B Explanatory memorandum
by Mr Gross, rapporteur
1 Introduction
1.1 Origin of the report
1. In January 2009, the Bureau of the Parliamentary
Assembly referred the motion for a resolution on “Towards a model
rulebook for self-evaluation by Europe’s national parliaments” (
Doc. 11774) to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities
and Institutional Affairs for report. The motion proposed drawing up
“standards which would enable national parliaments to assess their
compliance with the requirements of a representative democracy”,
with the aim of improving the quality of parliamentary activities
and enhancing “representativeness, transparency, accountability
and plurality of national parliaments”. The motion for a resolution
also proposed giving consideration to drawing up guidelines on self-evaluation
for national parliaments in Europe, taking account of work already
done in the field.
2. Promoting self-evaluation by parliaments is, to a certain
extent, linked to the Assembly’s debates in 2007 on the state of
human rights and democracy in Europe and in 2010 on democracy in
Europe: crisis and perspectives. In its
Resolution 1547 (2007) and in the report on which it was based (
Doc. 11203), the Assembly,
inter alia, expressed
its concern about problems relating to the representativeness, transparency and
accountability of national parliaments in Europe. According to this
resolution, the decline in public interest in some “old democracies”
towards the dominant parties and parliament is not an expression
of a lack of political interest but reflects a sense of exclusion
from the political process and a critical assessment of the work of
these institutions,
Note if
not a desire to regain influence over government policies. The same
concerns were expressed more recently in the report on “Democracy
in Europe: crisis and perspectives” (
Doc. 12279 and
Resolution 1746
(2010)), in which the Assembly noted a crisis of representative
democracy, symbolised, on the one hand, by a lack of trust on the
part of the public, who were kept out of decision-making processes,
and their disaffection with democratic institutions and, on the
other, by a decline in parliaments’ role in political scrutiny;
the Assembly called for the development of a new culture of political
responsibility in terms of responsiveness and accountability, as
well as transparency.
1.2 Why evaluate the democratic
functioning of parliaments?
3. Parliamentary self-evaluation according to a clearly
established procedural framework could be one of the possible responses
to the problems raised, as a tool for identifying solutions to the
shortcomings observed in representative democracy. It is not so
much the efficiency of parliaments in the strict sense as the quality
of parliamentary work that matters here. Parliaments are often criticised
for operating like law-making machines and are frequently accused
of being rubber-stamp bodies whose members are “button pressers”.
The result is that the legitimacy of the decisions is called into
question. All essential issues which affect society should be discussed
promptly in parliaments with the necessary care and attention. “Debating”
means producing wise decisions on the basis of discussion, debate
and dialogue. No one has a monopoly on the truth, but everyone has
part of it and through combined action we come closer to the ideal.
When the opposition and other members with dissenting opinions are
properly involved in parliamentary debates on fundamental issues,
the discussions have greater legitimacy and help to integrate society.
The extent to which a parliament performs this task is an essential
criterion for assessing its quality.
4. What decision-making powers do parliaments really have? How
many laws are passed without real debate? How many parliamentary
initiatives actually end up as laws or amend existing laws? How
many opposition motions are taken into account? What resources and
how much time does a parliament have during a session to perform
its role of scrutinising government? It is this democratic reality
of the functioning of parliaments which needs to be assessed. Restoring
public confidence in representative democracy demands a renewal
of the political culture in parliaments: they must take back the
full exercise of their constitutional powers. What is an effective
parliament if not a “good” parliament: one which passes laws properly,
adopts budgets properly and makes sure that public funds are properly
used, while scrutinising government closely. This requires a good
deliberative parliament, which listens more closely to citizens
and the parliamentary opposition and is less dependent on the constraints,
in particular the time constraints, inherent in a decision-making
process designed primarily with governments in mind.
5. Several standards and toolkits for measuring parliaments’
democratic nature and performance have been developed. This report
gives an introduction to the problems involved in measuring parliamentary performance
(which is part of the more general issue of democratic audits) and
to the necessary procedural tools. It will also consider the reasons
for such assessments as well as the methods used and will give examples
of practical application, before making specific proposals.
1.3 Perspectives
6. The motion for a resolution on which this report
is based mentions “the elaboration of a model rulebook for national
parliaments, fixing basic rules of procedure helping to ensure plurality,
accountability and transparency”. There is indeed a need to look
more closely at how the parliaments of Council of Europe member
States function, to identify the failings and shortcomings and to
address them by promoting common rules for democratic parliamentary
functioning aimed, for instance, at restoring parliaments’ powers
of scrutiny or fostering the role of opposition parties. Nevertheless,
drawing up a compendium of benchmarks or standards for the democratic
functioning of parliaments applicable to the parliaments of Council
of Europe member States, or a kind of guide to good parliamentary
practice, goes beyond the actual scope of this report and could be
dealt with in a subsequent report by the Assembly.
7. In addition, during 2011, the Assembly carried out a reform
of its structures and operating methods, alongside the reform of
the Council of Europe, with a view to strengthening and improving
the effectiveness of its functioning, the coherence of its structures
and the credibility and visibility of its actions. In order to follow up
and ensure coherent implementation of the decisions taken under
the reform, the Assembly could decide to make use for its own benefit
of the self-evaluation tools which it intends promoting for national
parliaments in this report.
2 Developments towards
measuring parliamentary performance, or “how parliamentary are parliaments”
8. It is generally agreed that measurements of the degree
of democracy have gained great importance in connection with the
emergence of many new democracies since the early 1990s.
Note Alongside this development,
Note many authors have highlighted
a decline in public interest in the functioning of democracy and its
institutions. Various groups are therefore concerned about the quality
of democracy and have sought ways of improving democratic systems.
However, since there is no single definition of democracy, there
is no consensus about how democracy should be enhanced either. The
same is true for parliaments. We do not have agreed criteria for
what constitutes a “good” or a “parliamentary” parliament.
9. Since the early 1990s, however, democratic audits have been
carried out regularly, including those by
The
Economist (“Democracy Index”) and Freedom House, as well
as the Polity Index, the Vanhanen Index and many others. From a
certain point onwards, in addition to the empirical measurement
of democracy, the democratic quality of parliaments also began to
be gauged. In this connection, the efforts of the Inter-Parliamentary
Union (IPU) should be particularly underlined. The IPU has helped
to develop a shared understanding of what is meant by a “democratic
parliament”, namely to be representative, transparent, accessible,
accountable and effective in terms of legislation and holding government
to account. In 2006, the IPU published “Parliament and democracy
in the twenty-first century: a guide to good practice”.
Note
10. The above-mentioned indices (“Democracy index”, etc.) are
useful for differentiating between democratic and autocratic countries
and for analysing democracy worldwide in recent decades. However,
over the last ten years, a shift has taken place from the development
of typologies of regimes to the measurement of the qualitative aspects
of democratic regimes.
11. Furthermore, some experts such as those from ESRA (European
Survey Research Association) have proposed that opinions expressed
by citizens, their preferences and their expectations be taken into
account for the purpose of analysing the quality of democracy. This
would bring the people back into the measurement of democracy. Survey
questions assessing the evaluative abilities and policy knowledge
of citizens could provide valid indicators of responsiveness and
accountability.
3 Existing standards for measuring
the performance of parliaments
3.1 General
12. In recent years, several inter-parliamentary organisations,
with the support of international organisations such as the World
Bank Institute (WBI) and the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP), as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), have prepared
benchmarks, indicators or assessment methodologies for measuring
how parliamentary or democratic parliaments are. These tools vary
widely and their main characteristics were explained to the Committee
on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs at its
meeting in Paris on 7 September 2009 by Ms Lisa von Trapp, then
a consultant on parliamentary benchmarks for the UNDP. There are
currently three main approaches:
- collecting
examples of good practice and promoting them through a self-evaluation
toolkit for parliaments with sets of related questions;
- adopting a standards-based approach with sets of standards
or indicators that can be used by parliaments themselves or external
evaluators; such standards are useful in more specific contexts,
for example when parliaments are involved in a modernisation process,
in institutional reform, in an attempt to achieve specific goals
such as promoting gender equality or when preparing budgets;
- confining evaluation of parliamentary performance to specific
areas such as the budget procedure, applying specific indicators.
There are also additional areas of interest.
3.2 Evaluation criteria
13. The most well-known evaluation criteria are:
Note
3.2.1 Good practice/self-assessment
- evaluating parliament/self-assessment
toolkit for parliaments prepared by the Inter-Parliamentary Union;
3.2.2 Benchmarks
- recommended benchmarks
(87) for democratic legislatures/parliaments prepared by the Commonwealth
Parliamentary Association (CPA), in 2006; these concern the representative
character of parliament, its independence, effectiveness and accountability;
- criteria for evaluating the democratic reality of parliaments,
adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of La Francophonie in July
2009;
- international standards (88) for democratic legislatures
and a corresponding questionnaire using a selection of those standards
(25) aimed at parliamentarians, parliamentary staff and relevant
civil society organisations, developed by the National Democratic
Institute for International Affairs (NDI) in 2007; these concern
the structure and organisation of parliaments, the balance of powers
and public access, transparency and accountability of parliaments;
- standards for democratic legislatures of the Southern
African Development Community (SADC) Parliamentary Forum, adopted
in 2010;
- draft benchmarks of the Parliamentary Confederation of
the Americas (COPA);
3.2.3 Performance indicators (budget
process)
- parliamentary reporting
card and related indicators of parliamentary performance in the
budgetary process prepared by the Canadian Parliamentary Centre;
see also the joint publication by the Centre and the World Bank
Institute on “Parliaments that work: a conceptual framework for
measuring parliamentary performance”;Note
3.2.4 Additional areas of interest
- section on democratic
effectiveness of parliament in the state of democracy assessment
methodology developed by the International Institute for Democratic
and Electoral Assistance (IDEA);
- indicators developed by the UNDP (2001) and other donors
such as USAID;
- the Congressional Capabilities Index developed by staff
at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).
14. These standards/benchmarks/criteria strive mainly
for simplicity and user-friendliness and are, in general, to be
considered as “works in progress”. They differ in terms of method
and content and are largely complementary. As was underlined at
the meeting of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs on 7 September 2009, there is significant overlap between
the tools in terms of content, particularly with respect to the
different versions of the benchmarks. Furthermore, none of these
sets of standards and criteria is universally recognised. This was
one of the conclusions of the International Conference on Benchmarking
and Self-Assessment for Democratic Parliaments held in Paris from
2 to 4 March 2010, at which the Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs was represented.
Note The areas of consensus were mainly
procedural fairness, democratic legitimacy and representation, parliamentary
organisation and core legislative and oversight functions. Achieving
consensus remains challenging in other areas such as political financing,
parliamentary values and ethical issues.
15. Of particular importance was the publication by the IPU in
September 2008 of a self-assessment toolkit for parliaments.
Note It includes 54 questions under six
categories: representativeness of parliament; parliamentary oversight
over the executive; parliament’s legislative capacity; transparency
and accessibility of parliament; accountability of parliament; and,
lastly, parliament’s involvement in international policy. Additional questions
can be added based on the national context of parliaments. Evaluation
is based on value judgments on how a parliament measures up against
each of the criteria. The evaluator has to assign a score from 1 (minimum)
to 5 for each of the criteria. However, the scoring is not intended
to be an end in itself; rather it is a catalyst for dialogue on
the strengths and weaknesses of parliamentary performance, leading
to the identification of priorities for reform/development. No ranking
is made among any parliaments which have undergone self-evaluation.
According to the IPU, the toolkit may be used in particular for
preparing the parliamentary budget and strategic plan and to stimulate
parliamentary reform. The IPU also considers that the toolkit would
be appropriate for NGO assessments of parliaments. To back up the
toolkit, the IPU prepared a brief note for parliaments outlining
the steps in a “typical” self-assessment, even though no such thing
exists and the format has to be adapted to the needs of each parliament.
Note
16. Several standards are available which sometimes overlap and
have been applied only in a limited number of cases. Therefore:
- development of further standards
should be avoided and the existing ones should be harmonised; initiatives
to this end have already been taken;Note however,
as legislatures evolve, it is also likely that standards will evolve;
it will be important to ensure that this is done in a harmonised
manner;
- the practical testing of available standards could be
encouraged, including in the developed countries (“older democracies”),
as further performance improvements are possible in the parliaments
of all countries.Note
4 Contribution by the Committee
on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs to the reflection
on the drawing-up of future universally recognised standards
17. In its previous work, the Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs has underlined on several occasions
that what mattered for it was to promote the quality of parliaments,
in the sense of “good” rather than purely industrious parliaments.
Procedural guidelines for self-evaluation by Europe’s national parliaments
should be based on this concept. There is obviously no definition
and still less a consensus on what makes up a “good” parliament.
NoteNoteNoteNoteNoteNote
18. In this respect, the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities
and Institutional Affairs has limited itself to singling out the
following (non-exhaustive) list of subjects or examples of good
practices which should be borne in mind when drafting standards
for parliamentary self-evaluation:
- the possibility for parliament to question a minister
in a specific debate and require him or her to reply to members’
questions on its action, including a change of policy;
- the percentage of draft government legislation amended
by parliament and the percentage of bills originating from parliament
which result in legislation;
- the chances of a bill tabled by an opposition (minority)
group or a private member’s bill being debated in plenary;
- the possibilities and practices of parliaments in terms
of responding quickly to topical issues, the time within which parliaments
can arrange debates on the relevant issues;
- the action by the opposition (minority) or an opposition
group in parliament for which the quorum required is lower than
a simple majority;Note
- the possibilities for the parliamentary minority to obtain
the convening of a special sitting of parliament, or to have an
item included on the agenda;
- the ways and means for the minority in parliament to influence
the organisation of question time, parliamentary hearings, parliamentary
inquiries;
- the right of the opposition to have adopted laws checked
by the constitutional court and to submit requests to a court/board
of auditors;
- the possibility of concluding agreements between political
groups (including those of the minority) to facilitate the organisation
of plenary sessions and committee meetings;
- the ways and means of resolving any stalemate situation
in parliament between the majority and the opposition;
- the possibilities for active dialogue with citizens.
19. The above items were included in a questionnaire which was
sent to members of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities
and Institutional Affairs in 2009. The following information is
drawn from the replies received:
- In
the United Kingdom, every year 20 members can introduce a private
member’s bill and the first seven members will have the opportunity
of a whole day’s debate on their bill which may become law; in the 2008/09
session, 22 government bills were successful compared to five private
member’s bills. In 2009, six private member’s bills were introduced
in the Dutch Parliament and 204 government bills. In the Parliament
of Lithuania, 40% of all bills introduced originate from the government
and 56.4% from parliament. In Sweden, private member’s bills are
discussed in plenary (in the form of reports by the competent committees
on the bills), but there is very little chance of their being adopted.
In the Parliament of Azerbaijan, private members’ bills are debated
in plenary on the decision of the competent committee and account
for 20% to 30% of the laws passed. In Luxembourg, 25% of government
bills are amended by parliament, while between 2% and 4% of legislation
originates from private members’ bills.
- A topical debate lasting ninety minutes takes place in
the United Kingdom House of Commons every week. In the Swedish Parliament,
they can be arranged at one week’s notice. In the Dutch Parliament, such
debates can be organised at two or three days’ notice, depending
on whether the respective chamber wishes to have the debate preceded
by a letter or memorandum by the government concerning the subject
(recent subjects of topical debates included Afghanistan, road pricing,
youth care, the climate report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC)). In Lithuania, once a week two hours are
allotted for consideration in plenary of bills introduced by members;
furthermore, a thirty-minute topical debate can be held the next
day if requested by more than 10 members. The Parliament of Azerbaijan
can organise debates on topical issues at very short notice.
- Concerning active dialogue with citizens, electronic petitions
exist, inter alia, in Germany,
Lithuania and the Netherlands. A popular initiative containing a
request by at least 40 000 citizens to introduce a law on a certain
subject can be sent electronically to the Parliament of the Netherlands;
there is a link on the website of the Lithuanian Parliament “Letter
to Parliament” and any visitor to the website is able to submit such
a letter electronically. In Azerbaijan, bills are placed on the
website of parliament prior to debate in the plenary, enabling citizens
to submit their proposals; there is a threshold of 40 000 citizens
for the right to legislative initiative. In the United Kingdom,
debates in the House of Commons, the House of Lords and their committees
are broadcast live, and citizens may leave their comments online.
20. With regard to the role of the opposition, it should be noted
that the committee authored the Parliamentary Assembly report on
procedural guidelines on the rights and responsibilities of the
opposition in a democratic parliament (
Doc. 11465 rev and
Resolution 1601
(2008)). The report has been widely disseminated and was considered,
in particular, at the European Conference of Presidents of Parliament
held in Limassol (10-12 June 2010) during the discussion of good
practice with regard to the rights and responsibilities of the opposition
in parliament. The existence or absence of such good practice could
also be borne in mind as an additional standard for self-evaluation
of parliaments.
21. The committee was unanimous in considering it essential to
continue studying the question of standards for the democratic functioning
of parliaments in a further report. In particular, several members
felt that further consideration should be given to the question
of enhancement of the institutional position of parliaments and their
powers, particularly in relation to the executive. Indeed, parliaments
are faced with a dual challenge because they are in competition
both with governments, which tend to reduce the expression of democracy
to its “executive” dimension, and with citizens, who aspire to exercise
directly some of the powers vested in the parliamentary institution.
Yet the main function of parliaments is to scrutinise the government’s
policy and call it to account. Where the second point is concerned,
there is a need to review the possibilities for interaction between
parliamentarians and citizens and the (especially technological)
means available for fostering active dialogue between them and involving
citizens more fully in the decision-making process.
5 Example of efforts by a European
national parliament to improve the quality of its performance
22. In 2009, the second chamber of the Dutch Parliament
carried out a parliamentary self-reflection. This is another form
of parliamentary self-assessment.
Note
23. The first recommendation of the steering committee appointed
for the purpose refers to improving the scrutiny of legislation
and policy. Given two trends, namely the sharp rise in private members’
bills and the end of large-scale law-making operations, the steering
committee considered that a shift from law production to more systematic
scrutiny of how existing legislation was implemented would be advisable.
The aim is twofold:
- to test
the feasibility of bills during the parliamentary debate stage to
get a clearer picture of their practicability and whether there
is enough support for them;
- one year after the implementation of legislation, to entrust
temporary committees of inquiry with the task of examining how laws
and policies which have been passed work out in practice.
24. Furthermore, since January 2010, the second chamber has taken
a proactive attitude and selects topical subjects for discussion
instead of predominantly discussing government proposals. So-called
foresight studies investigate the desirability of, or need for,
new legislation or policy in response to developments in society
(for example in the field of technology or social trends). Another
recommendation by the steering committee relates to the increasing
number of emergency debates. This type of debate is a very effective
way for small political parties or groups to gain the attention
of the government and the media. While the rules governing emergency debates
would remain unchanged, it was important for MPs to use the instrument
more selectively and to be more fully aware of what could really
be expected from such debates. Further recommendations deal with
the need to give members more support and pay more attention to
guiding new MPs. Lastly, the steering committee also proposed that
due attention should be paid to the role of the second chamber when
coalition agreements were concluded – which was almost unavoidable
in a multi-party system.
25. These recommendations are of great interest and should be
borne in mind when drawing up standards for parliamentary self-assessment.
6 Methodology for application
of the existing standards
26. All the above-mentioned democratic benchmarks, indicators
and assessment methodologies allow, although in different ways,
a relatively far-reaching democratic evaluation of parliaments,
specific activities of parliaments and members and staff of parliaments.
They serve to identify strengths and weaknesses and to formulate
proposals for reform and development.
27. For these assessments, it must be recognised that, even in
Europe, the situation in parliaments is not as uniform as people
generally claim. In constitutional terms, certain European parliaments
have more rights than others, whether in terms of legislative procedure
or of scrutiny of the executive, in particular. Some European parliaments
are in crisis or in stalemate. They are criticised among other things
for a lack of professionalism, inability to conduct their legislative
business and failure to follow up on decisions.
28. The following examples of application of the existing standards
for evaluation of parliaments give a clearer picture of the range
of methodological approaches.
6.1 Parliaments in general
29. Parliaments as a whole may be assessed internally
(self-evaluation) or externally (for example by an NGO: recently,
for example, the parliaments of Andorra (IPU toolkit), “the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”,
Note Pakistan
Note and
Cambodia) and either alone or in combination with other neighbouring parliaments.
In the latter case, this may also involve a comparative assessment,
when the respective parliaments agree on what is good or bad performance.
In 2006, a “sectoral” self-evaluation was carried out in the Moldovan
Parliament. Some parliaments co-operate to improve performance.
The parliaments of the Australia-Pacific region gather once a year
to compare how well they perform their duties and exchange ideas on
the role of presiding officers and clerks.
30. Self-assessments of parliaments facilitated by the IPU and
based on the IPU toolkit have taken place in the parliaments of
Sierra Leone, Cambodia (as part of the ten-year review of the senate’s
existence)
Note and in the Rwandan Chamber of Deputies
and Senate. The Parliament of Andorra has recently used the toolkit
to assess its performance. Further such self-assessments are expected
in the near future in more parliaments both in Europe and elsewhere.
A Pakistani NGO, PILDAT, also used the IPU toolkit to evaluate the
Parliament of Pakistan. Its aim was to make parliament a more effective,
responsive and accountable institution for the people and to identify
the strong and weak points to be addressed in a reform process.
Note
31. As parliaments make public as much data as possible about
their responsibilities, functions, targets and achievements, NGOs
may easily prepare reports on their performance. PRS Legislative
Research, for example, brings out a statistical analysis of each
session of the Indian Parliament, based on the end-of-session releases
issued by the two houses of parliament.
32. Genuine third-party evaluation (for example by NGOs,
Note think
tanks, panels of experts) may not be acceptable to many parliaments
for reasons of parliamentary autonomy and tradition. Furthermore,
members are the best experts on matters concerning parliaments.
33. In this connection, it should be borne in mind that the Parliament
of Pakistan deliberately entrusted an NGO with the assessment exercise
(although the evaluation group included members of parliament) and
that the evaluations of the parliaments of the Republic of Moldova
(sectoral assessment) and of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”
were also carried out by NGOs. When parliaments ask NGOs to conduct such
“performance audits”, the contents of the terms of reference given
to the NGOs clearly take precedence over procedural provisions.
34. An interesting proposal was made during the meeting of the
Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs
in London in December 2009: in bicameral parliamentary systems,
each chamber could evaluate the other. However, it is uncertain
whether this idea will meet with much success in practice. More
realistic would be reciprocal assessment among regional or devolved
parliaments, like those of Scotland and Wales in the United Kingdom.
35. It is interesting to note that the Parliament of the Republic
of South Africa has established a “Panel for Assessment of Parliament”.
Its report of 13 January 2009 drew on research from the IPU and
WBI and addressed, among other things, the issue of parliament’s
involvement in international relations.
Note
6.2 Comparative benchmarking of
parliaments
36. In 2008, the Irish Parliament (Houses of the Oireachtas)
compiled an internal report on comparative benchmarking of parliaments,
using international key statistics from a variety of sources. The
report identifies various findings concerning sitting days, number
of parliamentary questions, ratio of parliamentary staff (administrative
and political), ratio of budget allocated per member and other issues.
Furthermore, the Houses of the Oireachtas commission agreed four
strategic commitments under the 2007-09 strategic plan, “Excellence
in Parliamentary Service”. These four commitments were serving sittings,
serving members, promoting parliament and delivering better management.
The 2008 annual report of the Irish Parliament highlights progress
achieved so far, including, where appropriate, tables measuring
the progress and satisfaction expressed by members.
6.3 Case studies (committees, budget
procedure, legislative functions, etc.)
37. Increasingly, specific bodies or features of a parliament
are evaluated, for instance the efficiency of legislative procedures
(“legislative strengthening programmes”), the committee and amendments
system
Note or the budget procedure.
38. The effectiveness of parliamentary committees in overseeing
public sector integrity activities and agencies is a key question.
Committees are also often at the heart of reform processes or improvements
in the internal functioning of parliaments.
Note In recent years, several parliaments
have granted additional financial resources to their committees
(for example in Finland) to enable them to work more actively with
regard to their relationship with ministers and the executive branch.
39. Results of this survey carried out in Australia showed that
measuring the effectiveness of parliamentary committees may prove
contentious. Some evaluators or enquiries use simple measures such
as the number and length of committee reports for their judgment.
Others, however, focus more on governmental responses to committee
recommendations. These are judged effective if more than half are
accepted and implemented.
Note Other
measurements of committee efficiency have,
inter
alia, taken account of how committees have carried out
their role of broader direction-setting.
6.4 Evaluation of individual members
of parliament
40. Another expanding type of parliamentary assessment
is the performance evaluation of individual members of parliament.
This has been promoted by the increased information technology facilities
offered by parliaments. One well-known evaluation site is the British
site “TheyWorkForYou”.
41. In October 2006, the citizens association MOST, operational
in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, and the country’s
parliament signed a memorandum of co-operation concerning the assessment of
MPs’ performance.
Note The project
was based on the presentation of data according to criteria for
evaluation determined in advance. The data were based on official
information from the Parliament of “the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia”. In addition to the data obtained from the parliament,
the project included data on MPs’ meetings with NGOs under the Mobile
Parliament project, as well as data supplied by the Office for Contact
between NGOs and the parliament. According to MOST, the overall
goal of the project was to increase members of parliaments’ co-operativeness
and their responsiveness to the concerns of citizens and to improve
the quality of their work through informing the public about the
outcome of the evaluation. At the same time, it articulated the
interest and needs of citizens and civil organisations in the process
of developing and enacting laws of the Parliament of “the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. It would appear that three performance
reports were prepared, the last in 2008.
42. In addition to the performance reports, opinion polls were
carried out at the request of MOST. In the February 2008 poll, a
representative sample of more than 1 100 citizens was asked:
- to indicate how often they watched
parliamentary sessions;
- to rank the work of parliament from 1 to 5;
- to judge the role of parliament in the decision-making
process;
- to evaluate the independence of parliament from the government
in the law-making process;
- to indicate their degree of acquaintance with parliamentary
committees;
- to judge if MPs did their job well;
- to indicate whether they had met the MP of their constituency
after his or her election.
43. In the run-up to the June 2009 elections to the European Parliament,
many articles and blogs on such subjects as “monitoring your MEP”
were published. As reported in the international press, a method
has also been developed to gather almost all the data required to
measure the performance of MEPs (see description in the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of
22 April 2009). However, there are also limits to individual assessments.
In particular, rankings of assessed members based on purely statistical
data may be problematic.
Note Without further research, for instance,
who can tell whether a member having signed a parliamentary register
of presence actually participated in parliamentary business that
day or not?
6.5 Assessment of parliamentary
administration
44. At its April 2009 session, the Association of Secretaries
General of Parliaments (ASGP) discussed administrative self-assessment
within parliaments. It decided to set up a working group to create
a version of the IPU self-assessment toolkit dedicated to the evaluation
of parliamentary administration. At the ASGP session in October
2009, the secretaries general of the chambers of three parliaments
(Algeria, Cambodia, Russian Federation) presented contributions
on administrative self-evaluation by parliaments. One of them (Algeria)
included a draft questionnaire, with a section on participation
of parliament in the interparliamentary and international arena.
45. Some national parliaments have undergone assessments of their
staff. In November 2005, the National Democratic Institute for International
Affairs (NDI) undertook a preliminary assessment of the staff of
the Moldovan Parliament by two Baltic experts.
Note The
Office of the Auditor General of Botswana has undertaken a performance
audit on the support given to the country’s parliament by the administration,
in particular concerning the parliamentary administration’s ability
to provide an economic, efficient and attentive service to members
(Report No. 7 of October 2008).
6.6 Comments
46. The above list of examples, which does not claim
to be exhaustive, indicates that the performance of only a limited
number of parliaments has been assessed so far. It would appear
that three European parliaments, namely those of Andorra, “the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and the Republic of Moldova (“sectoral”
evaluation), have been evaluated to date. In addition, the Irish
Parliament has prepared a report on comparative benchmarking of
parliaments, using the IPU toolkit. The second chamber of the States-General
of the Netherlands has carried out a parliamentary self-reflection,
following which a self-assessment steering committee presented a
set of recommendations.
7 Standards for parliamentary
performance and possible application of procedural guidelines
47. The performance of parliament is one of the essential
indicators of the state of democracy in a country. Evaluation or
self-evaluation of parliaments according to agreed benchmarks and
a clearly established procedural framework could be one of the possible
responses to the criticisms regarding the failings and shortcomings
of representative democracy. Using self-evaluation to demonstrate
the quality of parliaments and their ability effectively to address
economic and social challenges can help to stem the loss of trust
in the power and legitimacy of democratic institutions.
48. It is understood that assessing the performance of parliaments
should be voluntary and not imposed. Furthermore, such evaluation
should not be used to rank parliaments, nor should it focus solely
on the parliaments of emerging democracies. For the sake of efficiency
and objectivity, an appropriate procedural framework is required,
to which end draft procedural guidelines are proposed in this report.
49. As can be seen from the examples of assessments of parliaments
or of sectors of their activities, there is rarely any question
of rules here. However, elements to be used directly when preparing
procedural guidelines are to be found in the above-mentioned report
of the Independent Panel Assessment of Parliament (South Africa)
and in the note prepared by the IPU in March 2009 on “Carrying out
a self-assessment: presentation note for parliaments”, which identifies
nine steps/measures. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
has also drawn up a self-assessment guidance note (2009). These
elements and any procedural guidelines would in practice have to
be adapted to the needs of each parliament.
50. It remains to be seen whether the parliaments of Council of
Europe member States are ready for a self-assessment of their performance
and prepared to use, to this end, the available toolkits, indicators,
evaluation methodologies and procedural guidelines which have been
implemented in other continents.
8 Conclusions
51. This report shows that, whereas great attention is
paid to self-assessment of parliaments and the development of standards
for the purpose, there is relatively little discussion of the procedures
to be used and any rules to be drawn up. Procedural guidelines have
therefore been prepared and appended to the draft resolution presented
in this report. European parliaments intending to carry out a self-evaluation
are invited to bear them in mind for any rules they draw up.
52. As procedural guidelines have to be based on standards for
self-assessment, this report has also indirectly provided useful
information about what makes up quality parliaments rather than
purely industrious parliaments. Some of the information came from
the replies to a questionnaire sent out by the rapporteur to the members
of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs. These elements (see paragraphs 18 and 19 above) should
be made available to the respective organisations and institutions
which are currently working on standards for self-assessment by
parliaments and to parliaments concerned. The information gathered
could also be used for the Assembly’s ongoing work on the state
of democracy in Europe.
53. This activity has been one of the main priorities of the Parliamentary
Assembly since 2007. In this connection, strengthening parliaments
and assessing how democratic they are is of great importance. Undoubtedly,
the results of assessment of the performance of European parliaments
would be of great value for the Assembly’s Monitoring Committee.
54. The work of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities
and Institutional Affairs could also be put to good use by the Assembly
itself. In order to follow up and ensure coherent implementation
of the decisions taken by the Assembly under the reform of its structures
and functioning, the Assembly could decide to make use for its own
benefit of the self-evaluation tools.
Note
55. The Assembly should therefore welcome and support the initiatives
of the main organisations working on parliamentary benchmarks, indicators
or assessment methodologies: the IPU, the UNDP, the NDI, the WBI, the
Parliamentary Assembly of La Francophonie (APF), the CPA, the European
Parliament (Office for the Promotion of Parliamentary Democracy),
the Parliamentary Forum of the SADC and, most recently, the Parliamentary
Confederation of the Americas (COPA).
56. Parliaments should also define the framework in which follow-up
to the recommendations made in self-evaluation exercises can be
debated; the Assembly should therefore urge them to consider the
possibility of setting up steering groups, self-reflection groups
and parliamentary think tanks.
