I read with interest a news published on the ISU under the title "EVOLUTION OF STANDARDS CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF PARLIAMENTS" .
Some 140 people (MPs, Secretaries General and parliamentary staff) (I do not know whether Tunisia was present or not?) Attended the October 22, 2009 in Geneva at a conference entitled Evaluating parliament: Objectives , methods, results and impact and compared their experiences in evaluating the work of Parliament. This conference was the third in a series of annual conferences organized by the IPU and the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments (ASGP).
Overall participants agreed that parliaments should periodically evaluate their transparency, accessibility and effectiveness .
Participants highlighted the following problems, which are among the main obstacles to effective control in their parliament
- lack of trained personnel to assist the committees and parliamentarians, which could translate into more serious deficiencies human resources and material, or a lack of autonomy of Parliament in drafting its own budget and its workforce, or both,
- lack of time to ensure effective review, including the budget, and no prior notification from the Executive,
- late responses, inadequate or irrelevant to parliamentary questions,
- total lack of control of unelected public bodies and appointments Key to these organs.
The use of evaluation methods to identify problems is a first step toward defining targets for reform and consolidation of Parliament. In 2010, UNDP and the World Bank Institute held a conference that will focus on the next step, namely the pooling of lessons learned from parliamentary assessment and research of commonality in the definition of what should be a democratic parliament.
All this is beautiful. It is a beautiful blah you get used to hear and read. This is nothing new.
We sought gaps and answers in the texts of constitutions, RI, and various other organic laws relating to parliamentary action. Sometimes accused the administration of incompetence (and this is true in some kind).
But have we asked the question: What is a job of an MP? a parliamentarian?
Have we verified that the members understand their tasks and duties?
Do they know why come to the parliament?
Some members think that the parliament is a place for political debate (such a debate no longer exists). Worse is the placeholder for making policy.
While parliamentary action is political action by the strength of partisan framework governing parliamentary democracy .... But parliament is primarily a space to decide for the nation. It is this last figure that everyone (almost) unknown. Because if we focus the work of a parliamentarian on this truth, things will change.