| Party Requirements |
The literal reading without historical context does seem to say that the candidate requirement is also for initially receiving those benefits, yes.
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
How would you reconcile this interpretation with the fact that The Island League, under your representation, requested a subforum by appealing to its compliance with Chapter 3, Article 1 of the Political Parties Act?
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Petitioner: Farengeto
Legal Question: Does a member need to be a member at the time they ran for office to satisfy the requirement? Amicus Curiae Briefs
Summary of the Ruling
It is the opinion of the Court that a member of a party should be such by the time voting is held in order to satisfy the requirement set out in Chapter 3, Article 1 of the Political Parties Act. A plain reading of the Act and an examination of its administrative history indicate that the requirement is meant to ensure a minimum standard of viability and activity for political parties before they can be granted their own space within the forum index. While a party can have members run campaigns or declare their candidacies, only through voting can they actually make an appeal before the region regarding adequacy of their policies, and therefore develop their viability as political organisations.
While they have not been a staple of the history of the South Pacific, political parties have had a considerable historical and legal development in the past year, to the point that a specific piece of legislation was passed to regulate the conditions under which they may receive infrastructure support on the regional forum. In asking the present legal question, Farengeto has asked about the limits and boundaries of the legal requirements required by the Political Parties Act, and ultimately about the scope within which a political party can grow and develop.
I
Regional and Legislative History Any interpretation of the Political Parties Act is meaningless without a coherent understanding of how regional political parties developed, and under which conditions the Act was drafted. To that effect, this chapter will involve an examination of prior attempts at forming political parties, following the Milograd Coup, and will then examine the political environment and legislative debate that led to the passage of the Political Parties Act.
A. History of Political Parties between 2013 and 2017 A trip down the political parties memory lane can be a desolate sight, and the road will be full of parties that never gained acceptance, parties that were never truly developed by their founders and parties that, due to the context or moment in history in which they were founded, were not viable, and soon after faded into oblivion. While a full study of the history of political parties in the region would be undoubtedly interesting, the purpose of this review is to understand the general trends in the formation of political parties and the evolving attitudes towards them, with the aim of gaining a clear view of the context under which the Political Parties Act was drafted and debated. It must be clarified that this section will not focus on why parties were generally rejected, instead it will examine how parties developed, and how those currently in existence have defied longstanding trends. Since the Milograd Coup, the Court estimates that a total of 15 political parties have been founded. Each had their own degree of seriousness, receiving various degrees of dedication from its founder and enjoying various degrees of success. A list of the political parties considered for this review, as well as some statistics concerning their foundation and degrees of success, can be found in Annex A. In the immediate aftermath of the Milograd Coup, Torchwood formed an organisation called the South Pacific Libertarian Party, posting about its membership and goals in the Assembly. To say that the response was negative would be an understatement. Milograd had openly and viciously accused the Coalition of being an oligarchy, and its members and supporters had received various accusations of being oligarchs with no regard for the opinions of the majority. Torchwood made no friends when he wrote in his announcement that “for the longest time TSP has had one party; the oligarch”. While his announcement included specific policy positions regarding the freedom of speech and the integration of the gameside and forumside communities, the thread was dominated by concerns and criticism on the part of longtime citizens, who took issue with being referred to as oligarchs, to the point that incumbent Minister of Foreign Affairs Awesomiasa suggested that a moratorium be placed on the world “oligarch”. There was little future for the South Pacific Libertarian Party after that episode, and indeed, after three pages of discussion, there was no further activity from that party, nor were other parties founded until the early days of 2014, long after Milograd stopped being a recent memory in the minds of a majority of South Pacificans. By March 2014 a series of parties were founded by Qvait and Ryccia, the Centrist Party and the Liberal Coalition Party, respectively, though neither survived more than a month. In the case of the Centrist Party, there was no policy development, while the Liberal Coalition Party summarised its policy positions as seeking to “defend the right of expression under the Coalition System”. Ryccia declared the part disbanded after a month, following limited policy development and membership requests. Indeed, a single individual had expressed interest in joining, and made it clear they hoped to obtain a leadership position within the party. A triumvirate composed of Kringalia, Sandaoguo and Unibot founded the Progressive Party in July 2014. This was a much more comprehensive and ambitious proposal, whose announcement included a set of ten principles, with the promise of a more comprehensive policy platform in the future. Soon after its founding, the Progressive Party held a meeting among its original and subsequent members. It seemed a more promising kid of political party, but it also attracted abundant controversy, its thread serving as the venue for a fierce debate on the merits of political parties in the region, and how conductive they truly were towards the development of a healthy political society. Undoubtedly the founding members themselves were controversial, each for their own reasons, but the response from some citizens also exemplified the prevalent attitude towards regional political parties at the time. It was Belschaft who said, in the context of this debate, that political parties “tend to promote division and institutionalize disunity by promoting factionalism and group mentalities”, to which Sandaoguo responded that “there have been distinct blocs for a long time now”, making the case that all parties would do is formalise blocs that already existed. Similarly, incumbent Chair of the Assembly Tsunamy accused the Progressive Party of “doing nothing but being destructive”. To be fair, there was far more into the scepticism towards the Progressive Party than the merits of political parties, and each criticism had a different motivation. This particular case is being used to exemplify a broader attitude that, while it may not have abundant evidence, is well known to those who were present for it over the years, which is that political parties were not seen as either viable nor desirable in the region, and their occasional formation, while tolerated, was not given much importance, the expectation being that they would collapse soon after. As can be seen from the various parties formed over the years, this expectation was well founded. Similar to other parties, the Progressive Party ceased operations soon after its initial meeting. It had prominent members, and it had held a discussion about its internal organisation, but it was unable to transform that into a meaningful platform, competitiveness in elections and an ability to deliver on the ideals that it supported. Following the collapse of the Progressive Party came a series of four political parties that, similar to those preceding it, had limited planning and were short lived. Two of these parties, the Second Progressive Party and the Whiteblack Party, were founded by Ryccia, while the Democratic Reform Party was founded by Darkstrait and the Courageous Oven Alliance was founded by Farengeto. There is an argument to be made that the latter was less a party and more of a statement of irony. This argument is recognised, but given the seriousness with which others stated their intent to joined, and with which its policy proposals were taken, it was deemed appropriate to count it among the list of political parties. It would be a distraction to delve into the details of what these parties proposed and under which circumstances they formed. It suffices to say that they were not the object of careful planning or broad acceptance by the region, or that the conditions that led to their founding ceased to be urgent. They all collapsed. It was not until the advent of the 2016 Coup that political parties, in their current form and membership, emerged as a significant political force. Ryccia founded the Alliance for the Preservation of the Coalition precisely as an alliance intended to fight the rhetoric of the recent coup and encourage respect for the constitutional order of the Coalition. He soon surrendered leadership of the party to Omega, who has retained a prominent position since. Known most commonly as the APC, it gained a considerable number of members and committed to holding regular discussions, endorsing various candidates for Cabinet positions at each election. Its membership initially consisted almost entirely of less experienced members, whose strength was not necessarily in their political capital or savviness, but rather in their numbers. While the exact records appear to have been lost, it is known that at some point between February and June 2016, the core group of citizens who frequented the #LampshadeBar private channel founded a political party known as The Island League. Composed of significantly more experienced members, TIL proposed political accountability, responsible security, a respect for regional sovereignty, an active cultural scene and active participation in the World Assembly. Their membership was more limited, and their activity similarly so, in stark contrast with the development of the APC. It is worth pausing to consider the different ways in which the APC and TIL developed, beyond what has already been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, and what clues they could provide about the recent development of political parties in the region. An important part of that success is the drive of its leaders, but beyond that, there are some important aspects to be taken into account. APC owes its success, partly, due to its image of a well-developed, active and accessible political party, traits that have proven elusive for all its predecessors. Its accession process is simple and its leaders are, while undoubtedly experienced by now, relatively new to the region. It frequently holds policy discussions and can boast a considerable internal democracy process, ranging from leadership elections to candidate endorsement votes. This helps maintain activity within the party and promote a sense of belonging, since all members have an opportunity to affect party policy and stances by electing or joining the leadership, and deciding which candidates, and therefore which platforms, the party will endorse, every election. This also leads to the issue of how malleable its platform is, and therefore how accessible it is for potential members, who would be eager to make a difference in the region. In recent days, APC has held its Third Party Summit, involving members in a discussion on a party charter and the various policy positions that the party should hold. This is a significant opportunity for members to have a say not only in what positions the party supports, but also to ensure that said positions are written down in documents, which will last longer than any single election. Finally, APC has an interesting mix of new and experienced members, which allow it to adopt an image of a capable party that is still accessible enough to newer members. This might be encouraging for newer members who wish a safe environment to get involved and develop their political skills, and for more experienced members who wish to participate in an active party, with the added benefit of a constantly expanding and eager to learn membership. Things are considerably different when it comes to TIL. It originated from a private channel, and so its core membership and principles were already set at the time of foundation. Its founding members were Farengeto, Kringalia, ProfessorHenn and Sandaoguo, all experienced in regional politics, with extensive backgrounds in elected office. All three had identifiable policies, and were controversial figures from their involvement in the events surrounding the 2016 Coup. In that sense, it would be argued that there was a perception, at least initially, that TIL was less of an open political party and more of a club-turned-political party. Stemming from the above comes also the issue of the party platform, and the policies it advocated. Given that its founding members already had established policy preferences, there was limited space for the modification of said policies. In contrast with APC, whose policies come from the decisions made by the membership in Party Summits, TIL opened itself for membership applications with a specific list of policy positions. Couple with the established nature of its founding membership, and a lack of development of its internal democracy, at least publicly, these factors have led TIL to have more limited membership and a less prominent, though not necessarily a lesser, role in the legislative and political development of the region. TIL does have to its advantage the prominent roles and political expertise of its members, for instance Roavin and Sandaoguo, which have allowed them to obtain or maintain influential positions in the region. While APC had an initial strength in numbers, TIL had its initial strength in experience and position. This provides a valuable clue on the advantages of APC and TIL over prior parties, and could well account for the reason of their continued survival, even as several other parties collapsed soon after their foundation. Part of the reason is that APC and TIL were simply founded at the right time, and benefited from a disposition for political parties on the part of emerging members of the region. They still had to face abundant scepticism and, sometimes, outright hostility, as the debate for the Political Parties Act will show, but it is undeniable that the right was right for the formation of certain political parties. The subsequent passage of the Act simply institutionalised that trend, and helped strengthen the image within the region that political parties were not necessarily detrimental to the development of a democratic society. Beyond this, APC and TIL have certain particularities that made them impervious to the dangers of collapse. APC benefited from eager founding members and a considerably well-developed structure, which helped it become a lasting institution. Its ability to keep interest by endorsing candidates allowed it to form certain structures further along the line, an opportunity that few parties had. TIL benefited from the fact that its founding members already functioned, in certain cases, as a voting bloc, meaning that the part was not founded as much as simply institutionalised. It was easy to keep the party functioning, when its members already agreed on certain basic policies, and had the willingness to vote a certain way. This examination is not to be taken as an endorsement or criticism of any single party, nor its policies, nor should it be taken as a guide on the correct formation of political parties, on the part of the Court. Its purpose is merely to understand the development of political parties in the region, and provide unbiased context for the subsequent passage of the Political Parties Act, which is the law subject to the present legal question. B. Regulation of Political Parties In line with the previously examined scepticism towards political parties, historically there has been little regulation over them. This was exemplified most prominently in May 2013, when former member Nation of Yaltag attempted to make a case before the Assembly for the formation of political parties. It should come as no surprise that most responses were either indifferent or supportive of a no-party system. Beyond that, however, certain members exemplified the predominant position towards the regulation of political parties. Chair of the Assembly Belschaft responded to Nation of Yaltag by saying the following: There is no reason why people cannot or should not create political parties if they desire; while they are not mentioned in our laws, [statute] is not permissive; a law does not have to exist saying political parties may exist for them to exist. In much the same way the TSP University and Market Street are not governmental, and as such defined by [statute], should someone wish to establish a political party they are free to do so and if they proved popular the admin team would be open to creating a specific area.
This spirit seemed to have been shared by members such as HEM and Southern Bellz. HEM said that “we don’t need to force [political parties]”, while Southern Bellz encouraged everyone to organise in whatever way they deemed best, but said that there that “there is no reason to legislate that organization”. Replies by other members emphasised their impression that parties would be difficult to maintain and divisive, often highlighting the collaborative and consensus-based nature of discourse in the region. In the following years, the sole legislation regarding political parties was the Amendment to Article 4.17 of the 2013 Charter, within the context of the 2015 Great Council, which lifted the prohibition on Court Justices joining political parties. Following a brief debate, in which most members either expressed a supportive or neutral view, the amendment passed with 90% support. This, however, was a tangential legislation with respect to political parties, and was hardly the kind of regulatory legislation that would be implemented years after. It was not until October 2016 that a serious discussion was held regarding the need for a legal framework for the formation and recognition of political parties. This took place in the context of an already established APC and a similarly established TIL, both routinely endorsing candidates during elections, and even cooperating in certain electoral and legislative matters. This was then, rather than a proactive action to guarantee the continued development of political parties, a reactive response in the face of consistently active parties, and the realisation that they were not the unstable organisations founded in prior years. Delegate Tsunamy raised the matter in the Assembly by submitting a bill for the Political Parties Act. In his opening and subsequent posts, Tsunamy indicated that “political parties don’t seem to be going [away]” and that the goal of the bill was “to be flexible as to how political parties wish to set themselves up”. In its initial form, the Political Parties Act contained provisions regarding the definition, acceptance, rights and dissolution of political parties. This last section was a cause for particular concern on the part of Sandaoguo, one of the founders of TIL. In his contributions to the debate, he argued that, while an activity requirement was reasonable for the maintenance of party subforums, it would be inherently undemocratic and an infringement on the freedom of assembly to legislate on the dissolution of parties, as can be seen in the following excerpt: Any attempt to regulate when or how a political party is allowed to exist is unreasonable and certainly unconstitutional. I don’t care if anybody wants to set requirements for when parties can have official subforums hosted [in the regional forum]. But saying a party must meet X requirement or be dissolved is basically anti-democratic.
Following an invitation by Tsunamy, Sandaoguo presented an amended version of the bill that addressed the above issue by clarifying that activity requirements applied for the maintenance of subforums, rather than the actual existence of any party. In addition, the amended bill clearly laid out the process by which a party could qualify for, and obtain, a subforum, the characteristics that said subforum would have, and the conditions under which a subforum could be archived and unarchived. It is worth focusing on the aforementioned requirement, what it entails, and how it came to be. Its first iteration came with the original draft by Tsunamy, which indicated that a political party would be dissolved if “no member runs for a political office in an entire calendar year” or if its members voted for a dissolution. Sandaoguo adapted the requirements, in his draft, to reflect the shift towards the archival of subforums, rather than outright dissolution, by requiring that parties maintain an accurate public membership roster and that they “field at least one member for public office in an election per year”. His draft clarified the first requirement, by mandating that the membership roster be accurately maintained and made public, and kept the second requirement, as a measure to ensure that parties have a reasonably active participation in regional elections. It is interesting to note that the Political Parties Act, whose text is the bill amended by Sandaoguo, uses a very specific phrasing when referring to the above quoted provision. Its Chapter 3, Article 1 refers to the requirement that each political party must “field” a certain number of candidates to keep its assigned subforum. It could have indicated that it must have a certain number of members who have participated in elections at some point, or outright forsake the requirement for electoral activity, but it quite clearly indicates that candidates must be fielded. Proof of the active role that parties were envisioned to have can be found in the contribution by Sandaoguo to the debate over the Political Parties Act, when he said that “TIL will literally be an illegal party if we don’t field candidates”, regarding the dissolution provisions in original draft by Tsunamy. Private testimonies will provide a more comprehensive view of the issue, but the provision and contributions from the time already call to attention the active role that parties might have been intended to have in ensuring that they and their members are active in elections. C. Administrative Actions under the Political Parties Act Despite the significant shift that the Political Parties Act represented in terms of the regional attitude towards political parties, few administrative actions, in the form of subforum creations, have been carried out since the Act was originally passed. It is importance to consider these actions in view of the importance of custom and the common understanding and applications of the laws, as was explained in Retroactive Vote Changes on Legislator Removals [HCLQ1709]. The Island League was the first political party to request a subforum under the auspices of the Act when Roavin, in his capacity as party representative, filed a request before the Chair of the Assembly on 07 November 2017. A complete breakdown of the components of the request can be found in Annex B. For this section, focus is warranted on the following excerpt: Multiple candidates from the party have been candidates for cabinet elections in the past year (for example, Roavin’s candidacy as Minister of Military Affairs in the October 2016 cabinet elections).
It was said in a prior section of this ruling that TIL was founded by experienced members, who had previously held elected office. Even the most superficial research will show that its founding members had held high office. This begs the question then of how exactly did TIL interpret the Candidate Fielding Clause, and whether it considered that it applied to members who had run for office before the establishment of the party, or even before they had joined the party, or if the Act was intended to apply solely to those who ran under the banner of the party. Roavin was contacted and asked about his reasoning on this matter. He explained that his candidacy was used because it was “the easy, recent, and well-known example to use” and that he simply sought to make a strong case for eligibility. A similar template was used by the Alliance for the Preservation of the Coalition to request its own subforum three days after TIL. This request contained two examples of members running for election under the banner of the party: Omega for Chair of the Assembly in August 2016 and Punchwood for Minister of Foreign Affairs in October 2016. Omega is a longtime member and leader of the party, so his inclusion as an example of a fielded candidate should come to no surprise. In contrast with Omega, Punchwood had a more checkered history with APC. While he announced his candidacy for Minister of Foreign Affairs in 01 October 2016, it was not until three days after that he announced his intention to rejoin the party, allegedly having resigned months prior to that. If one operates under the assumption that a member must be so at the time of their candidacy in order to qualify for the Candidate Fielding Clause, this begs the question of when exactly that happens. Would a candidate who joins midway through the election qualify? Does the requirement include the act of announcing a candidacy or accepting a nomination? Griffindor13 was asked to explain his reasoning regarding the inclusion of Punchwood, and provided the following perspective: When I made the request for a subforum (…) Punch[wood] had indeed left the party a month previously (…), and did indeed rejoin about a month and a half later. Since he rejoined the party during the election, process, I believed, as did the party, that he was running under the party banner, even if he didn’t declare under it.
Both subforum requests were closed with a sworn statement on the part of the requester that the representative was acting in good faith. This, in addition to the fact that the Chair of the Assembly granted the requests, lends credence to the proposition that, whatever reasoning was used in each request, it must have had a minimum measure of validity. In the case of Roavin, his private testimony would imply that, even if he might not have considered prior candidacies invalid, he did believe that recent candidacies explicitly under the party banner made a stronger case for a subforum. In the case of Griffindor13, his testimony indicates that Punchwood’s candidacy was used as an example with the explicit understanding that Punchwood could be considered to have run under the party banner, even if his candidacy did not start as such. Either way, this would indicate that the Political Parties Act has thus far been interpreted to favour candidates who have run at least part of their candidacies under the banner of their party, as opposed to members who might have run at some point in their careers, though not under the banner of their current party. II
Context and Arguments A. Current Context
The Court remains aware of its role as arbiter and interpreter of regional law, and even as its duties often lead it to see issues in abstract terms, there is a use in considering the potential effects that its rulings might have in the involvement of members and the future of the region, particularly in an issue as vital as the present legal question. Seraph established the Southern Progress Party on September 05. To this day it remains one of three active parties in the region, but also the only who lacks its own subforum. Member rolandarmstrong sought to remedy this situation when he formally requested a subforum on September 16, citing the party’s “high membership count”. He did not provide explicit proof of said membership count, nor did he provide proof of compliance with the Candidate Fielding Clause. Chair of the Assembly Farengeto initially opted to withhold approval. In a recent private testimony, he indicated that he believed there was enough ambiguity in the Political Parties Act that it would be wise to refrain from ruling on the matter until the Court could provide a clear answer. While he approved the request on October 14, once the Southern Progress Party had members who had run in elections both before and after its foundation, the fact remains that clarity is required. It is possible that the Southern Progress Party might obtain its subforum after all, but any future party would have to face ambiguity. Given that the Court is in a position to solve this ambiguity and bring clarity to the implementation of the Political Parties Act, it would be a disservice to the region and any future party to refrain from giving a clear answer to the matter at hand. In that sense, the Court will fully aware of its position, and while it does not, as has been made abundantly clear in the past, rule based on political or partisan considerations, it does understand its role within the region, and the need for consistency and clarity in its rulings, and intends to carry out that mandate accordingly. B. Contributions by Interested Parties A number of members contributed to this case, either through the submission of amicus curiae briefs or the response to requests for private testimony. This case was only enriched by these contributions and the wealth of viewpoints that they offered. Tsunamy provided a private testimony, following a request by the Court, in which he delved into his reasons for writing certain provisions of the original draft of the Political Parties Act. He indicated, with respect to the Candidate Fielding Clause, that “once the party reached a critical number of potential candidates, the forum would be given to assist with planning purposes”. When he was questioned on this point, he further elaborated by saying that the Candidate Fielding Clause “was somewhat superfluous and made in an effort to guarantee some activity” and was not meant to work as a pre-requisite. This interpretation has some relation to that offered by Roavin in his amicus curiae brief. In a brief examination of the drafting history of the Political Parties Act, from its original version by Tsunamy to the private draft by TIL and the adopted draft by Sandaoguo, Roavin makes the case for an interpretation that takes into account the intent behind all previous drafts. He goes on to make the case that the Political Parties Act does not actually require parties to field candidates in order to qualify for a subforum request. Instead, he argues that “this requirement only applies to political parties that have been receiving these benefits for a year or more”. Both interpretations agree on the issue that the Candidate Fielding Clause should not be interpreted as a pre-requisite for the request of a party subforum. While Tsunamy appeals to his original intent when drafting the Act, Roavin goes further and explains the intent behind the various drafts, public and private, of the Act, and arguing for what could be seen as an inheritance of intents. In a subsequent response to questioning by the Court, he refers to this as considering the historical context, as opposed to restricting to a “literal reading” of the Act as it stands today. There are certain issues with the interpretation proposed by Roavin. One issue is the fact that it prioritises historical evolution over a simple reading of the Political Parties Act. There may have been various intentions behind the various versions of the Act, but Chapter 3, Article 2 clearly states that the Chair of the Assembly “will verify the qualifications of the party, and if the party meets those qualifications, notify the Forum Administration to create the party’s [dedicated] subforum”. It is entirely possible that the intent behind the Act might have been different, but the fact of the matter is that the wording, which is ultimately the main source of interpretation for the Court, requires that political parties qualify for a subforum before they can be given one. A second issue is the fact that it ignores administrative precedent, and the very statements of the two parties that were given subforums at the time of submission of the present legal question. Both APC and TIL requested their respective subforums with statements that appealed to their eligibility under Chapter 3, Article 1 of the Political Parties Act, going on to provide evidence of their eligibility under the Candidate Fielding Clause. Their requests were accepted under this appeal to eligibility. In addition, Chair of the Assembly Farengeto approved the subforum request from the Southern Progress Party only when it fielded a candidate in the October 2017 Cabinet Election, indicated that it “now unambiguously meets the requirements”. In short, neither a plain reading of the Political Parties Act nor its implementation support a view wherein the Candidate Fielding Clause is not a pre-requisite for the request of a subforum. Seraph, Founder of the Southern Progress Party, also provided testimony to the Court regarding party subforums and their impact in the development of political parties. Regarding said topic, Seraph indicated that, while desirable for the conduction or certain business and a raise in party profile, a subforum would not be a fundamental necessity for a political party. Since he did not consider a subforum strictly necessary, it was his belief that “the legal denial of [a subforum], as per the current PPA, cannot be considered an unreasonable burden”. When further questioned on the goals of the Political Parties Act, Seraph responded that the Act “legitimises political parties, whilst detailing reasonable criteria with which to define them”. He also said that goal could be better described as to “enable their growth under equal conditions [rather] than to encourage them.” He expressed a belief that parties would continue to form and grow as long as the Political Parties Act remained the law of the region. III
Opinion of the Court While some may disagree, and do disagree, about the merits and desirability of political parties in the region, it would be difficult to argue that they do not introduce an interesting dynamic to the conduction of politics. They certainly offer an additional avenue for participation, and further diversity the ways in which a member can get involved in their region. Whether or not political parties are ultimately good for the region is beyond the purview of the Court, but their impact on regional society and politics cannot be ignored.
As the Court examined the history of political parties in the region, the one constant was that parties collapsed more often than not, either being forgotten after a few posts in their announcement thread, or failing to take meaningful steps towards enacting their platform. While this may not have been fully considered when the Political Parties Act was drafted, there certainly was a certain awareness that subforums should not be constantly created and archived for every single party that was founded, without the certainty that they were serious organisations. While Sandaoguo rightly commented in the debate that the members enjoy the freedom of association, there is no automatic right to a subforum, which requires the occupation of space in the forum index. It is entirely reasonable that certain requirements be established, so that such space will not be used recklessly, nor become too unsightly or difficult to navigate. The above finds additional support in a plain reading of the Act, which requires the Chair to verify that the requesting party meets the requirements for a subforum, and the administrative precedent set by all three requests and subsequent approvals for party subforums, where either the party appealed to eligibility or the Chair withheld approval until he was certain that the party was eligible. These facts lead to the conclusion that the requirement must be met before a party may be given a subforum, since assuming otherwise would defeat the purpose of having a requirement in the first place. Having so established, the question remains of how the Candidate Fielding Clause should be interpreted. To obtain an answer one must again refer to a reading of the Act and the administrative precedent, as well as to an interpretation of the goals that the Act might seek to advance. As was briefly mentioned in Chapter I, Section B, the Act uses a very particular wording, wherein “field” is used as an action that must be carried out by the party, as opposed to a condition from which the party would benefit. In that sense, the Court beliefs that the Political Parties Act clearly asks that parties provide proof that they are actively contributing to political and electoral life, and therefore will not collapse after a few days, before granting them the privilege of using the additional forum resources that a subforum would entail. While it is possible to assume that the Act allows parties who have members who have run in elections to qualify for a subforum, this would arguably defeat the purpose of ensuring that subforums are created only for viable parties. To put it differently, the Candidate Fielding Clause works, regardless of intent, to measure the electoral activity and overall viability of the party, rather than the electoral history of its members. Roavin well said in his amicus curiae brief that “a party cannot field a member for election if that member isn’t actually one of its members”. The Court would tend to share this conclusion. There is also the issue of how exactly the relevant clause applies. Would a case like that of Punchwood qualify for the requirement? It is the opinion of the Court that it would. Punchwood may have submitted his candidacy as an independent candidate, but he campaigned as an APC member, and voting was conducted in the same condition. Given that his application for member was posted in a public venue, it would be fair to assume that voters were either aware, or capable of learning, that he was running under the banner of a political party. In that sense, the Court would argue that the requirement from the Candidate Fielding Clause is met if the candidate is a member of the political party in question at the time that voting starts. While candidacies can be announced and campaigns can be run, only through voting do legislators have a proper opportunity to determine whether or not they endorse not only the candidate, but also their association with the relevant political party. It is therefore only logical that participation in the voting stage be the deciding factor in the determination of compliance with the requirement set out in the Candidate Fielding Clause, and ultimately eligibility for a subforum. It is so ordered.
Annex A Political Party Information and Statistics
* Date taken from the earliest available post. There are no available records for the true foundation date. ![[Image: tCL1tcn.png]](https://i.imgur.com/tCL1tcn.png) ![[Image: sM7nT7k.png]](https://i.imgur.com/sM7nT7k.png) ![[Image: Tfd9NxI.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Tfd9NxI.png) Annex B
Breakdown of TIL's Request for a Party Subforum ![[Image: DOkjAPl.png]](https://i.imgur.com/DOkjAPl.png) Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |