EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
Charter drafters firm on preventing 'one-man rule'
JINTANA PANYAARVUDH
THE NATION



CDC members believe fair system, paving way for coalition govt, will aid reconciliation

BANGKOK: -- CHARTER DRAFTERS will stand firm by their proposed draft on the state power structure that encompasses the premiership, election system, Senate and relationship between the executive and legislative branches.

Concerns have been raised by politicians and members of the National Reform Council (NRC) over those issues, especially the mixed-member proportional system (MMP) and the non-elected prime minister.

The MMP system is non-negotiable for any review because it's the important principle of this charter, said Borwornsak Uwanno, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), who led his colleagues from the CDC in an interview with Nation Multimedia Group on Wednesday night.

"It's a fair system. It will pave the wayfor a coalition government to prevent 'one-man rule' in the country and ensure no 'winner takes all'," he said.

"We need reconciliation now, don't we? Otherwise the same political disputes will repeat themselves again when the election winner forms the government and the runner-up stages protests," he said.

The CDC adopted the German-style MMP system to make an election reflect the aspirations of all voters, as the number of seats allocated to political parties in Parliament is commensurate with the proportion of votes each party receives nationwide.

Small parties and independent candidates will also have a better chance at the polls.

Borwornsak said that in the initial phase, the system would be good for building reconciliation and preventing any party from getting too arrogant.

"We realise it [MMP] isn't perfect. Let's just try it for five to seven years. If it doesn't work, it can be reviewed," he said.

Suchit Bunbongkarn, another CDC member, said the system would lead to a coalition government. But a coalition government does not always mean a weak one. If they do it right, there will be unity in the government.

Independent MPs won't cause political parties to become weaker.

"If your political party weakens when you have independent MPs, you are to blame. It means you are weak and can't manage your party well enough," he said.

The NRC is scheduled to debate the final draft from April 20-26 before proposing recommendations to the CDC for review. The drafters have 60 days to consider the proposals before submitting the new charter to the NRC for approval.

According to the provisional charter of 2014, if the NRC votes to reject the new charter, both the NRC and CDC will be dissolved and the process of drafting a new charter will go back to square one and the whole process restarts.

"It can't be helped if they [NRC] disapprove the draft. Why don't they think they will also suffer if the draft is rejected? Many reform issues remain to be finished by them," Suchit said.

However, CDC spokesman Lertrat Ratanavanich believes the NRC would finally vote for the draft.

Only five to 20 members would reject the draft. The 41 political parties invited to discuss with the CDC also supported the MMP system, he added.

Another controversial issue in the draft is the non-elected PM. Borwornsak defended this principle, saying the drafters aimed at avoiding a coup or troubling the monarchy in the event of a political deadlock.

"You need to ask Abhisit [Vejjajiva, Democrat Party leader], Somchai [Wongsawat, former PM] and Bhokin [bhalakula, Pheu Thai member] if they will vote for [an outsider to become the PM]," he said.

Although most CDC members support a national referendum for the charter, the chairman said the decision did not depend on them.

"When I met PM Prayut Chan-o-cha in the so called "five rivers" meetings, he kept asking me if it should be held and I said yes," he said.

He declined to say how the PM will decide but said Prayut was keeping his last card close to his chest and would decide when the right time comes.

The premier also asked him what to do if any political dispute arises after the next election is held.

"I still can't figure it out," the chairman said.

The final draft charter with all 130 pages and 315 articles will be handed out to the NRC next Friday.

Almost half of the draft consists of new clauses and ideas that were never included in previous versions, such as those on reform and reconciliation.

While politicians were concerned about the intensive measures to scrutinise them in the draft, the CDC placed its hope on its ability to help cleanse the old habits of politicians.

CDC member Charas Suwanmala said the charter would help reduce the cut-throat competition among politicians.

"We wrote the rules to allow them [to come to power] like before but they can't have the same behaviour," he said.

Asked if the charter is designed for a national government, Borwornsak said it's interesting.

"You may want to live with the election winner being the government and the runner-up taking to the streets for 10 more years. But if you want them to run the country together, you can."

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Charter-drafters-firm-on-preventing-one-man-rule-30257804.html


-- The Nation 2015-04-10

I wonder whether this includes a requirement that every party, upon registration must state clearly it's intent (it's manifesto) and some mechanism to 'audit' say every 6 months / 12 months wherever they have proposed laws / regulations / policies clearly aligned to their manifesto. If not some form of punishment, even deregistration.

IMHO this is crucial to stop the personal benefits antics we've seen in the last few years.

I thought at the moment it is a "1 man rule" with article 44 in place?

"prevent 'one-man rule' in the country and ensure no 'winner takes all'

HIPOCRISY!

The "No winner takes all" only applies to an elected government. The charter will allow an unelected PM by unelected officials and have nothing that can prevent a military coup to install a one-man rule and granting itself prosecurial immunity.

I wonder whether this includes a requirement that every party, upon registration must state clearly it's intent (it's manifesto) and some mechanism to 'audit' say every 6 months / 12 months wherever they have proposed laws / regulations / policies clearly aligned to their manifesto. If not some form of punishment, even deregistration.

IMHO this is crucial to stop the personal benefits antics we've seen in the last few years.

Good idea. Let's start with an audit of the current government--the military. You tell Prayuth.

No one man rule? Does that mean no more coups?

A good start would be preventing MPs from receiving payments other than their parliamentary allowance, and in particular blatant payments from a fugitive criminal to vote to his request and benefit. Punishment should be set at a level of incarceration that would preclude those willing to sell their vote (soul and country) from ever representing the people of Thailand again.

There is a very big disconnect between the Rhetoric and the Reality.

"The final draft charter with all 130 pages and 315 articles will be handed out to the NRC next Friday."

The length and complexity of this document is worrisome.

The US Constitution in modern, printed form, is about 25 pages, including all Amendments.

There are many extra things being baked into the new Thai Charter that would be better left as regular laws.

Of course, that would depend on a more credible Supreme Court, who would naturally be deciding on the constitutionality of laws, and acting as a check against overreach by the legislature or PM.

I haven't heard anything about how the new Charter could improve the national Judicial system.

A good start would be preventing MPs from receiving payments other than their parliamentary allowance, and in particular blatant payments from a fugitive criminal to vote to his request and benefit. Punishment should be set at a level of incarceration that would preclude those willing to sell their vote (soul and country) from ever representing the people of Thailand again.

Just MPs?

What about all the members of the Armed Forces sitting on the boards of SOEs and Private Corporation ?

There is a very big disconnect between the Rhetoric and the Reality.

There's an even bigger one between the haves and have nots.

There is a very big disconnect between the Rhetoric and the Reality.

There's an even bigger one between the haves and have nots.

But that's out of topic... What's being talked about is the one-man rule and not about those who have and not have...

A good start would be preventing MPs from receiving payments other than their parliamentary allowance, and in particular blatant payments from a fugitive criminal to vote to his request and benefit. Punishment should be set at a level of incarceration that would preclude those willing to sell their vote (soul and country) from ever representing the people of Thailand again.

Just MPs?

What about all the members of the Armed Forces sitting on the boards of SOEs and Private Corporation ?

In relation to the topic, yes.

Are they currently serving or retired? Or just an attempt to change the subject?

"We need reconciliation now, don't we? Otherwise the same political disputes will repeat themselves again when the election winner forms the government and the runner-up stages protests," he said.

so does the bozo realize that he just admitted that the real problem is that the party losing the elections refuses to accept the decision of the voters?

morons.

Sure! That is why Art 44 was passed. What a joke!

""We need reconciliation now, don't we? Otherwise the same political disputes will repeat themselves again when the election winner forms the government and the runner-up stages protests," he said."

No you don't need reconciliation.

What you need is a legal system that punishes those who abuse power for their own selfish desires.

You need a legal system and parliamentary rules that ensure a govts rules in a manner that benifits the country and not themselves.

You need to ensure that no amnesties can ever be passed again that allow corrupt officials/politicians to escape punishment for their crimes.

The winner ruling and the opposition opposing is fine. It's the way things are always done.

What is required is a sense that, though you may have lost, the winners are still accountable and are obliged to rule in an inclusive manner rather than along narrow minded self serving lines.

You need a justice system that works.

And is seen to work.

Edited April 11, 201511 yr by Bluespunk

A good start would be preventing MPs from receiving payments other than their parliamentary allowance, and in particular blatant payments from a fugitive criminal to vote to his request and benefit. Punishment should be set at a level of incarceration that would preclude those willing to sell their vote (soul and country) from ever representing the people of Thailand again.

Why do people focus on corrupt politicians? Don't you think it would be a good idea to increase transparency through-out government and outlaw payments and other conflicts of interest in the military and civil service as well?

There are strong suspicions that Thailand's current one-man rule situation is in part due to the generals seeking to protect the privileged above-the-law position of the military. The junta could significantly improve its reform credibility through increased transparency and independent audits of military.

Edited April 11, 201511 yr by heybruce

"We need reconciliation now, don't we? Otherwise the same political disputes will repeat themselves again when the election winner forms the government and the runner-up stages protests," he said.

so does the bozo realize that he just admitted that the real problem is that the party losing the elections refuses to accept the decision of the voters?

morons.

It's much more all things which happen before the elections, the parties, it's candidates, the scrutiny and automatic exclusion of criminal influences.

Somehow I'm sure that in most democratic countries a party owned and controlled by a criminal fugitive cannot participate.

"We need reconciliation now, don't we? Otherwise the same political disputes will repeat themselves again when the election winner forms the government and the runner-up stages protests," he said.

so does the bozo realize that he just admitted that the real problem is that the party losing the elections refuses to accept the decision of the voters?

morons.

It's much more all things which happen before the elections, the parties, it's candidates, the scrutiny and automatic exclusion of criminal influences.

Somehow I'm sure that in most democratic countries a party owned and controlled by a criminal fugitive cannot participate.

Unless that "criminal fugitive" you refer to, was unfairly persecuted by his political rivals, which included the military & the courts, & then the country knowingly voted for the party which had openly stated that they would bring him home. Most democratic countries don't have political parties that are backed by the army.

"Charter drafters firm on preventing 'one-man rule'"

.....

"We need reconciliation now, don't we? Otherwise the same political disputes will repeat themselves again when the election winner forms the government and the runner-up stages protests," he said.

so does the bozo realize that he just admitted that the real problem is that the party losing the elections refuses to accept the decision of the voters?

morons.

It's much more all things which happen before the elections, the parties, it's candidates, the scrutiny and automatic exclusion of criminal influences.

Somehow I'm sure that in most democratic countries a party owned and controlled by a criminal fugitive cannot participate.

Unless that "criminal fugitive" you refer to, was unfairly persecuted by his political rivals, which included the military & the courts, & then the country knowingly voted for the party which had openly stated that they would bring him home. Most democratic countries don't have political parties that are backed by the army.

Well he wasn't. So what's your point ?

"We need reconciliation now, don't we? Otherwise the same political disputes will repeat themselves again when the election winner forms the government and the runner-up stages protests," he said.

so does the bozo realize that he just admitted that the real problem is that the party losing the elections refuses to accept the decision of the voters?

morons.

It's much more all things which happen before the elections, the parties, it's candidates, the scrutiny and automatic exclusion of criminal influences.

Somehow I'm sure that in most democratic countries a party owned and controlled by a criminal fugitive cannot participate.

if you are so sure that it is most countries, then feel free to find the corresponding regulations for most countries which would keep a Thaksin from doing exactly what he is doing in Thailand.

Oh, and then go and show me how many of those countries have a political party which openly appeals to the country's military to 'fix' the situation because they are too feeble to develop a winning political platform and cannot accept the fact that the voters don't choose them to run the country.

Troll.

A new charter comes at least once a decade, so who cares?

"We need reconciliation now, don't we? Otherwise the same political disputes will repeat themselves again when the election winner forms the government and the runner-up stages protests," he said.

so does the bozo realize that he just admitted that the real problem is that the party losing the elections refuses to accept the decision of the voters?

morons.

It's much more all things which happen before the elections, the parties, it's candidates, the scrutiny and automatic exclusion of criminal influences.

Somehow I'm sure that in most democratic countries a party owned and controlled by a criminal fugitive cannot participate.

if you are so sure that it is most countries, then feel free to find the corresponding regulations for most countries which would keep a Thaksin from doing exactly what he is doing in Thailand.

Oh, and then go and show me how many of those countries have a political party which openly appeals to the country's military to 'fix' the situation because they are too feeble to develop a winning political platform and cannot accept the fact that the voters don't choose them to run the country.

Troll.

First of all let me express the wish that your 'troll' gave you the good feeling you were probably looking for.

Secondly I've looked around a bit on 'party ownership'. Seems Nigeria is a nice example. Also Macedonia seems the have some interesting political parties - government - press relations. Maybe they had a golf caddy give them advise. Of course if a party is owned by a criminal fugitive how can it have a serious program on laws, rule of law? This is independent of whether or not the law (or constitution) prohibits such.

Interesting is this article from 2011

"Do founder members of a political party have a right to claim ownership of such a party and consequently the monopoly to hold positions in the government the party forms?"

http://allafrica.com/stories/201105050551.html

The 2007 Constitution had article 65 which starts with

"Section 65. A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form a political party for the purpose of making political will of the people and carrying out political activities in fulfilment of such will through the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State as provided in this Constitution."

Of course we also have some articles on who is banned from politics and the organic law on political parties. I'm still looking for a reasonable English version.

This site may have some more details, but seems down for maintenance at the moment

http://www.idea.int/political-finance/reporting-oversight-sanctions.cfm

Oh, btw as American you might be interesting in knowing who owns your political parties. This is from 2010, but I doubt it changed much

http://www.darwinsmoney.com/pac-contributions-by-political-party/

Lastly, election promises any one?

"Complaints about lies are nothing new to elections. Legislation attempts to prohibit certain types of false statement during campaigns. This article examines the rationales for specific controls on false campaign speech and argues that the primary harms are the manipulation of voters and the distortion of the electoral process. The article also considers the consistency of such laws with rights to freedom of expression. While knowingly false statements attract little protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, there are still free speech concerns about regulating election speech. In particular, there are dangers of chilling speech and the perception of politically motivated adjudications. The article will consider the regulatory alternatives to the current law. None of the options are attractive, especially given the difficult tension between the desire to curtail falsities and the shortcomings of the law in pursuing that desire—a tension that is strongly felt in the context of an election."

http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/3/507

ADD to allow for a more objective discussion may I recommnd you read this EB article on political parties? Interesting read withnsufficient background information.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467631/political-party

Edited April 12, 201511 yr by rubl

"We need reconciliation now, don't we? Otherwise the same political disputes will repeat themselves again when the election winner forms the government and the runner-up stages protests," he said.

so does the bozo realize that he just admitted that the real problem is that the party losing the elections refuses to accept the decision of the voters?

morons.

It's much more all things which happen before the elections, the parties, it's candidates, the scrutiny and automatic exclusion of criminal influences.

Somehow I'm sure that in most democratic countries a party owned and controlled by a criminal fugitive cannot participate.

if you are so sure that it is most countries, then feel free to find the corresponding regulations for most countries which would keep a Thaksin from doing exactly what he is doing in Thailand.

Oh, and then go and show me how many of those countries have a political party which openly appeals to the country's military to 'fix' the situation because they are too feeble to develop a winning political platform and cannot accept the fact that the voters don't choose them to run the country.

Troll.

First of all let me express the wish that your 'troll' gave you the good feeling you were probably looking for.

Secondly I've looked around a bit on 'party ownership'. Seems Nigeria is a nice example. Also Macedonia seems the have some interesting political parties - government - press relations. Maybe they had a golf caddy give them advise. Of course if a party is owned by a criminal fugitive how can it have a serious program on laws, rule of law? This is independent of whether or not the law (or constitution) prohibits such.

Interesting is this article from 2011

"Do founder members of a political party have a right to claim ownership of such a party and consequently the monopoly to hold positions in the government the party forms?"

http://allafrica.com/stories/201105050551.html

The 2007 Constitution had article 65 which starts with

"Section 65. A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form a political party for the purpose of making political will of the people and carrying out political activities in fulfilment of such will through the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State as provided in this Constitution."

Of course we also have some articles on who is banned from politics and the organic law on political parties. I'm still looking for a reasonable English version.

This site may have some more details, but seems down for maintenance at the moment

http://www.idea.int/political-finance/reporting-oversight-sanctions.cfm

Oh, btw as American you might be interesting in knowing who owns your political parties. This is from 2010, but I doubt it changed much

http://www.darwinsmoney.com/pac-contributions-by-political-party/

Lastly, election promises any one?

"Complaints about lies are nothing new to elections. Legislation attempts to prohibit certain types of false statement during campaigns. This article examines the rationales for specific controls on false campaign speech and argues that the primary harms are the manipulation of voters and the distortion of the electoral process. The article also considers the consistency of such laws with rights to freedom of expression. While knowingly false statements attract little protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, there are still free speech concerns about regulating election speech. In particular, there are dangers of chilling speech and the perception of politically motivated adjudications. The article will consider the regulatory alternatives to the current law. None of the options are attractive, especially given the difficult tension between the desire to curtail falsities and the shortcomings of the law in pursuing that desire—a tension that is strongly felt in the context of an election."

http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/3/507

ADD to allow for a more objective discussion may I recommnd you read this EB article on political parties? Interesting read withnsufficient background information.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467631/political-party

so it goes with your eternal side-tracking....

First, "fascist troll" actually feels better and is more accurate, to boot.

Secondly, in researching all of your drivel above, did you come across examples of political parties which keep getting rejected by voters and then call on their country's military to toss out the elected government??

Yeah, didn't think so....

It's much more all things which happen before the elections, the parties, it's candidates, the scrutiny and automatic exclusion of criminal influences.

Somehow I'm sure that in most democratic countries a party owned and controlled by a criminal fugitive cannot participate.

if you are so sure that it is most countries, then feel free to find the corresponding regulations for most countries which would keep a Thaksin from doing exactly what he is doing in Thailand.

Oh, and then go and show me how many of those countries have a political party which openly appeals to the country's military to 'fix' the situation because they are too feeble to develop a winning political platform and cannot accept the fact that the voters don't choose them to run the country.

Troll.

First of all let me express the wish that your 'troll' gave you the good feeling you were probably looking for.

Secondly I've looked around a bit on 'party ownership'. Seems Nigeria is a nice example. Also Macedonia seems the have some interesting political parties - government - press relations. Maybe they had a golf caddy give them advise. Of course if a party is owned by a criminal fugitive how can it have a serious program on laws, rule of law? This is independent of whether or not the law (or constitution) prohibits such.

Interesting is this article from 2011

"Do founder members of a political party have a right to claim ownership of such a party and consequently the monopoly to hold positions in the government the party forms?"

http://allafrica.com/stories/201105050551.html

The 2007 Constitution had article 65 which starts with

"Section 65. A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form a political party for the purpose of making political will of the people and carrying out political activities in fulfilment of such will through the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State as provided in this Constitution."

Of course we also have some articles on who is banned from politics and the organic law on political parties. I'm still looking for a reasonable English version.

This site may have some more details, but seems down for maintenance at the moment

http://www.idea.int/political-finance/reporting-oversight-sanctions.cfm

Oh, btw as American you might be interesting in knowing who owns your political parties. This is from 2010, but I doubt it changed much

http://www.darwinsmoney.com/pac-contributions-by-political-party/

Lastly, election promises any one?

"Complaints about lies are nothing new to elections. Legislation attempts to prohibit certain types of false statement during campaigns. This article examines the rationales for specific controls on false campaign speech and argues that the primary harms are the manipulation of voters and the distortion of the electoral process. The article also considers the consistency of such laws with rights to freedom of expression. While knowingly false statements attract little protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, there are still free speech concerns about regulating election speech. In particular, there are dangers of chilling speech and the perception of politically motivated adjudications. The article will consider the regulatory alternatives to the current law. None of the options are attractive, especially given the difficult tension between the desire to curtail falsities and the shortcomings of the law in pursuing that desire—a tension that is strongly felt in the context of an election."

http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/3/507

ADD to allow for a more objective discussion may I recommnd you read this EB article on political parties? Interesting read withnsufficient background information.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467631/political-party

so it goes with your eternal side-tracking....

First, "fascist troll" actually feels better and is more accurate, to boot.

Secondly, in researching all of your drivel above, did you come across examples of political parties which keep getting rejected by voters and then call on their country's military to toss out the elected government??

Yeah, didn't think so....

Absolutely correct. Not one country!

PS don't drink too much coffee. With moderation you may have some 'alcoholic' drink as well. Maybe that helps to scare away the trolls you seem to see.

if you are so sure that it is most countries, then feel free to find the corresponding regulations for most countries which would keep a Thaksin from doing exactly what he is doing in Thailand.

Oh, and then go and show me how many of those countries have a political party which openly appeals to the country's military to 'fix' the situation because they are too feeble to develop a winning political platform and cannot accept the fact that the voters don't choose them to run the country.

Troll.

First of all let me express the wish that your 'troll' gave you the good feeling you were probably looking for.

Secondly I've looked around a bit on 'party ownership'. Seems Nigeria is a nice example. Also Macedonia seems the have some interesting political parties - government - press relations. Maybe they had a golf caddy give them advise. Of course if a party is owned by a criminal fugitive how can it have a serious program on laws, rule of law? This is independent of whether or not the law (or constitution) prohibits such.

Interesting is this article from 2011

"Do founder members of a political party have a right to claim ownership of such a party and consequently the monopoly to hold positions in the government the party forms?"

http://allafrica.com/stories/201105050551.html

The 2007 Constitution had article 65 which starts with

"Section 65. A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form a political party for the purpose of making political will of the people and carrying out political activities in fulfilment of such will through the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State as provided in this Constitution."

Of course we also have some articles on who is banned from politics and the organic law on political parties. I'm still looking for a reasonable English version.

This site may have some more details, but seems down for maintenance at the moment

http://www.idea.int/political-finance/reporting-oversight-sanctions.cfm

Oh, btw as American you might be interesting in knowing who owns your political parties. This is from 2010, but I doubt it changed much

http://www.darwinsmoney.com/pac-contributions-by-political-party/

Lastly, election promises any one?

"Complaints about lies are nothing new to elections. Legislation attempts to prohibit certain types of false statement during campaigns. This article examines the rationales for specific controls on false campaign speech and argues that the primary harms are the manipulation of voters and the distortion of the electoral process. The article also considers the consistency of such laws with rights to freedom of expression. While knowingly false statements attract little protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, there are still free speech concerns about regulating election speech. In particular, there are dangers of chilling speech and the perception of politically motivated adjudications. The article will consider the regulatory alternatives to the current law. None of the options are attractive, especially given the difficult tension between the desire to curtail falsities and the shortcomings of the law in pursuing that desire—a tension that is strongly felt in the context of an election."

http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/3/507

ADD to allow for a more objective discussion may I recommnd you read this EB article on political parties? Interesting read withnsufficient background information.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467631/political-party

so it goes with your eternal side-tracking....

First, "fascist troll" actually feels better and is more accurate, to boot.

Secondly, in researching all of your drivel above, did you come across examples of political parties which keep getting rejected by voters and then call on their country's military to toss out the elected government??

Yeah, didn't think so....

Absolutely correct. Not one country!

PS don't drink too much coffee. With moderation you may have some 'alcoholic' drink as well. Maybe that helps to scare away the trolls you seem to see.

not one country, ....

except Thailand.

OK, get it now?

First of all let me express the wish that your 'troll' gave you the good feeling you were probably looking for.

Secondly I've looked around a bit on 'party ownership'. Seems Nigeria is a nice example. Also Macedonia seems the have some interesting political parties - government - press relations. Maybe they had a golf caddy give them advise. Of course if a party is owned by a criminal fugitive how can it have a serious program on laws, rule of law? This is independent of whether or not the law (or constitution) prohibits such.

Interesting is this article from 2011

"Do founder members of a political party have a right to claim ownership of such a party and consequently the monopoly to hold positions in the government the party forms?"

http://allafrica.com/stories/201105050551.html

The 2007 Constitution had article 65 which starts with

"Section 65. A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form a political party for the purpose of making political will of the people and carrying out political activities in fulfilment of such will through the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State as provided in this Constitution."

Of course we also have some articles on who is banned from politics and the organic law on political parties. I'm still looking for a reasonable English version.

This site may have some more details, but seems down for maintenance at the moment

http://www.idea.int/political-finance/reporting-oversight-sanctions.cfm

Oh, btw as American you might be interesting in knowing who owns your political parties. This is from 2010, but I doubt it changed much

http://www.darwinsmoney.com/pac-contributions-by-political-party/

Lastly, election promises any one?

"Complaints about lies are nothing new to elections. Legislation attempts to prohibit certain types of false statement during campaigns. This article examines the rationales for specific controls on false campaign speech and argues that the primary harms are the manipulation of voters and the distortion of the electoral process. The article also considers the consistency of such laws with rights to freedom of expression. While knowingly false statements attract little protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, there are still free speech concerns about regulating election speech. In particular, there are dangers of chilling speech and the perception of politically motivated adjudications. The article will consider the regulatory alternatives to the current law. None of the options are attractive, especially given the difficult tension between the desire to curtail falsities and the shortcomings of the law in pursuing that desire—a tension that is strongly felt in the context of an election."

http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/3/507

ADD to allow for a more objective discussion may I recommnd you read this EB article on political parties? Interesting read withnsufficient background information.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467631/political-party

so it goes with your eternal side-tracking....

First, "fascist troll" actually feels better and is more accurate, to boot.

Secondly, in researching all of your drivel above, did you come across examples of political parties which keep getting rejected by voters and then call on their country's military to toss out the elected government??

Yeah, didn't think so....

Absolutely correct. Not one country!

PS don't drink too much coffee. With moderation you may have some 'alcoholic' drink as well. Maybe that helps to scare away the trolls you seem to see.

not one country, ....

except Thailand.

OK, get it now?

This may surprise you, but opinions don't really count.

So, not one country.

Oh btw, regarding parties and criminals a few more

http://aceproject.org/electoral-advice/archive/questions/replies/976537909

http://www.newsweek.com/new-rules-expose-criminals-indias-parliament-76265

http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/golden-dawn-political-party-or-criminal-organization/