Benchmarks and Standards for
Democratic Parliaments:
An Emerging International Consensus?
____________________
Evaluating Parliament:
Objectives, Methods, Results, and Impact
Session 1: Objectives
K. Scott Hubli, NDI Director of Governance Programs
Joint IPU-ASGP Meeting
22 October 2009; Geneva, Switzerland
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
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.
“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
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
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
Overview of Efforts to Codify
Benchmarks 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)
Overview of Efforts to Codify
Benchmarks 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)
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
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.
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.
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.
Discussion:
• Experiences of parliaments with respect to selfassessment 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?