The idea of ​​an election code may seem unfamiliar to the general public. The problems of the electoral process, for example, the difficulties of exercising the right to vote in the diaspora or access to voting for certain categories of citizens, are rarely raised in televised debates. The focus is on scenarios and speculations, most of which are fruitless, about the candidates in the elections. To clarify the topic, it is necessary to make several clarifications. The closest type of election code is the legislative code, that is, a complex normative act that combines several basic laws in one document. The legislative code has the specificity of a unified and agreed vision, in contrast to the large number of secondary laws and norms, often inconsistent, that regulate the field. The particular difference is that the laws, in our case, concern the basis of democratic legitimacy – the right to elect and be elected, as well as the integrity of presidential, (Euro)parliamentary and local elections.

Just as we have, for example, the tax code, a good recommendation for electoral practice is to have an electoral code, a single law that defines how we elect the president, representatives in the mayor’s office, local councils, parliament and parliament. of the European Union.

Recent history shows us that attempts to propose, constructively discuss and make the necessary compromises to adopt an electoral code seem doomed to failure. It has been more than 20 years since civil society turned to the citizens’ initiative option to propose an electoral code. Reread today, the citizens’ initiative of November 19, 2001 still retains the relevance of the overall goal, although many of the problems noted have been resolved. Thus, the authors informed us that “a single regulatory act (…) will contribute to the unity and coherence of the provisions on the organization and conduct of elections in Romania.” A few years later, in 2005, the parliament registered a second electoral code initiative developed by the PNL, this time, which, although it had positive conclusions in the legislative circle, was rejected in a vote. And last but not least, few people remember that in 2011 the PEC presented to the public a draft of the Electoral Code, which, in the end, was never presented.

These failures have various contextual explanations and are worth dwelling on. The essence of the problem lies in the initiation of such a process and the legality of its stages. The legitimate forum for such an approach is the Romanian Parliament and the supposed broad coalition of political parties. The Electoral Code applies equally to the main political figures in the parliament and representatives of national minorities. The fundamental mistake of the previous attempts to propose the electoral code is the lack of an initial political agreement, which would later provide strength to the process of unification and harmonization of electoral legislation.

In the absence of such a unified vision, we will witness, as in every election year, certain last-minute improvisations in the form of an avalanche of emergency resolutions and through the decisions and interpretations of the election administration. This is the reason why the Romanian Constitutional Court recommended to the legislature that all electoral legislation be “concentrated in the Electoral Code, the general and special provisions of which ensure, in accordance with the constitutional principles, the organization of a democratic, fair and transparent organization”. This famous decision of the DRC from 2009 is ignored even today, although more than 12 years have passed since the decision was promulgated. Those who follow the jurisprudence of the CCR note that the need to adopt a single code is permanent. Not only the Constitutional Court has reiterated this desire, but also the Permanent Electoral Body or the Government through the conclusions given to bills proposed by the legislature.

This brief historical overview concludes with a civil society appeal known as the Coalition for the Electoral Code Now (CCEA), joined by 20 non-governmental organizations. Their call, starting in 2021, requires “the adoption by law of a unified Electoral Code, which contains the rules for the organization and conduct of all elections in Romania.” The CCEA’s invitation was to use the 2021-2023 window to find a sensible political compromise and ensure that the four elections in 2024 are organized according to an “agreed set of rules”. This appeal was by no means an isolated one, especially after the aforementioned Decision of the KRS. And in 2014 analytical center EFOR organized a round table on the topic of electoral reform and the need to adopt the Electoral Code.

In addition, the most important international election monitoring body, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights / ODIHR (within the framework of the OSCE), recommended that Romania adopt a unified vision for elections in the form of an electoral code, since 2004. Regarding the 2020 election observation mission, ODIHR’s final report stated: “The legal framework provides a solid foundation for democratic elections. Although comprehensive, it is divided between different tools that address different options. (…) Discussions on the codification of various electoral laws have been going on for years and efforts have been made by various national and international stakeholders. According to the majority of interlocutors of the BDIPL, the period after the parliamentary elections in 2020 until the next presidential and European Parliament elections this could be a good window of opportunity for the adoption of a unified electoral code“. In other words, the key political actors of the government, the electoral administration, international observers and members of civil society agree, at least in the institutional dialogue, that the 2024 elections can be organized with the help of a single framework law, a code of laws that unifies the norms various election laws.

Currently, the election legislation includes five election laws, to which are added about seventy subordinate normative acts, as a rule, extraordinary or simple resolutions. This arsenal, which is already excessive, is supplemented by the decisions and interpretations of the election administration, namely the Permanent Election Body and the Central Election Bureau. The main risk to the four elections in 2024 and, by implication, to the democratic process, is that the members of electoral offices will simply be overwhelmed by the abundance and inconsistency of electoral legislation. Not only do we have a numerical shortage of election experts, we will also experience unprecedented legislative activity in the 2024 election year.

Therefore, the first task of the new leadership of the permanent election commission, which will be officially approved by the parliament on February 21, should be a report on the prospects for the adoption of the election code no later than the fall of 2023. This forthcoming report needs to be discussed with all the main political actors in Parliament. Such a project, which only unifies existing legislation, already exists in the Chamber of Deputies, which is also the forum for decision-making on election laws. In a pragmatic scenario, a technical version of the electoral code may be adopted without serious reforms regarding the distribution of mandates. If the question of such changes arises, they will undoubtedly delay the hypothetical political pact. It remains to be seen whether, under President Tony Greble, a former CCR judge, the need for unifying legislation in the form of an electoral code will be ignored with the same royal chauvinism.

Professor Christian Preda states in a book fundamental to the understanding of the history of Romanian democracy: Romanians are happy. Elections and power from 1831 to the present day, that “parliament is atrophied” in relations with the executive power. A significant number of laws passed after 1989, more than 80%, are initiated by the government, although important legislative projects are also developed in the legislative chambers. Christian Preda also notes that “the authority of the parliament is complicated by the decrease in the desire for compromise and negotiations of the political elites.” This diagnosis remains valid and answers the question in the title, but some major reforms, including the harmonization of electoral law, cannot remain on hold sine dieRead the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro