Thinking Democratically: A Comprehensive Approach to Countering and Preventing Shrinking Space

to enforce political party compliance with existing laws and regulations, or to only sanction
opposition parties. In other cases, the electoral management body is stripped of its sanctioning
powers, or purposefully starved from funding in order to limit operations, such as the monitoring of
campaigning. The staff of electoral management bodies may also be a source of government control.
Some examples clarify these manipulative practices. In Georgia, for instance, campaign regulations
are unevenly applied, and opposition parties receive most sanctions. Similarly, in El Salvador the high
voting threshold needed for officially registering as a party was not applied when the two traditional
parties did not reach the threshold, whereas other parties who did not reach the threshold were not
allowed to compete in elections. In Zimbabwe, the electoral commission is filled with former security
personnel, and any regulations need to be approved by the minister of justice (from the ruling party).
In Kenya, the ruling party has been delaying the enactment and implementation of the Election
Campaign Financing Act of 2013 for two electoral cycles. In practice this has meant that the electoral
management body has failed to sanction those political parties (including the party in power) who
surpassed campaign expenditure ceilings, and the government has refused to provide the public
funding to political parties required by the law. This greatly disadvantages opposition parties and
smaller political parties and increases the role of private money in politics.
When there is no real separation of powers, the ruling party can pressure all other public authorities
and administrative bodies. In Georgia, for instance, local administrations have hindered opposition
parties’ efforts to meet the electorate by denying them access to key venues through citing various
bureaucratic impediments. But it goes further than that, as ruling parties can also abuse their
legislative powers to make legal changes that entrench their own dominant position, for instance
through electoral reforms.
Reforming electoral and party law
The constitution and electoral and party laws set the rules of the game for political contestation and
a reform of these rules can create an environment where fair contestation cannot take place. As a
result, electoral and constitutional reforms are a tactic favoured by democratically elected parties
who wish to limit competition and bias future elections towards their eventual victory.
Since its adoption in 1995, the Georgian Constitution has been amended 33 times, meaning the
Constitution was changed more than once a year on average. These changes have included several
major overhauls of the electoral system. Electoral provisions, including electoral district borders and
campaign finance rules, were changed ahead of all national elections sometimes too close to the
election day for people to know which the precise rules were. Electoral law has only been consistent
in disfavoring smaller parties and helping ruling parties extend their own grip on power.
23