Apr 25, 2007 (
In their bid to keep suspended President away from his office as long as possible, the anti-Basescu parliamentary majority, as suggesting a alleged ‘legal void’ regarding the impeachment procedures, actually changed the law by a simple ruling or decision, which would allow MPs to prolong President’s suspension ‘sine die’.
In the past month, the Social-Democrats repeatedly tried to amend the impeachment referendum law, but the
The Council of Europe’s “Venice Commission’ ruled that a referendum law is to be changed one year in advance from becoming effective.
Last week, parliament suspended the popular reformist president from office for 30 days on charges of overstepping his constitutional powers, paving the way for the referendum to decide whether he should be impeached.
Many analysts said the suspension reflected growing reluctance among some Romanian politicians for anti-corruption reforms, which Basescu has supported.
The impeachment law had said more than half the electorate had to vote for a suspended president to be impeached in a referendum.
The Parliament’s ruling yesterday now gives MPs the authority to decide what happens if voter turnout is too low.
“We only wanted to fix a loophole in the legislation which does not stipulate what’s next in case of low turnout,” opposition Social-Democrat (PSD) deputy Eugen Nicolicea told Reuters. “If the vote is not valid, parliament may eventually decide to repeat it.”
The Social-Democrats led efforts in parliament to oust Basescu, accusing him of fomenting political instability, abusing his powers to spy on political opponents and acting on behalf of interest groups.
Basescu is likely to survive the referendum because he is popular.
The Democrat Party, linked to Basescu, branded parliament’s decision to bring in the new law as unconstitutional.
“Parliament wants to eliminate Basescu from the political scene, this is outrageous and we consider appealing to the constitutional court,” said Daniel Buda, a deputy of the centrist Democrat Party which was expelled from the government coalition earlier this month.
Political observers also criticised the law change. “This is not okay. They are changing the rules during the game,” political analyst Mircea Kivu said to Reuters.
Romanian Parliament ignores Council of
The Romanian MPs ruling to modify legal framework with respect to the President’s Basescu impeachment referendum dramatically disregards the ‘Venice Commission’ guidelines, adopted in October 2006. “The fundamental aspects of referendum law should not be open to amendment less than one year before a referendum,” the Venice Commission guidelines read.
“It is advisable not to provide for a turn-out quorum (threshold, minimum percentage), because it assimilates voters who abstain to those who vote no,” the document also stipulates.
***
‘The European Commission for Democracy through Law’, better known as the ‘Venice Commission’, is the Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional matters. Established in 1990, the commission has played a leading role in the adoption of constitutions that conform to the standards of
Initially conceived as a tool for emergency constitutional engineering, the commission has become an internationally recognised independent legal think-tank.
It contributes to the dissemination of the European constitutional heritage, based on the continent's fundamental legal values while continuing to provide “constitutional first-aid” to individual states. The Venice Commission also plays a unique and unrivalled role in crisis management and conflict prevention through constitution building and advice.
< The Venice Commission, during its 68th plenary session (Venice, 13-14 october 2006), adopted ‘The Guidelines on the Holding of Referendums’, which sets a democratic framework for running referendums in rule-of law states.
Please see below some Venice Commission guidelines provisions:
“2.2. Equality of opportunity
a. Equality of opportunity must be guaranteed for the supporters and opponents of the proposal being voted on. This entails a neutral attitude by administrative authorities, in particular with regard to:
i. the referendum campaign;
ii. coverage by the media, in particular by the publicly owned media;
iii. public funding of campaign and its actors;
iv. billposting and advertising;
v. the right to demonstrate on public thoroughfares.
b. In public radio and television broadcasts on the referendum campaign, it is advisable that equality be ensured between the proposal’s supporters and opponents.
(…)
3.2. Freedom of voters to express their wishes and action to combat fraud
(…)
b. Freedom of voters to express their wishes also implies:
i. that the executive must organise referendums provided for by the legislative system; this is particularly important when it is not subject to the executive’s initiative;
ii. compliance with the procedural rules; in particular, referendums must be held within the time-limit prescribed by law;
iii. the right to accurate establishment of the result by the body responsible for organising the referendum, in a transparent manner, and formal publication in the official gazette.
(…)
II. Conditions for implementing these principles
(…)
2. Regulatory levels and stability of referendum law
a. Apart from rules on technical matters and detail (which may be included in regulations of the executive), rules of referendum law should have at least the rank of a statute.
b. The fundamental aspects of referendum law should not be open to amendment less than one year before a referendum, or should be written in the Constitution or at a level superior to ordinary law.
(…)
III. Specific rules
1. The rule of law
The use of referendums must comply with the legal system as a whole, and especially the procedural rules. In particular, referendums cannot be held if the Constitution or a statute in conformity with the Constitution does not provide for them, for example where the text submitted to a referendum is a matter for Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction.
(…)
7. Quorum
It is advisable not to provide for:
a. a turn-out quorum (threshold, minimum percentage), because it assimilates voters who abstain to those who vote no;
b. an approval quorum (approval by a minimum percentage of registered voters), since it risks involving a difficult political situation if the draft is adopted by a simple majority lower than the necessary threshold."
Please consult the full text of the Venice Commission at: http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2006/CDL-AD(2006)027rev-e.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment