DOCSLIB.ORG

Guidelines on Political Party Regulation 2Nd Edition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guidelines on Political Party Regulation 2Nd Edition Strasbourg, 14 December 2020 CDL-AD(2020)032 Study No. 881/2017 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) OSCE OFFICE FOR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (OSCE/ODIHR) GUIDELINES ON POLITICAL PARTY REGULATION 2ND EDITION Approved by the Council of Democratic Elections at its 69th online meeting (7 October 2020) and Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 125th online Plenary Session (11-12 December 2020) on the basis of comments by OSCE/ODIHR Core Group of Experts on Political Parties Mr Josep Maria CASTELLA ANDREU (Member, Spain) Mr Pieter van DIJK (Expert, Former Member, the Netherlands) Mr Nicolae ESANU (Substitute Member, Republic of Moldova) Mr Ben VERMEULEN (Member, the Netherlands) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2020)032 - 2 - Table of contents I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 5 II. POLITICAL PARTIES: THEIR IMPORTANCE, FUNCTIONS AND REGULATION ............ 7 1. The classification and importance of political parties and their functions ........................ 7 2. Three dimensions ........................................................................................................... 8 3. Two models ..................................................................................................................... 9 III. PRINCIPLES .................................................................................................................... 13 Principle 1. Freedom of Association of Political Parties; Presumption of Lawfulness ....... 13 Principle 2. Duty to Respect, Protect and Facilitate .......................................................... 14 Principle 3. Freedom of Expression and Opinion .............................................................. 15 Principle 4. Political Pluralism ........................................................................................... 16 Principle 5. Legality and Legitimacy of Restrictions .......................................................... 16 Principle 6. Necessity and Proportionality of Restrictions ................................................. 17 Principle 7. Effective Remedy ........................................................................................... 18 Principle 8. Equal Treatment of political parties ................................................................ 19 Principle 9. Equal Treatment by and within Political Parties, Special Measures, Internal Democracy ........................................................................................................................ 19 Principle 10. Good Administration ..................................................................................... 20 Principle 11. Accountability ............................................................................................... 20 IV INTERPRETATIVE NOTES ............................................................................................. 21 PART I FREEDOM OF POLITICAL PARTIES, REGULATION, RESTRICTIONS ............ 21 1. Political Parties; Legal Framework ................................................................................ 21 a. Definition of Political Party ........................................................................................ 21 b. Legal Framework ...................................................................................................... 22 c. Legal Status .............................................................................................................. 23 d. Relevant rights .......................................................................................................... 23 2. Freedom of Political Parties; Legitimate Means of Regulation and Restriction ............. 24 a. Registration ............................................................................................................... 25 b. Registration Fees ...................................................................................................... 26 c. Minimum Support ..................................................................................................... 27 d. Requirements for Retention of Registration .............................................................. 28 e. Geographic Representation ...................................................................................... 29 f. International Communication and Co-operation of Parties ........................................ 29 3. Prohibition and Dissolution of Political Parties .............................................................. 29 a. Legality and subsidiarity ............................................................................................ 29 b. Proportionality ........................................................................................................... 31 c. Legitimacy of Aims and Means ................................................................................. 32 d. Limited Effects, Incidental Activities .......................................................................... 33 e. Serious, Imminent Threat .......................................................................................... 34 f. Article 17 ECHR (the ‘Abuse Clause’) ........................................................................ 35 4. Regulation of Political Parties in Parliament ................................................................. 35 a. Functions and Guarantees ........................................................................................ 35 b. Majority Rule ............................................................................................................. 36 c. Rights of Parliamentary Opposition Parties ............................................................... 37 d. Use of Public Resources ........................................................................................... 37 e. Free Mandate ............................................................................................................ 37 5. Equal Treatment of Political Parties .............................................................................. 38 6. Equal Treatment by Political Parties: Admission, Restrictions ...................................... 40 7. Freedom of the Individual; Restrictions ......................................................................... 40 - 3 - CDL-AD(2020)032 a. Freedom of the Individual .......................................................................................... 40 b. Restrictions on Civil Servants, Police, Armed Forces, Members of State Administration (Article 11(2) ECHR) ................................................................................. 41 c. Restrictions on Aliens (Article 16 ECHR) .................................................................. 42 d. Restrictions on Multiple Membership ........................................................................ 43 PART II. INTERNAL FUNCTIONING OF POLITICAL PARTIES .......................................... 43 1. Regulation of Internal Party Structures and Activities; Internal Party Democracy ........ 43 2. Internal Party Rules ...................................................................................................... 44 3. Choosing Party Leadership and Candidates; Equality, Non-Discrimination ................. 45 a. National and Ethnic Minorities ................................................................................... 46 b. Gender ...................................................................................................................... 47 c. Persons with Disabilities ............................................................................................ 49 4. Freedom of Association and Non-Discrimination .......................................................... 50 PART III PARTIES IN ELECTIONS ..................................................................................... 51 1. Variety of Electoral Systems; Margin of Appreciation ................................................... 51 2. Political Pluralism .......................................................................................................... 51 3. Partisan Candidates ...................................................................................................... 52 4. Non-Partisan (Independent) Candidates ....................................................................... 52 5. Minority Candidates ...................................................................................................... 53 a. National and Ethnic Minorities ................................................................................... 53 b. Gender ...................................................................................................................... 53 c. Persons with Disabilities ............................................................................................ 54 d. Thresholds ................................................................................................................ 54 6. Access to Elections ....................................................................................................... 54 a. Ballot Access for Political Parties .............................................................................. 54 b. Media Access ...........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Armenia Page 1 of 13
    Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Armenia Page 1 of 13 Armenia Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 6, 2007 Armenia, with a population of approximately 3.2 million, is a republic. The constitution provides for a popularly elected president (Robert Kocharian) and a unicameral legislature (National Assembly). A constitutional referendum in 2005 and presidential and National Assembly elections in 2003 were seriously flawed and did not meet international standards. The country has a multiparty political system. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces; members of the security forces committed a number of human rights abuses. The government's human rights record remained poor, and serious problems remained. Citizens were not able freely to change their government; authorities beat pretrial detainees; the national security service and the national police force acted with impunity; authorities engaged in arbitrary arrest and detention; prison conditions were cramped and unhealthy, although slowly improving; authorities imposed restrictions on citizens' privacy, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. Journalists practiced self-censorship, and the government and laws restricted religious freedom. Violence against women and spousal abuse were problems, as were trafficking in persons, discrimination against persons with disabilities, and societal harassment of homosexuals. There were reports of forced labor. There were some improvements during the year. The implementation of constitutional reforms ratified in 2005 led to some increase in judicial independence and for the first time gave citizens direct access to the Constitutional Court. Penalties for trafficking were toughened and a court for the first time imposed financial, as well as criminal, penalties on traffickers.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey's Deep State
    #1.12 PERSPECTIVES Political analysis and commentary from Turkey FEATURE ARTICLES TURKEY’S DEEP STATE CULTURE INTERNATIONAL POLITICS ECOLOGY AKP’s Cultural Policy: Syria: The Case of the Seasonal Agricultural Arts and Censorship “Arab Spring” Workers in Turkey Pelin Başaran Transforming into the Sidar Çınar Page 28 “Arab Revolution” Page 32 Cengiz Çandar Page 35 TURKEY REPRESENTATION Content Editor’s note 3 ■ Feature articles: Turkey’s Deep State Tracing the Deep State, Ayşegül Sabuktay 4 The Deep State: Forms of Domination, Informal Institutions and Democracy, Mehtap Söyler 8 Ergenekon as an Illusion of Democratization, Ahmet Şık 12 Democratization, revanchism, or..., Aydın Engin 16 The Near Future of Turkey on the Axis of the AKP-Gülen Movement, Ruşen Çakır 18 Counter-Guerilla Becoming the State, the State Becoming the Counter-Guerilla, Ertuğrul Mavioğlu 22 Is the Ergenekon Case an Opportunity or a Handicap? Ali Koç 25 The Dink Murder and State Lies, Nedim Şener 28 ■ Culture Freedom of Expression in the Arts and the Current State of Censorship in Turkey, Pelin Başaran 31 ■ Ecology Solar Energy in Turkey: Challenges and Expectations, Ateş Uğurel 33 A Brief Evaluation of Seasonal Agricultural Workers in Turkey, Sidar Çınar 35 ■ International Politics Syria: The Case of the “Arab Spring” Transforming into the “Arab Revolution”, Cengiz Çandar 38 Turkey/Iran: A Critical Move in the Historical Competition, Mete Çubukçu 41 ■ Democracy 4+4+4: Turning the Education System Upside Down, Aytuğ Şaşmaz 43 “Health Transformation Program” and the 2012 Turkey Health Panorama, Mustafa Sütlaş 46 How Multi-Faceted are the Problems of Freedom of Opinion and Expression in Turkey?, Şanar Yurdatapan 48 Crimes against Humanity and Persistent Resistance against Cruel Policies, Nimet Tanrıkulu 49 ■ News from hbs 53 Heinrich Böll Stiftung – Turkey Representation The Heinrich Böll Stiftung, associated with the German Green Party, is a legally autonomous and intellectually open political foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Functioning of Democratic Institutions in Turkey
    http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 15272 21 April 2021 The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey Report1 Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) Co-rapporteurs: Mr Thomas HAMMARBERG, Sweden, Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group, and Mr John HOWELL, United Kingdom, European Conservatives Group and Democratic Alliance Summary The Monitoring Committee is deeply concerned about recent developments in Turkey which have further undermined democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Procedures seeking to lift the parliamentary immunity of a third of the parliamentarians (overwhelmingly from opposition parties), the attempt to close the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) and the continued crackdown on its members put political pluralism and the functioning of democratic institutions at risk. The presidential decision of 20 March 2021 to withdraw from the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (CETS No.210, the Istanbul Convention) to combat violence against women and domestic violence is a regrettable step backwards, made without any parliamentary debate, which raises the question of the modalities of denunciation of conventions in democratic societies. The committee also urges the immediate release of Selahattin Demirtaş and Osman Kavala following the final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In order to reverse these worrying trends, the Turkish authorities should seize the opportunity of implementing the Human Rights Action Plan and revising the legislation on elections and political parties to take meaningful steps, put an end to the judicial harassment of opposition and dissenting voices, improve freedom of expression and media and restore the independence of the judiciary, in co-operation with the Council of Europe 1.
    [Show full text]
  • ("DSCC") Files This Complaint Seeking an Immediate Investigation by the 7
    COMPLAINT BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION CBHMISSIOAl INTRODUCTXON - 1 The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ("DSCC") 7-_. J _j. c files this complaint seeking an immediate investigation by the 7 c; a > Federal Election Commission into the illegal spending A* practices of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (WRSCIt). As the public record shows, and an investigation will confirm, the NRSC and a series of ostensibly nonprofit, nonpartisan groups have undertaken a significant and sustained effort to funnel "soft money101 into federal elections in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended or "the Act"), 2 U.S.C. 5s 431 et seq., and the Federal Election Commission (peFECt)Regulations, 11 C.F.R. 85 100.1 & sea. 'The term "aoft money" as ueed in this Complaint means funds,that would not be lawful for use in connection with any federal election (e.g., corporate or labor organization treasury funds, contributions in excess of the relevant contribution limit for federal elections). THE FACTS IN TBIS CABE On November 24, 1992, the state of Georgia held a unique runoff election for the office of United States Senator. Georgia law provided for a runoff if no candidate in the regularly scheduled November 3 general election received in excess of 50 percent of the vote. The 1992 runoff in Georg a was a hotly contested race between the Democratic incumbent Wyche Fowler, and his Republican opponent, Paul Coverdell. The Republicans presented this election as a %ust-win81 election. Exhibit 1. The Republicans were so intent on victory that Senator Dole announced he was willing to give up his seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee for Coverdell, if necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (515Kb)
    European Community No. 26/1984 July 10, 1984 Contact: Ella Krucoff (202) 862-9540 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: 1984 ELECTION RESULTS :The newly elected European Parliament - the second to be chosen directly by European voters -- began its five-year term last month with an inaugural session in Strasbourg~ France. The Parliament elected Pierre Pflimlin, a French Christian Democrat, as its new president. Pflimlin, a parliamentarian since 1979, is a former Prime Minister of France and ex-mayor of Strasbourg. Be succeeds Pieter Dankert, a Dutch Socialist, who came in second in the presidential vote this time around. The new assembly quickly exercised one of its major powers -- final say over the European Community budget -- by blocking payment of a L983 budget rebate to the United Kingdom. The rebate had been approved by Community leaders as part of an overall plan to resolve the E.C.'s financial problems. The Parliament froze the rebate after the U.K. opposed a plan for covering a 1984 budget shortfall during a July Council of Ministers meeting. The issue will be discussed again in September by E.C. institutions. Garret FitzGerald, Prime Minister of Ireland, outlined for the Parliament the goals of Ireland's six-month presidency of the E.C. Council. Be urged the representatives to continue working for a more unified Europe in which "free movement of people and goods" is a reality, and he called for more "intensified common action" to fight unemployment. Be said European politicians must work to bolster the public's faith in the E.C., noting that budget problems and inter-governmental "wrangles" have overshadolted the Community's benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Parties and Welfare Associations
    Department of Sociology Umeå University Political parties and welfare associations by Ingrid Grosse Doctoral theses at the Department of Sociology Umeå University No 50 2007 Department of Sociology Umeå University Thesis 2007 Printed by Print & Media December 2007 Cover design: Gabriella Dekombis © Ingrid Grosse ISSN 1104-2508 ISBN 978-91-7264-478-6 Grosse, Ingrid. Political parties and welfare associations. Doctoral Dissertation in Sociology at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Umeå University, 2007. ISBN 978-91-7264-478-6 ISSN 1104-2508 ABSTRACT Scandinavian countries are usually assumed to be less disposed than other countries to involve associations as welfare producers. They are assumed to be so disinclined due to their strong statutory welfare involvement, which “crowds-out” associational welfare production; their ethnic, cultural and religious homogeneity, which leads to a lack of minority interests in associational welfare production; and to their strong working-class organisations, which are supposed to prefer statutory welfare solutions. These assumptions are questioned here, because they cannot account for salient associational welfare production in the welfare areas of housing and child-care in two Scandinavian countries, Sweden and Norway. In order to approach an explanation for the phenomena of associational welfare production in Sweden and Norway, some refinements of current theories are suggested. First, it is argued that welfare associations usually depend on statutory support in order to produce welfare on a salient level. Second, it is supposed that any form of particularistic interest in welfare production, not only ethnic, cultural or religious minority interests, can lead to associational welfare. With respect to these assumptions, this thesis supposes that political parties are organisations that, on one hand, influence statutory decisions regarding associational welfare production, and, on the other hand, pursue particularistic interests in associational welfare production.
    [Show full text]
  • ADEPT Political Commentaries
    ADEPT Political Commentaries October-December 2002 Bashkan elections in Gagauz Yeri October 2, 2002 Bashkan elections are scheduled in Gagauz-Yeri for October 6. The electoral campaign is characterized by mutual suspicions of falsification. In fact the upcoming elections is a way of settling the conflict arisen in January. Back then, after a control conducted by the Court of Accounts, Gagauz Yeri Parliamentary Assembly initiated the procedure of ousting the incumbent Bashkan. The initiative was supported by the President Vladimir Voronin who accused Bashkan Dumitru Croitor of embezzlement and called him a thief. Gagauz administration denied the accusations and opposed the referenda on ousting the Bashkan, which resulted in scission of the Parliamentary Assembly. Later on Dumitru Croitor and Ivan Burgugji, Chief of the Protocol Section of the PA were investigated for obstruction to referenda. In their turn, the two claimed the referendum was illegal and running counter to the Republic of Moldova laws. Domestic analysts believe those political games impaired the executive branch in the region and thwarted some extremely important investment projects in the southern region of Moldova. The investigation launched against him and his supporters determined Bashkan Croitor to resign in the summer of this year. In its turn the resignation led to early elections scheduled for October 6. One may say that the Bashkan position is disputed by the Communist Party representative Gheorghii Tabunscic, on the one hand and another five candidates on the other (Stepan Topal, Ilia Stamat, Mihail Formuzal, Gheorghii Burgudji and Constantin Tausanji), the latter stand to some extent in opposition to the Communist authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Participation of National Minorities in the Danish-German Border Region
    Political Participation of National Minorities in the Danish-German Border Region A series of studies on two hard-to-identify populations in a role-model-region Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades Doctor philosophiae (Dr. phil.) an der Fakultät Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Fachbereich Sozialwissenschaften der Universität Hamburg vorgelegt von Adrian Schaefer-Rolffs Hamburg, den 06.06.2016 Erstgutachter : Prof. Dr. Kai-Uwe Schnapp Zweitgutachterin : Prof. Dr. Tove Hansen Malloy Tag der Disputation : 26.09.2016 “Always the hard way. Nothing was ever handed to me. Always the hard way. You taught me truth, you gave me strength. I learned everything the hard way” (Nicholas Jett and Scott C. Vogel) Contents Contents Contents ............................................................................................. V List of tables ............................................................................................ IX List of figures .......................................................................................... XI Abbreviations ....................................................................................... XIII Acknowledgements ................................................................................ XV Part I. Introductory part ..................................... 1 1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 3 1.1. Positioning and reflexivity .................................................................... 7 1.2. Relevant literature
    [Show full text]
  • Armenia Covering the Period of January to December 2018 Armenia Bias-Motivated Speech a 15-Year-Old Was Stabbed in Yerevan on 1 April
    Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex People in Armenia covering the period of January to December 2018 Armenia Bias-motivated speech A 15-year-old was stabbed in Yerevan on 1 April. The perpetrator Former social affairs minister and current member of the told the police that he had assumed the victim was gay. The parliamentary human rights committee Gevorg Petrosyan parents dropped the charges, to prevent further bullying against (Tsarukyan Faction) said in March, that treating people differently their son. on SOGI grounds is not discrimination. MP Vardan Bostanjyan (“Prosperous Armenia” Party) compared LGBT people to viruses Following a series of LGBTI-phobic attacks in the first few months and suggested that the ‘virus’ should be isolated to avoid making of the year, LGBTI activists and allies protested in front of the other people sick. Government Prosecutor’s Office on 5 April, calling for immediate and thorough investigations. In July, the justice minister Artak Zeynalyan (Yelk Faction, Hanrapetutyun party) publicly reacted to a homophobic A member of Right Side NGO’s staff was threatened and insulted Facebook post featuring a photo of him, saying he “wants to by military service workers during a visit to the Arabkir military legalise “faggots”. It also called on supporters to “join our fight”. commissariat station on 11 April. Zeynalyan’s ignored the offensive language and instead denied that he was working on any legislative initiatives related to the On 15 April, a trans woman living in Yerevan was attacked. Her Criminal Code. throat was cut and she required hospitalisation.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Choose a Political Party
    FastFACTS How to Choose a Political Party When you sign up to vote, you can join a political party. A political party is a group of people who share the same ideas about how the government should be run and what it should do. They work together to win elections. You can also choose not to join any of the political parties and still be a voter. There is no cost to join a party. How to choose a political party: • Choose a political party that has the same general views you do. For example, some political parties think that government should No Party Preference do more for people. Others feel that government should make it If you do not want to register easier for people to do things for themselves. with a political party (you • If you do not want to join a political party, mark that box on your want to be “independent” voter registration form. This is called “no party preference.” Know of any political party), mark that if you do, you may have limited choices for party candidates in “I do not want to register Presidential primary elections. with a political party” on the registration form. In • You can change your political party registration at any time. Just fill California, you can still out a new voter registration form and check a different party box. vote for any candidate in The deadline to change your party is 15 days before the election. a primary election, except If you are not registered with a political party and for Presidential candidates.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mechanisms for Terrorizing Minorities: the Capital Tax and Work Battalions in Turkey During the Second World War
    Çetinog˘lu: The Mechanisms for Terrorizing Minorities 15 The Mechanisms for Terrorizing Minorities: The Capital Tax and Work Battalions in Turkey during the Second World War Sait Çetinog˘lu Two policies against non- Muslim minorities implemented during the Second World War by the Turkish government are analyzed in this essay: (1) the Capital Tax (Varlik Vergisi) implemented as a means of economic destruction of these minorities from November 1942 to March 1944 and (2) the mobiliza- tion of minority young men aged 18 to 45 into the so- called work battalions (amele taburlari) from May 1941 to September 1942 as a reprise of the work battalions during World War I. The motivations, conditions, and implemen- tation of both antiminority measures are examined and their consequences discussed. The Capital Tax The Varlik Vergisi constitutes a dark chapter in the history of modern Tur- key. It was implemented during 1942 – 44 under the pretext of controlling the price of goods and preventing accumulation of capital in a few hands, even though the very same government had taken no measures to stop the expansion of a black market and consequent increase of illegal profits in the previous two years. Passed under the pretext of public complaints, this measure implemented a devastating economic destruction policy against non- Muslim minorities through heavy taxation, confiscation of properties, and exile of members of these groups to work camps. The aim was to destroy the economic and cultural base of these minorities, loot their properties and means of livelihood, and, at the same time, “turkify” the economy of Turkey.
    [Show full text]