Of Current Legal Framework

Judicial remedies on electoral matters are procedural instruments used under the law to bring legal remedies to challenge a defective, erroneous or unlawful order of an electoral authority. The IEC plays an important role in reform processes related to the electoral legal framework. In practice, the CIS: the choice of an electoral system must be integrated into a legal framework that adequately regulates social structures and political differences. Such a settlement must organize a representative political system responsible for resolving social conflicts through arbitration. It can therefore be said that the choice of an electoral system can be made more easily if certain objectives are set from the outset (e.g. a higher degree of legitimacy or proportionality of the results, or a strong representation of political groups at regional level, etc.). On the basis of these considerations and taking into account the social, political, geographical and historical conditions of each country, electoral systems are chosen. Where campaign spending is limited, it is absolutely crucial that a clear and specific definition of “campaign expenses” is included in the legal framework. Practice shows that it is also important to give the electoral administration body powers of interpretation or regulation as to what are considered election campaign costs, as campaign techniques and requirements must constantly evolve and be effective, so that the definition must also be effective, so that borders are effective and all political actors are familiar with the rules. From a theoretical point of view, there is a very influential procedural trend, according to which different systems of evaluation of evidence can be listed as follows: (i) system of legal evidence: legal texts determine the effectiveness of evidence; (ii) System of free evaluation: the courts are free to evaluate all the evidence annexed to the appeal in order to freely reach a satisfactory solution.

In such a system, judges are free to evaluate evidence based on their personal, rational or moral convictions. There are no restrictions on judges hearing appeals; (iii) Rational evaluation system: In such a system, the courts have the power to determine the extent to which effective evidence can be considered. To do this, judges must apply logic and base their decisions on their experience. The system of rational evaluation is somewhere in between; and (iv) mixed system: elements of existing systems are combined. * Dimpho Motsamai is a Policy Analyst in the Division of Conflict Prevention and Risk Analysis at the Institute for Security Studies. She is currently completing her PhD at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, and has published extensively on governance and conflict dynamics in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region. Electoral reforms are generally submitted to the legislature and treated as regular legislative amendments, which are considered by Cabinet before being submitted to the National Assembly. This procedure limits the scope of political discussion and consensus required for electoral reforms. It is necessary to deal uniformly with electoral reforms that are submitted directly to the National Assembly.

(Mbendera: 2014) Source restrictions may include a ban on receiving donations from public or semi-public entities, as well as foreign states, organizations, companies, and individuals. Some laws contain more specific rules, such as prohibiting donations from religious associations. Similarly, anonymous donations and money from unknown sources are often prohibited or limited to very small amounts. An employee`s minimum rate of pay for hours worked. The minimum wage is reviewed annually by Fair Work Australia, with all adjustments taking effect on 1 July each year. The current minimum wage is $18.93 per hour, or $719.20 per 38-hour week (before taxes). Minimum wage Casual workers receive at least 25% of the burden. Another aspect related to spending restrictions is the issue of so-called “third-party spending” by individuals or groups who are not part of a political campaign, but who may spend money to promote or oppose a particular candidate or political party. When introducing spending limits, the legal framework should take into account whether “third parties” should also be subject to spending restrictions in order to avoid an unbalanced situation in which the spending of political entities is limited, but the spending of “third parties” to defeat or elect candidates and political parties is unlimited. This is not necessarily easy to achieve, for example in the United States, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression prohibit the government from restricting political spending independent of corporations and unions. The legal framework should also take into account the financing of political parties, which have become almost exclusive channels through which voters elect their governors. Therefore, political parties are considered an essential element of today`s democracies for the exercise of political rights, citizen participation and pluralism.

The main risk associated with INEC`s involvement in electoral reform processes is that the commission is appointed by the president and its members can be removed through impeachment proceedings that require the support of a two-thirds majority of the Senate. While it has never been the case for a member of the Commission to be removed from office because of his or her strong views, this could happen within the current framework if, at any time, a governing party decided to exercise its powers.