political parties must at all times beobjective, enforceable, effective and proportionate to their specific purpose.
We should be mindful, in this context, of what the European Court of Human
Rights ruled in the case of Christian Democratic People’s Party (CDPP) vs.
Moldova, which concerned a temporary ban on an opposition party fromholding “meetings” in front of the seat of government, which authorities had
classified as unauthorized demonstrations. The Court’s judgement in this casevery well illustrates the sensitivities in regulating political parties. The Court
found a violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights,
stating in particular that even a temporary ban on the party’s activities canhave a “chilling effect” on the party’s freedom to exercise its freedom of
expression and to pursue its political goals (especially if enforced on the eve ofthe local elections) and thus be unjustified in a democratic society.
Speaking in a more personal capacity – not as a former Minister but rather as
a former party member and candidate MP – there is one more case before theEuropean Court of Human Rights which I would like recall, a case which
concerned me in a very direct and personal way. I was an applicant in the caseof Tanase v. Moldova, which concerned the introduction in 2008 of aprohibition on Moldovan nationals holding other nationalities, and who had
not started a procedure to renounce those nationalities, from taking theirseats as members of Parliament following their election. I argued before theEuropean Court that this prohibition interfered with my right to stand as a
candidate in free elections and to take my seat in Parliament if elected, thus
also inhibiting the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice oflegislature. The case eventually reached the Grand Chamber of the Court,
which in its April 2010 judgment reiterated that in a democracy, only loyalty
to the State, and not to the Government, can constitute a legitimate aim
justifying restrictions on electoral rights. To assess the proportionality of the
impugned prohibition, the European Court undertook a review of practiceacross Council of Europe member States, which revealed a consensus that37

where multiple nationalities were permitted, the holding of more than one
nationality should not be a ground for ineligibility to sit as an MP. Referring
also to international reports by the European Commission against Racism andIntolerance and by the Venice Commission, the Court recalled that according
to its case-law, no restriction on electoral rights should have the effect of
excluding groups of persons from participating in the political life of thecountry. In the light of these considerations, the Court found the provisions
preventing elected MPs with multiple nationalities from taking seats in
Parliament were disproportionate and unanimously held that there had been aviolation of the right to free elections as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol
No. 1 to the ECHR.
I believe the Court’s judgment in this case serves as an important reminderthat States should never unduly restrict the right of candidates to seek
political office, but rather should always, and fully, ensure the free expressionof the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
** *Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:
In this keynote speech I hope to have given you a series of reflections – basedon my own career as lawyer, leader, legislator and regulator – that underlined
the importance of the topic which you will consider in these days to come. I
hope they will be of use to you, and I wish you every success in yourdeliberations. I am very conscious – and very encouraged – by the fact thatmany of the thoughts I have shared with you are very clear reflections of thevalues that are enshrined in the OSCE’s commitments. These commitments –and my own personal beliefs – revolve ultimately around a key fact: only free,vigorous and vibrant political parties can give voice to the people and thus,
meaning to democracy.

Thank you very much.

38

CLOSING REMARKS
Ambassador Janez Lenarčič
Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like to thank our Rapporteurs for so comprehensively and accurately
capturing our discussions over the last few days. I am very pleased with thelevel and tenor of debates during this seminar. Allow me to offer a few closing
reflections.
We have been able to discuss, in this Seminar, issues that lie at the very heartof the human dimension. We have been able to explore and debate thefundamental role that political parties play in the democratic political process
as envisaged by the OSCE commitments. We have, in particular, been
reminded that the respect for, and protection of, political pluralism is key tothe development of democratic processes and institutions.
In this seminar, our moderators and introducers have asked fundamental
questions, such as:
What are the key obstacles to the full implementation of OSCE commitments
related to political parties and pluralism?
How can political parties aid and advance the full and equal participation of
women and men in the political process?
How can political pluralism and basic human rights be protected in theregulation of political parties?
How can electronic tools and applications increase and deepen citizen
participation and representation in democracy and its processes?
Many excellent answers and solid recommendations were heard. We took noteof these and will make them available in summary report of this meeting; wewill analyze them and take them into account in our continuing assistance toparticipating States in these areas.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We have been reminded, throughout this Seminar, of the diversity of legal andpolitical cultures surrounding political parties in the OSCE area, and thedifferent approaches that exist to tackle some of the issues that were raised. It
is in such Seminars, such meetings, that we truly appreciate what the OSCE
can offer us: an exchange of experiences and insights that can help andsupport reform efforts in our participating States.

39

I have already mentioned that pluralism lies at the heart of our OSCE
commitments on political parties. 20 years ago many of our participating
States moved away from a single party state system, and there were highexpectations of what multiparty democracy could deliver by way ofdevelopment and pluralism.
Unfortunately, 20 years later and looking back on our original expectations,many promises have not been fulfilled. Political parties have not always
pursued inclusive policies or maintained high levels of integrity. Moreover,there has not always been true representation of many segments of society.
The popular perception is often that narrow interest groups receive special
treatment and are able to control political parties. Scandals surrounding
political parties and their leaders have had a negative impact on the level oftrust and confidence society places in democracy. Political parties need torebuild their relations with voters in order to protect the pivotal role they havein democracy and preserve their function. Ensuring vibrant political parties is
one of the major challenges to the foundation of multiparty democracy in the
21st century. Multiparty democracy, however, is only as good as its individual
parts and the extent to which transparency and accountability can be ensured.
Here at the Human Dimension Seminar, we were able to see a form ofpluralism in action. The debate in this room was made richer and moreinteresting by the wide variety of participants, with different points of view,
coming from NGOs, think tanks, academic institutions, but also parliaments,
courts and other state bodies. I am particularly grateful for their practical
recommendations and suggestions in our discussions.
Indeed, seeing such a broad and diverse group of participants, we were
reminded that the rationale behind this seminar is to support and facilitate
exchanges on issues in the human dimension between experts andpractitioners. The more such experts are brought together by the participating
States – the more successful human dimension seminars will be.
I therefore would like to express my gratitude to all those – participating
States, OSCE Field Operations, and civil society organizations – that
supported the participation of experts in this Seminar.
On a closing note, let me thank each and every participant for yourcontribution which made this Seminar a vibrant and vigorous discussion. I
would like to extend special thanks to those participants who made it from theMediterranean Partners for Cooperation.
Thank you. I hereby declare this Human Dimension Seminar closed and wish
all participants a safe return journey.

40

ANNEX III: INFORMATION ON SPEAKERS, MODERATORS, AND
INTRODUCERSKEYNOTE SPEAKER
Judge Alexandru Tanase
Constitutional Court of Moldova
Judge Alexandru Tanase has extensive legal and political experience in his
native Moldova and beyond. He holds a law degree from Alexandru Ioan Cuza
University of Iaşi (Romania). Since 1995 he worked as an independent legal
practitioner, occasionally being involved in projects aiming to support thestrengthening of the legal, judicial and governance framework implemented
by international organizations and civil society in Moldova. Judge Tanase has
successfully argued numerous cases before Moldovan courts as well as before
the European Court of Human Rights, being one of most prominent Moldovan
human rights and democracy defenders.
Judge Tanase started his political activity by actively participating in mass
movements fighting for the independence of the Republic of Moldova from theSoviet Union in the late ‘80s, as one of the founders of the first clandestine
youth organization struggling for independence. He is one of the leading
founders of the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova, the largest political
Party within the current governing coalition. He served as its first deputy
chairman from December 2007 to April 2011. From 2007 to 2009 he was anelected member of the Chisinau municipal council, leading the Liberal
Democratic fraction in the Council. In April 2009, he was elected for the firsttime to the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, and in September of thatsame year he was appointed as Minister of Justice, a position he held until
April 2011, when the Government of Moldova appointed him as judge to theConstitutional Court of Moldova. Judge Tanase has contributed extensively to
publications on human rights, judicial independence and democracy in
Moldova.

WORKING GROUP I - POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE OSCE COMMITMENTS
Moderator
Professor João Carlos Espada
Geremek Chair of European Civilization at the College of Europe, Natolin(Warsaw)
Director, Institute for Political Studies, Catholic University of Portugal
Professor João Carlos Espada holds the European Parliament / Bronisław
Geremek European Civilization Chair at the College of Europe, Natolin(Warsaw). He is the director and founder of the Institute for Political Studies
at the Catholic University of Portugal, where he is university professor of
Political Studies. He was political adviser to two Presidents of the Portuguese
Republic, Mario Soares and Aníbal Cavaco Silva. Professor Espada earned his
D.Phil from the University of Oxford, under the supervision of Lord
Dahrendorf, and has taught at Brown, Stanford and Georgetown Universities.

41

He has authored and edited 19 books in political theory, and regularly
publishes opinion columns. He co-founded the European Partnership for
Democracy, and sits on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Democracy, as
well as the steering committee of the Council for a Community of
Democracies. Professor Espada is a member of the Academy of Sciences of
Lisbon and president of the Churchill Society of Portugal. He was awarded theMedal of Gratitude by the European Solidarity Centre, based at Gdansk, in“appreciation of [his] involvement in organizing assistance for [the] Solidarity[movement]”, as well as the “Grande Oficial da Ordem do Mérito” of the
Republic of Portugal.
Introducer
Dr. Aleksander Kynev
Head of the Regional Programme,
Foundation for Information Policy Development, Russian Federation
Dr. Kynev is a specialist in regional political processes in Russia and CIS
countries, as well as in party and electoral systems. Dr. Kynev graduated withhonours from the Department of Political Science at Moscow State University
in 1997, and has a PhD in Political Science. In 1996-2000 he worked in thecentral office of “Yabloko” and the Office of the State Duma, and from 2000 to2007 he was an expert with the International Institute of Humanitarian and
Political Studies. From 2008 to 2010, Dr. Kynev was an associate professor at
the State University Higher School of Economics. He has also headed the
Research Division of the Association for the Rights of Voters' Voice, and has
been a member of the Inter-Regional Electoral Support Network. As a politicalconsultant and analyst, he has collaborated on a number of projects, including
with the Center for Political Technologies, the Institute for Election Systems,
the INDEM Foundation, and the Moscow Carnegie Center. Dr. Kynev is aregular participant in seminars and conferences in Russia and abroad and also
contributes to the Russian media. He is the author of several books andhundreds of scientific and journalistic publications on subjects such as
elections, electoral fraud and regional politics.
WORKING GROUP II - EQUAL PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN AND MEN IN
POLITICAL PARTIES

Moderator
Prof. Alla Kuvatova
Executive Director of the Association of Women’s NGOs on Gender Equality
and Prevention of Violence against Women, Tajikistan
A former Fulbright Scholar, Professor Alla Kuvatova completed her Ph.D in
Philosophy and Sociology. She currently serves as Executive Director of the
Association of Women’s NGOs on Gender Equality and Prevention of Violenceagainst Women in Tajikistan. Ms. Kuvatova has over 20 years of academic
research and teaching experience in the field of gender sociology, public
opinion, civic education and journalism. A well-established gender equality
expert, she has also conducted extensive studies related to women’s
participation in politics, political parties and electoral processes. Ms.

42

Kuvatova is the author of over 60 articles and has presented her work at 47
scientific conferences.
Introducer
Ms. Maria Rauch-Kallat
Federal Chairwoman, Women’s Section, Austrian People’s Party
Ms. Maria Rauch-Kallat is federal chairwoman of the Austrian People’s Party’s
women section and vice-president of the women’s organization of theEuropean People’s Party. She is a former Austrian federal minister with overtwenty-five years of political experience. She has held two portfolios ingovernment: Minister for Environment, Youth and Families between 1992 and1995 and Minister for Health and Women from 2003 to 2007. Under her
second appointment, she started a women-in-business mentoring program tosupport women in their professional lives and to facilitate networking. Ms.
Rauch-Kallat also holds the Great golden order of merit for services rendered
to the Republic of Austria.
WORKING GROUP III - REGULATIONS REGARDING POLITICAL PARTIES IN
NATIONAL LEGISLATION

Moderator
Dr. Daniel Smilov
Programme Director at the Centre for Liberal Studies, Bulgaria
Dr. Daniel Smilov is a comparative constitutional lawyer and political scientist
with professional interests in comparative constitutional and administrativelaw, legal theory, party funding, corruption, and political parties. He is
Programme Director at the Centre for Liberal Studies in Sofia, Bulgaria andalso holds academic posts at the Central European University in Budapest andthe University of Sofia. He has published widely in Bulgarian andinternational journals and books, and has co-authored and co-edited several
works on political finance, anticorruption and administrative law. Dr. Smilov
is Member of the Committee on Party Funding and Corruption of theInternational Political Science Association (IPSA).
Introducer
Judge Andrzej Rzepliński
President, Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland
Judge Andrzej Rzepliński is President of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal.
He graduated from the Faculty of Law of the University of Warsaw in 1971,
was awarded his juris doctor's degree in 1978 and obtained his habilitateddoctor's degree in 1990. He has a long and distinguished judicial andacademic career, having published, lectured and worked in the fields ofhuman rights, the judiciary, criminology, the prison system, state crime, thedeath penalty, comparative penal policy, police law and corruption career. As
a constitutional lawyer, he was chosen by the President of the Republic of
Poland to co-draft the Polish Constitution between 1992 and 1993. In addition
to his numerous publications, he has also prepared legal opinions forparliamentary committees, the Supreme Court, the European Court of Human

43

Rights and the Constitutional Tribunal. He has served as an expert for the
Human Rights Monitoring Department of the Secretary General of the Councilof Europe, the United Nations, and the OSCE/ODIHR. In December 2007 the
Sejm of the Republic of Poland elected him judge of the Constitutional
Tribunal. In December 2010 the President of the Republic appointed him
President of the Constitutional Tribunal.
Introducer
Mr. Sergej Muravjov
Executive Director, Transparency International Lithuania
Mr. Sergej Muravjov is the executive director of Transparency International(TI) Lithuania. He sits on the TI International Board of Directors andcurrently also leads the development of the international TI Summer Schoolon Integrity in Vilnius, Lithuania. Mr. Muravjov has been involved innumerous cross-regional TI initiatives and represented the movement
internationally. He has published extensively on transparency, corruption andgood governance, and is also the editor of a number of books on public andprivate sector accountability. Mr. Muravjov has conducted consultancy tasks
for the European Commission, UN Development Programme and the UK
Department for International Development. Mr. Muravjov holds Bachelor’s
degrees in Social Sciences (International Law and International Relations)from University College Utrecht at Utrecht University (The Netherlands) andEnglish Philology from Vilnius University (Lithuania), as well as a Master‘sdegree in Political Science from Leiden University (The Netherlands).
WORKING GROUP IV - E-DEMOCRACY: INCREASING PARTICIPATION AND
REPRESENTATION

Moderator
Mr. Simon Delakorda
Managing Director, Institute for Electronic Participation, Slovenia
Mr. Simon Delakorda, M.Sc., is a full time eDemocracy and eParticipation
practitioner and researcher and founding director of the Institute forElectronic Participation in Ljubljana. Starting in 2000, he participated inmost early internet democracy projects within the university and NGO sector
in Slovenia. He is an author and co-author of articles and case studies andconference speaker on democracy, political participation, active citizenship,
non-governmental organizations and governments on-line. He received apolitical science B.Sc. degree on e-democracy in 2002 and M.Sc. degree on eparticipation in 2009. He worked as an e-democracy course associate andresearcher at the Faculty of Social Sciences in Ljubljana, as co-founder andhead of the Centre of Electronic Democracy at the Institute of Ecology and as
an e-democracy associate at the Arctur IT Company. During 2006-2007 hecoordinated and managed the E-participacija web portal and facilitated thefirst successful e-democracy project in Slovenia - the Citizen's Forum. In 2007
he founded the Institute for Electronic Participation (INePA). His current
projects and research focus include e-participation in the EU institutions andcivil society. He is a member of the Slovenian Political Science Association,
Demonet: the eParticipation network of Excellence, the Central and Eastern

44

Europe CN eParticipation experts group and the Association of Slovene NGO
managers. He received awards and experts recognitions as an e-democracy
student and facilitator.
Introducer
Ms. Sheila Krumholz
Executive Director of the Center for Responsive Politics, United States
Since 2006, Ms. Sheila Krumholz has been Executive Director of the Center
for Responsive Politics (CRP), a nonpartisan research group based in
Washington, D.C. that tracks money in politics and the effect of money andlobbying activity on elections and public policy. As the watchdog group's chief
administrator and spokesperson, Ms. Krumholz appears regularly in news
stories around the United States as a money-in-politics analyst. She has also
testified before the US Congress on issues related to government transparency
and regularly makes presentations to scholars, government officials, activists
and researchers, and at meetings of professional news organizations. As CRP's
research director for eight years, Ms. Krumholz supervised data analysis for
OpenSecrets.org and CRP's clients in the media and elsewhere. She firstjoined the CRP staff in 1989. Ms. Krumholz was included on Business andtechnology magazine Fast Company’s "Most Influential Women in
Technology" list for 2010.
Introducer
Mr. Hannes Astok
Independent expert and former Member of the Estonian Parliament
Mr. Hannes Astok is a specialist in development of the information society,with a particular interest in the promotion of the role of local government.
From 2007 until March 2011, Mr. Astok was a Member of the Estonian
Parliament for the Reform Party, where he sat on the Parliamentary
Committee for Economic Affairs. From 2005–2007, he was Director of theMunicipal and Regional e-Government Program in the Estonian eGovernance Academy, providing training and consultancy for Central Asia,
the Caucasus and South-East European central and local governments. In his
earlier capacity as Deputy Mayor of Tartu, Estonia’s second largest city, healso developed a municipal e-Government program. Mr. Astok has a degree injournalism from the University of Tartu (1990). He can be contacted athannes@astok.ee.
Introducer
Mr. Vladimir Churov
Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission of the Russian Federation
Since 2007, Vladimir Churov has been the Chairman of the Central Electoral
Commission (CEC) of the Russian Federation. Mr. Churov’s academic
background includes a graduate course in Journalism (1973) as well as aphysics degree at Leningrad State University (1977), as well as later studies inprogramming. He has taught at the Saint Petersburg Trade Unions University
for the Humanities and at Saint Petersburg State University. In 1991-2003, heserved in different positions at the Committee for Foreign Relations of the45

Saint Petersburg Administration; including as Deputy Chairman and Head of
the International Cooperation Department.
In 1990, he was elected People's Deputy of the Leningrad Soviet of People's
Deputies. In 2003, he was elected as a member of the Fourth State Duma of
the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation for the Liberal Democratic
Party. He was elected Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee for the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Affairs and Relations with
Compatriots, member of the State Duma's delegation in the Nordic Council,
and member of the Political Commission of the CIS Inter-Parliamentary
Assembly. He has extensive election observation experience with the CIS, theOSCE Parliamentary Assembly, and the State Duma. He is the author of about
30 scientific papers, several hundred publications on different socio-politicalsubjects. He has received Letters of Commendation from the Chairman of theState Duma and the Mayor and Governor of Saint-Petersburg. He wasawarded the Order of Friendship of the Russian Federation, and numerous
other awards.
CLOSING SPEAKER
Ms. Lina Petronienė
Head of Division for Political Party and Campaign Funding Control,
Central Election Commission of Lithuania
Ms. Petronienė has a master’s degree in law from Mykolas Romeris University
in Vilnius and a bachelor and master’s degree in informatics, from Vilnius
University. Her master’s thesis focused on a comparative analysis of legal
regulation of political advertising. Since 2007, she has been Head of Division
for Political Party and Campaign Funding control at the Central Electoral
Commission of Lithuania. Prior to that, she worked with the Parliament of
Lithuania and the European Parliament.

46