The notion of criminal offenses in a democratic electoral system
The notion of criminal offenses in a democratic electoral system
Justice is constantly at the center of theoretical, philosophical, legal discussions. Its general meaning defines the direct application of the rules in each individual’s civil life in such a way that if any of us does not respect it leaves room for sanctions (criminal, civil, administrative, etc.) for establishing the legal order raped. So, suppose on the one hand, for justice, we understand what is decided by the courts at the end of a process, on the other hand.
In that case, it is possible to individualize a narrower understanding of justice, such as the capacity of a society to set direct rules, to guarantee the welfare of the social community, or directly to ensure a balanced development of the civil social relationship as well as to provide sufficient instruments and entities for these rules to serve everyone and for the violation of these rules to be proven at the end of a process which guarantees equality between charge and defense.
The democratic system is the Republic of Albania’s primary criterion, which means that the government of a country should be an expression of the will of the citizens through whom they are elected and who participate directly (direct democracy) or indirectly (indirect democracy). Of the democratic electoral system.
Understanding the legal order in legal systems
In any legal system, references to the regular order are named different normative contexts: in the traditional norms of civil law, private international law, constitutional, and criminal standards. Unlike the Albanian system, most legal plans (in France, Italy, England, etc.) include disrespect for voting in national order security. Public order first appeared in the Napoleonic Code in 1804 as a new formula, which in Roman law had never occurred, not even in jurists’ writings after the French Revolution.
There was a civilian-type impact on the French code, but soon, this formula was extended to other law camps such as the criminal code and public safety law. Public safety, among other things, was absorbed by many other systems and began to extend to many areas of different methods. This widespread success attributes the concept of public order to an essential role in the legal order, which has been widely used from its inception to the present day.
Although all legal systems implement “public order” in many areas, no system gives it a constant definition and meaning. Over the years, the doctrine has worked several different notions of public order precisely to narrow the sphere of discretion in the use of public order. In terms of the meaning of public order, most interpreters turned more to the normative concept, which defines it as a set of fundamental principles of a given system. Other authors introduce the idea of public order by individualizing the motives for which it is implemented in a given system: it is termed a mechanism of protection and conservation of the principle of a system.
In the constitutional concept, we find it in two directions: pacification of coexistence and avoiding violence (an idea that approximates criminal law). On the other hand, as an obstacle to the free exercise of constitutionally guaranteed rights. However, this division is not acceptable to all performers. The concept of criminal law is conceived as a set of necessary rules to ensure peace in society’s coexistence. The other concept defines it as a set of principles based on the well-functioning coexistence.
Different democracies apply different systems for electing representative institutions such as a parliament. How a state translates the citizens’ vote into parliamentary mandates is determined by various factors related to the country’s specifics: the nature of the form, traditions, demographic composition, regional divisions, etc. However, a decisive factor in selecting a country’s electoral system is often not the considerations of the general public interest or the assessment that a particular system best suits the needs of a state.
As the handbook of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) on the design of electoral systems states, it is often the decisive factor in selecting a particular method that favors parties that influence his selection, thus damaging in various ways the challenging alternatives and narrowing the democratic space in place. Different types of approaches have specific specifications that aim to achieve other objectives.
Proportional systems can be organized to elected MPs through regional lists in constituencies to link the MP’s responsibility to a specific community. Open plans, meanwhile, allow citizens to select their preferred candidates within the party list. Proportional systems can also differ in vote counting and the allocation of seats. There may be second rounds in majority systems, while there may be elements aimed at favoring certain social groups in proportional systems.
The electoral system in Italy
Italy, which went through approximately the same periods of history after the Second World War, has built a parliamentary government system, with a network of balancing powers, especially between the legislature on the one hand and the head of state and government as the body of executive power. On the other side. According to Article 48 of the Electoral Code, voters are: “all citizens, men, and women who have reached the age of majority; the vote is personal and equal, free and secret; its exercise is a civic duty.”
According to her, “all citizens have the right to organize freely in the party to contribute with democratic methods in determining national policy.” The Italian state has modified the electoral law three times in the last 16 years. Despite many electoral laws’ strains and defects, instability in the Executive, an imperfection in electoral representation, and an increase in parity have been repeated throughout the historical evolution.
According to electoral systems experts, the electoral system applied in Italy after 1946 until 1993 was one of the purest proportional systems. Voting for the Chamber of Deputies was based on the party list. The plan was more modified for the Senate’s election because only one candidate for each constituency represented each party. Under this electoral system, political parties based on the number of votes won nationally received a certain number of deputies in the Chamber of Deputies.
It was enough for a party at the national level to win, for example, 2% of the votes, then win deputies’ mandates, to be represented in the Chamber of Deputies. The elections’ final results created the possibility of forming broad coalition governments from different political parties with other political and programmatic orientations. The electoral system had brought about significant parliamentary fragmentation and created tremendous obstacles to stable governments’ functioning.
By 1990, more than 50 governments had been replaced, so in the early 1990s, there was a growing demand for a change in the electoral system in favor of a two-party political system. In 1993 the electoral system was changed, and in 1994 electoral laws were passed which contained compromise provisions between the British majority system and the proportional system. Under these laws, 75% of senators are elected under the simple majority system. However, the new electoral system greatly influenced political parties’ grouping into “separate blocs,” which enabled them to position themselves in one of two political blocs.
