Self-evaluation by Europe’s national parliaments: procedural guidelines to improve the quality of parliamentary work
- Author(s):
- Parliamentary Assembly
- Origin
- Text adopted by the
Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on 9 March
2012 (see Doc. 12875,
report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs, rapporteur: Mr Gross).
- Thesaurus
1. In the debate held in June 2010
on democracy in Europe: crisis and perspectives, which led to the adoption
of
Resolution 1746 (2010),
the Parliamentary Assembly noted that there was a crisis in representative democracy
and called for the development of a new culture of political responsibility
in terms of responsiveness and accountability, as well as transparency.
2. In
Resolution 1547 (2007)
on the state of human rights and democracy in Europe, the Assembly
already expressed its concern about the increasing number of deficits
in democracy and the dysfunction of political institutions observed
in Council of Europe member States. The Assembly also noted that
declining interest in the dominant political parties and parliament
was the result of a critical assessment of the work of these institutions.
3. The economic, financial and social crisis which many States
in Europe have been facing since 2008 has not only increased the
requirement for transparency in public decision making and greater
accountability among political players, but also radically intensified
the calling into question of the representative system as the foundation
of our democratic societies: citizens want to be fully informed,
while also demanding the right to be more closely involved in the
decision-making process and the conduct of public affairs. Against
this background of crisis in which representative institutions are
facing citizens’ criticism, parliaments are simultaneously demanding
the right to exercise greater control over governments’ decisions.
However, many national parliaments in Europe do not have a strong
constitutional or institutional basis or are politically subordinated
to the executive branch.
4. The performance of parliament is one of the essential indicators
of the state of democracy in a country. In the above-mentioned context,
measuring the democratic performance of parliaments in Council of
Europe member States may therefore be useful. Self-evaluation by
parliaments according to agreed benchmarks and a clearly established
procedural framework could be one of the possible responses to the
above problems, as a tool for identifying solutions to the shortcomings
observed in representative democracy. Self-assessment should be
aimed at improving the quality of parliamentary work rather than
the efficiency of parliaments, in the strict sense, and should form
the basis for promoting best practices for a “good” parliament.
Using self-evaluation to demonstrate the quality of parliaments
and their ability to address economic and social challenges effectively
can help to stem the loss of trust in the power and legitimacy of
democratic institutions.
5. Several specialised organisations such as the Inter-Parliamentary
Union (IPU), the Parliamentary Assembly of La Francophonie, the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) have developed methodologies, toolkits and benchmarks
with which parliaments can evaluate the democratic quality of their
functioning. Although differences exist with regard to the various
benchmarks, there is an emerging consensus on the key elements of
such standards.
6. The Assembly welcomes the fact that some parliaments in Europe
have already carried out self-evaluations of their performance.
Several procedures and practices have been identified by the Assembly
and could therefore be recommended to the attention of the national
parliaments which have prepared or have begun preparing standards
for parliamentary self-evaluation.
7. As is shown by the examples of assessments of parliaments,
there is rarely any question of a procedural framework. The Assembly
has therefore prepared the procedural guidelines set out below.
It invites national parliaments of the Council of Europe’s member
States to be guided by them in any rules on self-evaluation they prepare.
8. The Assembly believes that parliaments should also define
the framework in which follow-up to the recommendations made in
self-evaluation exercises can be debated and urges them to consider
the possibility of setting up steering groups, self-reflection groups
and parliamentary think tanks.
9. The Assembly also believes that the self-evaluation tools
which it intends to promote for national parliaments could be useful
in connection with the follow-up to the reform it undertook during
2011 to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of its functioning,
the coherence of its structures and the credibility and visibility
of its actions.
10. Lastly, the Assembly notes that the parliaments of some Council
of Europe member States are affected by sometimes serious democratic
failings or shortcomings. It believes that it is necessary to look
more closely at the democratic functioning of national parliaments
and draw up benchmarks and standards in this area, as a guide to
parliamentary good practice, in particular with regard to restoring
parliaments’ powers of control and the role of opposition parties,
in order to consolidate representative democracy as the foundation
of our political institutions.
Procedural guidelines for self-evaluation by national
parliaments in Europe
The following issues and questions may be taken into account
when drawing up procedural guidelines:
1 The basis for carrying out a self-assessment
is the existence of a majority of members of parliament who wish
to take specific steps to improve the quality of parliamentary inputs
and outputs in order to make parliament’s functioning more effective
and efficient.
2 Who should be able to request an evaluation (a quorum
of individual members of parliament, political groups of parliament,
bodies of parliament (bureau, conference of presidents, etc.))?
3 Which body of parliament should take the decision to carry
out a self-evaluation?
4 Should this performance assessment be done by an existing
body of the parliament, by a specially appointed body (such as an
ad hoc committee, a steering committee or an assessment panel),
by an independent panel or by a specialised non-governmental organisation
(NGO)? Or should all members of parliament participate in the evaluation
process?
5 What should be the composition of any specially appointed
parliamentary body (proportional representation of political groups,
possible inclusion of outside experts, possible appointment of a chairperson
from the opposition, etc.)?
6 In bicameral parliaments, it may be appropriate for both
chambers to participate in the self-assessment at the same time.
7 What should be the terms of reference and road map for
the organ, body or panel carrying out the evaluation (indications
concerning the contents of such terms of reference, including presentation
of proposals for the future), possible fixing of benchmarks and
tools to be applied, adaptation of any toolkits used for the specific
purposes of the parliament to be assessed?
8 Any indications concerning the form of the report on the
evaluation of the parliament.
9 To whom/which body of the parliament should the report
on the evaluation be presented (speaker of the parliament, bureau,
conference of presidents, etc.)?
10 Forms of consideration of the report (all the parliamentary
bodies and individual members of parliament quoted in the report
should be able to express their views); consultation of other parliamentary
bodies (political groups, any specialised committees).
11 The body examining the report on the evaluation of the
parliament should be able to approve conclusions (or recommendations)
on it, which should then be submitted, if possible, to the plenary.
12 Follow-up to the report and the above-mentioned recommendations,
as self-assessment is a continuous process.
