Benchmarks and Standards for Democratic Parliaments: An Emerging International Consensus? ____________________

1
Benchmarks and Standards for Democratic
Parliaments An Emerging International
Consensus? ____________________

• Evaluating Parliament Objectives, Methods,
  Results, and ImpactSession 1 Objectives
• K. Scott Hubli, NDI Director of Governance
  ProgramsJoint IPU-ASGP Meeting22 October 2009
  Geneva, Switzerland

2
Overview of Presentation

• Background and Context for the Increasing Focus
  on Normative Frameworks or Benchmarks for
  Democratic Parliaments
• Overview of Current Efforts to Articulate or
  Codify Benchmarks for Democratic Parliaments
• Opportunities and Challenges for Members and
  Staff of Parliament with Respect to Benchmarks
• Discussion Recent Parliamentary Experiences with
  Parliamentary Benchmarks/Evaluations

3
Preliminary Points on Benchmarks for Democratic
Parliaments

• No magic formula or single list of
  characteristics of democratic parliaments
  however, there does seem to be emerging consensus
  on key elements of norms and standards for
  democratic parliaments.
• The potential value of parliamentary benchmarks
  depends on ownership by, and usefulness to,
  parliaments and domestic advocacy organizations.
• Possible analogy to standards for democratic
  elections although there are multiple systems
  and design choices, there is a general
  international consensus on principles that
  transcend the type of electoral system.
• Although there is a long history of sharing
  knowledge and best practice among parliaments,
  there has been growing interest/activity in the
  idea of Benchmarks for Democratic Parliaments
  since 2006.

4
Benchmarks and Related Tools

• Benchmarks CPA, APF, SADC-PF
• Self-Evaluation Guides IPU
• Academic Indices and Rankings Fish/Kroenig PPI
• Performance Indicators and Donor Assessment
  Tools Canadian Parliamentary Centre IDEA State
  of Democracy Methodology NDI Power-Practice
  Survey Instrument etc.
• CSO Parliamentary Report Cards Parliamentary
  Report Cards in Uganda, Kosovo, others

5
Context for Recent Focus on Benchmarks for
Democratic Parliaments

• Multiple, overlapping interests in benchmarks or
  normative frameworks for evaluation of
  parliaments
• From Parliaments Renewed efforts to build
  public confidence, to build institutional
  capacity to manage increasing demands, to assert
  greater institutional independence, etc. focus
  on development and advocacy tools
• From Donors Supporting Parliamentary Development
  Need to justify expenditures on parliamentary
  development pressure for increased analytic
  rigor in evaluation focus on metrics

6
Context for Recent Focus on Benchmarks for
Democratic Parliaments

• From Academia Increased academic interest in
  legislative development as critical element in
  the democratic institutionalization focus on
  rankings of parliamentary power/effectiveness
• From Parliamentary Organizations Opportunity to
  codify decades of learning and best practice and
  to share experience of member parliaments
• From Democracy Assistance Community/Civil
  Society Increasing recognition of critical
  nature of parliaments in consolidating democratic
  systems interest in applying elections model
  for assistance (i.e., international standards
  coupled with domestic monitoring) also
  recognition of need to strengthen methodologies
  for parliamentary scorecards/watchdog groups

7
Overview of Efforts to CodifyBenchmarks for
Democratic Parliaments

• Pre-2006
• Broad range of antecedents IPU Universal
  Declaration on Democracy (1997) and related
  declarations by parliamentary organizations
  (e.g., CPA Workshop recommendations) CPA/WBI
  conferences on issue of benchmarks growth of
  indicators/tools for measuring parliamentary
  performance
• 2006
• IPU publishes Parliament and Democracy in the
  Twenty-first Century A Guide to Good Practice
• CPA Study Group on Benchmarks for Democratic
  Legislatures
• NDI publication Toward the Development of
  International Standards for Democratic
  Legislatures (2006-7)

8
Overview of Efforts to CodifyBenchmarks for
Democratic Parliaments

• 2007-2008
• Increased donor engagement (UNDP-WBI-DFID Donor
  Consultation on Parliamentary Development Wilton
  Park Conference)
• Increased number of actors (APF and SADC-PF begin
  efforts to develop benchmarks)
• Increased development of tools based on
  benchmarks (IPU publishes Self-Assessment Toolkit
  for Parliaments development of NDI survey
  instrument, etc.)
• 2009 and Beyond
• Continued development of benchmarks/ regional
  adaptation (APF version adopted CPA regional
  workshops outreach to other parliamentary
  associations)
• Fish Handbook of National Legislatures A Global
  Survey
• Stock-taking efforts (IPU-ASGP workshop LSE
  study planned 2010 global conference)
• Increased diffusion of benchmark tools and
  applications (including self-assessment tools,
  surveys, CSO engagement)

9
Example NDI Discussion Document

• Toward the Development of International Standards
  for Democratic Legislatures A Discussion
  Document for Review by Interested Legislatures
  Donors and International Organizations
• Early effort to synthesize/codify benchmarks
  based on existing declarations, recommendations,
  norms, common practice from a range of sources
  draft used as background paper for CPA benchmarks
  discussion. Very much a work-in-progress (CPA
  effort marks substantial improvement on initial
  NDI summary)
• Format of document
• Parliamentary Organization (Procedure
  Committees Party Groups and Interest Caucuses
  Staff)
• Parliamentary Functions (Law-making Oversight
  Representation)
• Values (Accessibility Transparency and
  Integrity Participation and Public Consultation)
  
• http//www.ndi.org/node/13674 (available in
  Arabic and English)
• Used as basis for survey tool to be discussed
  later today

10
Example NDI Discussion Document

• Sample benchmarks or standards proposed for
  discussion in NDI document
• Legislature shall provide adequate resources and
  facilities for party groups pursuant to a clear
  and transparent formula that does not unduly
  advantage the majority party.
• The legislature, rather than the executive
  branch, shall control legislative staff.
• The legislature shall have adequate resources to
  hire staff sufficient to fulfill its
  constitutional responsibilities. Non-partisan
  staff shall be recruited and promoted on the
  basis of merit and equal opportunity.
• The approval of the legislature is required for
  the passage of all legislation, including
  budgets.
• Legislature shall have a reasonable period of
  time in which to review the proposed budget
  (normally 3 months).
• Only the legislature shall have the power to
  determine and approve the budget of the
  legislature.
• The legislature shall approve and enforce rules
  on conflicts of interest.
• The legislature shall utilize mechanisms for
  receiving and considering public views on
  proposed legislation.

11
Uses of Benchmarks for Parliaments

• Illustrative entry points/uses for parliamentary
  benchmarks include
• facilitating parliamentary self-assessment
• helping prepare the parliamentary budget and/or
  strategic plan
• guiding a parliamentary reform process
• stimulating discussion on differences in
  parliamentary models.
• Advocacy tool for parliaments engaged in reform
  and modernization efforts, particularly in
  asserting greater independence and powers
  relative to the executive branch.
• For legislatures receiving international
  assistance, benchmarks provide a potential basis
  for cooperation/dialogue with donors and
  implementers and can provide a politically
  neutral basis for support.
• Tool for increasing international understanding
  regarding shared parliamentary challenges.

12
Issues for Parliaments with Respect to
Benchmarks

• The current debate is weighted heavily toward
  donors, implementers and academics rather than
  MPs/staff there is a continued need for
  engagement by IPU/ASGP, as well as by regional
  parliamentary associations, to lead and shape
  this debate.
• This is particularly true of benchmarks relating
  to parliamentary staff. The benchmarks cover
  parliamentary staff structure (minimum resources,
  management and recruitment, code of conduct,
  etc.) and would benefit from stronger engagement
  by ASGP
• There is growing interest in parliamentary
  ratings, in strengthening methodologies used by
  domestic parliamentary monitoring organizations
  (PMOs), and in increased donor support for PMOs.
  Parliaments obviously have a strong interest in
  shaping these developments.

13
Discussion

• Experiences of parliaments with respect to
  self-assessment tools or benchmarks?
• Thoughts on the validity of the concept of
  parliamentary benchmarks?
• Lessons learned/challenges with respect to
  parliamentary evaluations or parliamentary
  benchmarks?
• Suggestions for future development of benchmarks
  and related tools?