GLOBAL BEST PRACTICES: A MODEL ANNUAL STATE OF THE PARLIAMENT REPORT*

A Strategic Monitoring and Reporting Tool for Promoting Democratic Parliaments Worldwide (2005)

• Contact: Professor Keith Henderson, [email protected]; [email protected] or [email protected] A number of experts from other regions made significant contributions to developing this framework, including Sandra Elena from Argentina, Violaine Autheman from France and Rosie Zigormo from Zimbabwe, as well as the Canadian Parliamentary Centre.

IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IFES Parliamentary Toolkit: Multiple Uses of the Annual State of Parliament Report 3 IFES Parliamentary Toolkit: Parliamentary Transparency and Accountability Standards 4

Abstract 5

1. Overview: Country Context and Methodology 6 a. The Functions of Parliament in the Country Context 6 b. Scope of the State of Parliament Report: the IFES Parliamentary Transparency and Accountability Standards, PTAS 8 c. Multifaceted Methodology 9

2. Relevant International and Domestic Legal and Institutional Framework 11 a. International and Regional Obligations 11 b. Constitutional Standards 12 c. Country Legal Framework 12 d. Country Institutional Framework 12

3. Assessment of the Level of Compliance with the PTAS 13 PTAS.1: Independence of Parliament 13 PTAS.2: Free and Fair Parliamentary Elections 14 PTAS.3: Transparent, Adequate Political Financing and Compensation 14 PTAS.4: Representative Parliament 16 PTAS.5: Security of Tenure 16 PTAS.6: Free Parliamentary Speech 17 PTAS.7: Participatory, Transparent Law and Decision-Making Process 18 PTAS.8: Transparent Oversight of the Executive 19 PTAS.9: Parliamentary Participation in the Formulation and Oversight of the Government’s Budget 19 PTAS.10: Parliamentary Participation in the Adoption of and Oversight of Compliance with International Obligations 20 PTAS.11: Transparent, Efficient Parliamentary Committees 21 PTAS.12: Adequate, Independent Parliamentary Budget 21 PTAS.13: Clear, Effective Conflict of Interest Rules and Standards of Conduct 22 PTAS.14: Clear, Fair, Transparent Disciplinary Rules, Procedures and Sanctions 23 PTAS.15: Parliamentary Immunity 23 PTAS.16: Parliamentary and Public Access to Information 24 PTAS.17: Adequate Facilities, Equipment and Technology 25 PTAS.18: Professional Training for Legislators and Staff 26 PTAS.19: Adequately-Compensated Research, Library and Committee Staff 27

ANNEX 1: List of Acronyms 28

2 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

ANNEX 2: Bibliography 29 ANNEX 3: Draft Indicators for Democratic Parliaments 41 ANNEX 4: Cross-Reference Table 54

3 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

IFES Parliamentary Toolkit: Multiple Uses of an Annual State of the Parliament Report

(i) Making parliamentary transparency and accountability reform a high priority; (ii) Developing broad-based coalitions and parliamentary reform strategies around a common agenda; (iii) Developing concrete action plans designed to implement prioritized legislative reforms based on regional and international best practices; (iv) Providing key stakeholders, the media and the public in general with reliable and comprehensive information on the state of the Parliament; (v) Presenting an in-depth analysis of issues related to Parliament; (vi) Presenting prioritized recommendations for the development of reform strategies; (vii) Reporting on the state of the parliament, its progress or regression in terms of transparency and accountability, and its capacity to undertake its constitutional functions, through uniform indicators and monitoring standards; (viii) Increasing ground for more parliamentary resources and donor and technical assistance; (ix) Promoting high-quality, empirical research; (x) Providing the tools for a more coordinated, strategic action among reformers, international organizations and donors; (xi) Promoting more peer pressure among all actors in the reform process; (xii) Enhancing the importance of the Parliament and the legislators; (xiii) Increasing the quality and availability of information on the Parliament; (xiv) Increasing public understanding, trust and respect for the Parliament and its members; (xv) Providing stakeholders and civil society with a tool for oversight and advocacy for reform; and (xvi) Qualifying for donor assistance through the Millennium Challenge Account and meeting terms of conditionality through the international financial institutions and development banks, and free trade and anti-corruption conventions.

4 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

IFES Parliamentary Toolkit: Parliamentary Transparency and Accountability Standards (PTAS)

The Right to Transparent and Accountable Governance: Best Practices Standards for Democratic Parliaments

1. Independence of Parliament 2. Free and Fair Parliamentary Elections 3. Transparent, Adequate Political Financing and Compensation 4. Representative Parliament 5. Parliamentary Security of Tenure 6. Free Parliamentary Speech 7. Participatory, Transparent Law and Policy-Making Processes 8. Transparent Oversight of the Executive 9. Participation in the Formulation and Oversight of the Government’s Budget 10. Participation in the Adoption of and Oversight of Compliance with International Obligations 11. Transparent, Efficient Committees 12. Adequate, Independent Parliamentary Budget 13. Clear, Effective Conflict of Interest Rules and High Standards of Conduct 14. Clear, Fair and Transparent Disciplinary Rules, Procedures and Sanctions 15. Parliamentary Immunity 16. Parliamentary and Public to Access Information 17. Adequate Facilities, Equipment and Technology 18. Professional Training for Legislators and Staff 19. Adequately-Compensated Research, Library and Committee Staff

5 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

GLOBAL BEST PRACTICES: A MODEL ANNUAL STATE OF THE PARLIAMENT REPORT

A Strategic Tool for Promoting, Monitoring and Reporting on Parliamentary Transparency and Accountability Reforms and Engendering Global Debate

ABSTRACT:

The unfolding historic democratic global transition is not sustainable without viable democratic legislatures or parliaments. The objective of this working white paper is to present a strategic monitoring and reporting framework that can be used by all stakeholders to ensure that parliaments have the capacity, independence and support necessary to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities to both the government and the people they are supposed to represent. This paper is primarily written for the benefit of and from the perspective of developing and transition countries. Towards that end, it posits that a minimal set of standards, best practices and indicators of progress has emerged from global experience during the wave of democratic reforms that has swept the world over the last several decades. While it is acknowledged that most developing and transition countries can not implement all of these standards simultaneously, for various reasons, it attempts to prioritize and link-up a set of minimal standards, among the nineteen captured, as being essential building blocks for a solid foundation upon which democracy can be built over time. The paper notes that the parliament remains a very weak sister among democratic institutions in virtually all developing and transition countries and it notes that this essential democratic institution needs much more attention and support from reformers, officials, civil society and the international community.

6 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

GLOBAL BEST PRACTICES: A MODEL ANNAUL STATE OF THE PARLIAMENT REPORT

A Strategic Tool for Promoting, Monitoring and Reporting on Parliamentary Transparency and Accountability Reforms and Engendering Global Debate

1. Overview: Country Context and Methodology

a. The Functions of Parliament in the Country Context

“Parliament is the institution that embodies society in the diversity of its composition and its opinions and which relays and channels this diversity in the political process. Its vocation is to regulate tensions and maintain equilibrium between the competing claims of diversity and uniformity, individuality and collectivity, in order to enhance social cohesion and solidarity. Its role is to legislate, inter alia by allocating financial resources, and oversee the action of the Executive.” IPU Guidelines1, Number II4

The international consensus recognizes five broad and basic functions to Parliaments, namely:

Policymaking; Lawmaking; Oversight of the Executive; Constituency representation; Political recruitment.2

The three most important functions are the representative, the lawmaking and the oversight roles.3

In order to monitor the state of the Parliament as a way to undertake reforms to strengthen institutional capacity and independence, an analysis of compliance with standards of parliamentary structure and activity must be undertaken within the specific country context. The analysis of the country-specific context must include:

• Political background; • Constitutional and international rights and obligations; • Relationships between the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary; • Public perception and public access to Parliament; and • Socioeconomic, cultural and traditional context.

1 Inter-Parliamentary Union: Guidelines on the Rights and Duties of the Opposition in Parliament, Libreville (Gabon), 17-19 May 1999 2 Id. 3 USAID Handbook on Legislative Strengthening, page 1 Executive Summary, Center for Democracy and Governance, February 2000

7 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Political Background: Key Issues

Assessment of the form of government: presidential, premiership or others; Key developments relevant to the independence and capacity of Parliament; Assessment of the level of political will to effect parliamentary reform and level of political space allowed by the Executive for reform; The relationship between the government and the opposition parties in Parliament; and The level of party discipline and control of legislators and parliamentary Committees.

Constitutional and International Rights and Obligations: Key Issues

Constitutional design: attribution and scope of each of the three branches of government; Key constitutional and legal provisions designing the shape and functions of the Parliament; Practices that may differ or go beyond legal provisions affecting the Parliament; and International standards and obligations related to parliamentary matters.

Relationship between Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary: Key Issues

Historical relationship between the three branches of government; Role of the Parliament, in practice, as it relates to the other two branches; Oversight powers of Parliament over the other two branches of government, both under the law and in practice; Overlapping functions between the three branches of government; Independence of the Parliament from the Executive; and Intra-parliament and inter-institutional relations.

Public Perception and Public Access to Parliament: Key Issues

Public image of Parliament, its members and the parliamentary process; Public trust of Parliament; Degree of interaction between Parliament and civil society: the existence of a institutional relations office, a periodic publication to inform regarding parliamentary issues, a parliamentary TV channel, etc.); Citizens’ capacity to initiate bills; Openness of parliamentary meetings and committee hearings; Percentage of meetings commonly open to the public; Frequency of citizen attendance to public meetings; Media coverage of parliamentary issues; and Reaction of the Parliament to public perception.

8 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Socio-Economic, Cultural and Traditional Context: Key Issues

Analysis of the socioeconomic situation (i.e. class structure, wealth distribution, prevalence of patterns of corruption) Traditional role of Parliament; Traditional status of legislators; Role of political parties in recruiting and expressing cultural demands; and Degree to which cross-cutting issues such as religion and gender affect the composition of the Parliament.

b. Scope of the State of Parliament Report: the IFES Parliamentary Transparency and Accountability Standards, PTAS4

This paper presents and explains 19 Parliamentary Transparency and Accountability Standards (PTAS) around which an Annual State of Parliament (SOP) report may be developed. The PTAS are, in part, based on the overarching separation of powers principle, which means that a democratic legislature should be an independent institution with the capacity, resources and governmental and public support to perform its constitutional duties, such as lawmaking, government oversight and constituency representation, in a transparent, accountable manner. The standards cover a broad range of transparency and accountability issues highlighting the rights and obligations of both the institution as well as its members. This model framework presents a set of core standards guiding the design of a democratic Parliament, including a targeted set of minimal standards that are designed to establish the foundation for democratic governance and broader, sustainable reforms.

The minimal standards are based largely upon consensus global standards and practices found either in international law or actual democratic global experience. This approach acknowledges the fact that most emerging democracies cannot simultaneously implement all of the nineteen (19) standards, and that some are more crosscutting and fundamental than others. While more debate needs to occur on the minimal principles approach, one of the purposes of this paper is to engender this debate by placing them on the global discussion table. In effect, the paper advances the notion that these standards should be priority reforms in all transition countries, and it encourages the inclusion of other priority standards within differing country contexts.

These crosscutting minimal standards we would like to center the global debate on are PTAS 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16. While the other standards are clearly very important, implementing these alone in most transition countries will be a very tall task. It is also worth noting that these standards also capture some of the others that are closely inter-related, such as PTAS 16-19, which are all contingent on having an adequate parliamentary budget (PTAS 12).

4 The Parliamentary Transparency and Accountability Standards are based on the overarching principle of Parliamentary independence distinct from the Executive and Judiciary arms of government; and cover issues of transparency and accountability of the institution as well as the members.

9 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

The PTAS emerged after a thorough review of international and regional governmental and non-governmental declarations, standards, guidelines and standards (cited in Annex 2).

This review included in-depth analysis of relevant papers, studies, country and regional surveys and best practices, including the work of Parliamentary Associations such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Canadian Parliamentary Centre, the European Parliament, and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. IFES is now refining the framework in close consultation with a number of these organizations, as well as the Consumer Rights Commission of Pakistan, where we are developing a report for possible replication throughout the region.

IFES also reviewed the considerable research and experience of a number of governmental institutions, such as the World Bank, the National Democratic Institute, UNDP, USAID, the OSCE and the OECD. The PTAS are not intended to duplicate the work undertaken by these organizations and others. Rather, they constitute an attempt to identify consensus Standards which should be found in any democratic Parliament, and to present them in a systematic framework.

Thus, the PTAS can be used as the backbone for drafting annual, country-specific SOP Reports. The model framework for SOP Reports constitutes a component of the IFES Parliamentary Toolkit designed to help civil society and Parliament monitor, report on and promote parliamentary transparency and accountability. By reporting and monitoring progress against a core set of benchmarks and consensus Standards, a SOP Report will assist a diverse range of civil society and governmental stakeholders to prioritize a parliamentary reform agenda in a systematic manner. The SOP Report is intended to assess the effectiveness of Parliaments in emerging democracies, but also to equip multiple civil society and governmental stakeholders with the information necessary to prioritize and implement parliamentary transparency and accountability reforms.

The IFES PTAS and model SOP Framework are grounded in:

• International and regional consensus Standards and best practices of Parliamentary transparency and accountability; • Core international, regional and constitutional obligations; • A general overview of the relevant country legal and institutional framework.

c. Multifaceted Methodology

The model SOP framework is designed to lay out the standards and the methodology necessary to assess the transparency, accountability and performance of Parliaments around the world against a set of core benchmarks grounded in international and regional best practices. The framework captures consensus Parliamentary Transparency and Accountability Standards (PTAS) identified in a series of international and regional treaties, declarations, guidelines and practices related to the parliamentary structure and

10 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework responsibilities. In identifying the PTAS and the framework, we sought to include a variety of sources representing a broad consensus. The sources are listed in annex.

Each of the consensus PTAS was disaggregated into qualitative and quantitative indicators.5 Indicators designed to assess the level of compliance with each PTAS are a core element of the framework. The use of indicators is necessary to obtain a clear picture of where improvements are needed and which achievements and shortcomings affect the Parliament. These indicators are not designed to stigmatize countries in comparison to others. While the use of a uniform framework and measurements based on indicators will allow for some degree of comparison, each Parliament evolves in a set of country- specific circumstances. Compliance with the PTAS within a given country-context is the objective of our endeavor.

Identifying the PTAS and disaggregating them into indicators is an evolving process. Standards are slowly emerging as national stakeholders gather in the international arena in search of guidelines to improve independence and efficiency. Like new standards emerging, indicators can continuously be refined to clarify the contents of each PTAS. Standards without indicators are empty concepts which can be interpreted in many different ways depending on the author of the report. Indicators help define the PTAS and provide a concrete guide for the assessment of compliance. The draft indicators are available in a separate attached document.

The framework is built around the need to implement and link up key reforms embedded in the PTAS. Each country report is developed through a multifaceted methodology that incorporates an array of information resources necessary to assess the level of PTAS compliance: (i) desk studies of all relevant laws, institutions and international obligations; (ii) analysis of existing best practices, country studies and research; (iii) interviews and surveys of experts and key stakeholders; and (iv) analysis of the operation of Parliament in practice. The PTAS and their accompanying indicators serve as the guideposts with which to measure implementation progress or regression on a periodic basis.

While all the PTAS are important and their relevance in the country context varies, IFES’ working assumption for each report is that certain mutually supportive principles are essential to establishing the legal enabling environment necessary to build an independent, accountable Parliament and a Rule of Law culture. We also believe that for purposes of capturing global issues, lessons learned, model programs across borders, it is also important for all country reports to uniformly cover a specific set of standards.

5 We chose the term “indicator” because is the most commonly used in the literature on similar topics, and we recognize its value. In fact, we intend to describe and analyze the state and performance of the Parliaments through what can also be called “search questions” that will allow to look to the Parliaments uniformly. Having indicators will bring coherence and systematization to the national SOP reports.

11 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Compiling a National SOP Report

The framework was created to serve both as: (i) a tool for civil society to monitor parliamentary activity and identify spaces for improvement and participation; and (ii) a tool for legislators to assess their own institution. Each report should be compiled with the following in mind:

Combining a civil society evaluation and a parliamentary self-evaluation will lead to a better report; Sharing information with civil society will be a first step towards strengthening collaborative partnerships between Parliament and the people; The indicators will provide two sorts of data: (i) quantitative data such as how many legislators, timing of elections, number of commissions, etc.; and (ii) qualitative data on the performance of Parliament through an analysis of the processes of parliamentary life; and The PTAS cover to three key aspects of parliamentary operations and activity, transparency, accountability and efficiency.

Assessment of the level of compliance with each PTAS is guided by an examination of relevant laws and practices identified through a survey of legislation and interviews of key stakeholders. There are three degrees of compliance:

• Formal compliance (laws and decrees); • Compliance in practice (effective implementation of laws and decrees as well as of constitutional and conventional principles); and • Quality and integrity of the compliance in practice (fair implementation for all).

The Report outlines, in the country context, the legal and institutional framework within which the judiciary operates. The indicators serve as guideposts for the analysis of the level of compliance with each PTAS. This analytical process will lead to an overall judgment as to whether there is a “satisfactory”, “partially satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” JIP compliance, with the possible nuance of “improving” or “regressing” and to present prioritized reform recommendations.

2. Relevant International and Domestic Legal and Institutional Framework a. International and Regional Obligations

IFES has examined various documents relating to the relevant international and regional governmental and non-governmental declarations, Standards, best practices and guidelines on issues of parliamentary independence, transparency and accountability. Each annual, country-specific SOP Report should present a list of relevant, applicable international and regional obligations, including:

Declarations on democracy and parliamentary independence, and best practices, guidelines and Standards by international and regional Parliamentary

12 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Associations, e.g., the Commonwealth Latimer House Standards, the IPU Declaration on Democracy; International and regional human rights treaties and human rights court and commission case law, e.g. the Universal Declaration of Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN High Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2000/47; and Non-governmental guidelines.

b. Constitutional Standards

Each annual, country-specific SOP Report should outline the constitutional Standards related to the separation of powers and parliamentary independence, including:

The guarantees of parliamentary independence, lawmaking powers and other key Standards; The roles of parliamentary committees and of party caucuses; The powers to develop, amend, or review budget and levy taxes; The power to question Ministers, hold hearings, conduct investigations and call witnesses; The power to appoint and/or confirm candidates to high-level positions in the other branches of government; The power to access information about government activities and programs.6

c. Country Legal Framework

In presenting the legal framework, each annual, country-specific SOP Report should include a review of the relevant, applicable legislation and regulations affecting parliamentary transparency and accountability, such as:

The institutional structure of the Parliament; Standing Rules of Order; Parliamentary internal regulatory framework; Access to information legislation; Anticorruption legislation; Political party campaign financing regulations; and Parliamentary Codes of Ethics and conflict of interest rules.

d. Country Institutional Framework

In presenting the institutional framework, each annual, country-specific SOP Report should present a review of the relevant institutional characteristics affecting the Parliament, such as:

Intra-parliamentary structures: bicameral/unicameral, Committees, support services, etc;

6 USAID Handbook on Legislative Strengthening, page 15

13 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Extra-parliamentary structures and governmental relationships: Ombudsman, political parties, Ministry of Justice, civil society organizations with watchdog role; and Oversight mechanisms.

3. Assessment of the Level of Compliance with the PTAS

For each of the PTAS, this Model Framework for an annual SOP Report will present:

• Guidelines based on international and regional standards and best practices; and • Indicators to monitor the level of compliance or non-compliance.

PTAS.1: Independence of Parliament

Institutional Independence: Separation of power Standards mandate a Parliament independent from the other two branches of government, the Executive and the Judiciary. This independence must translate itself into freedom from external pressure and interference. In the exercise of its functions, Parliament should be subject only to the Constitution and the law. CLHP; ECOWAS- P; UPA-Res/00

The institutional independence of Parliaments rests in the doctrine of separation of powers. This doctrine is widely accepted internationally as a tenet of democratic societies and is now formally recognized in the Constitutions of most countries.7 The separation of powers is either expressly mandated in the Constitution, or a document having constitutional value; or it is found in the practical organization of the three powers.8

Parliament must also be free to legislate and introduce legislation; otherwise it is relegated to a rubber-stamping institution for the Executive. Finally, Parliament must be entrusted with the freedom to organize itself, to decide on its own rules of procedures and the proceedings for parliamentary bodies.

The principle of independence has broader implications. Indeed, it is now agreed that independence must be recognized to not only Parliament as an institution but also to legislators in the exercise of their functions. Both the institution and its members must be free from undue interference and external controls emanating of the other branches of government, the Executive and the Judiciary, as well as from forces within society such as political parties, the private sector, the media and others. Indeed, interferences would

7 ASGP Report dated September 1998 by Michael Couderc: The Administrative and financial autonomy of Parliamentary Assemblies, page 1 (found at www.asgp.info/publications.htm ). The report states that exceptions to this general rule appear the Cyprus, Kenya and Switzerland Parliaments. 8 Ibid. Most countries now have adopted Constitutions, but there are some noteworthy exceptions such as the United Kingdom.

14 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

render impossible the exercise of the core functions of Parliament: lawmaking and oversight.

In order to be independent, legislators must be able to discharge their duties without fear for their physical security or the well being of their families and staff. This principle requires the State to provide security services for legislators and to secure the House of Parliament.

PTAS.2: Free and Fair Parliamentary Elections

Parliamentary Elections: The process of the election of members of Parliament should be open and transparent, allowing for full citizen participation, and free of coercion, fraud or violence. CLHG; CSCE-CD; ECOWAS-P; IPU-DD; IPU-Res/03; UNHCHR; UPA-Res/00

The right of everyone to take part in the government of his/her country is expressed through the right to freely choose representatives. Parliaments differ in the manner and types of election held to elect members. There is an international consensus on the need to provide voting rights for all citizens on the basis of universal, equal and secret suffrage so that all voters can choose their representatives in an environment conducive to equality and political competition. The different systems include direct and indirect; proportional versus single constituency. The IPU Declaration on Democracy notes that holding free and fair elections which allow the expression of the people’s will at regular intervals is a key element of democracy. This Standard is seen as the best way of guaranteeing representative democracy.

Whatever the system used, elections of legislators must be organized following an open and transparent process. There must be full citizen participation, without a suggestion of manipulation. Legislators should not be required to run for office exclusively under the nomination of a Political party.

PTAS.3: Transparent, Adequate Political Financing and Compensation

Political finance: The fight against corruption requires the adoption of clear rules for transparent political financing of legislators, their campaigns and their political organizations need to be adopted. These rules should include transparent compensation as well as the disclosure of campaign account, income and assets of legislators. Anticorruption Treaties.

Adequate compensation: Legislators should receive adequate salaries and benefits which are comparable to those of equivalent positions in the other branches of government and private sector. CLHG; IPU-DD

The financing of any parliamentary candidate by his her political party should be transparent and there should be clear, written rules and regulations on the types of political financing which are impermissible and illegal, and those which are permitted and legal.

15 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

• Clear rules for political party and campaign financing – these rules should foster financial transparency and integrity. • Income and asset disclosure requirements. • Oversight by an independent authority (internal, i.e. Parliamentary Committee, or external) and publication of information.

To the extent possible, political parties and parliamentary candidates should be required to place all contributions above a certain limit in official bank accounts and use these accounts for all campaign expenditures. Official bank accounts are accounts which are fully documented and disclosed. Disclosure requirements should cover all income; assets; and expenditures related to the campaign and should be made to an independent official agency. Uniform and reliable software will help monitor all income and expenditure during political campaigns. The independent official agency should verify and report on the parliamentary campaign finance data. Additional independent verifications and reports should be undertaken by civil society to avoid collusion.

A serious problem in many countries has been the use of parliamentary resources, such as office space, staff time, or funds, by incumbents. This is a practice which should be seriously discouraged, or even outlawed, as it constitutes a misuse of funds by parliamentarians.

Legislators should also be adequately compensated for their work. Compensation includes both their salary and any additional benefit granted to workers. The adequacy of compensation will be assessed in comparison with the cost of living and the compensation-level of senior officials in the Executive, judiciary and private sector. Due to high turnover in parliamentary office, an appropriate compensation level is important to attract high-quality people and to shield legislators from outside pressure.

Pension entitlement by virtue of office is a widely recognized right in most Parliaments, independently of the diversity of the methods and procedures chosen to implement it. A number of other countries in which no recognized pension scheme currently exists for Legislators have indicated that this subject is currently under review (Egypt, Lesotho, Nigeria, Thailand). The great majority of legislators today benefit from social security (sickness, maternity, invalidity, death and industrial injury insurance) coverage while in office. This is, for the most part, organized within the framework of the common labor rights legislation of each country.9

Transparency regarding all amounts received by legislators as compensation is necessary to promoting parliamentary accountability and ethics. Legislators, and if possible their dependents, should be required to disclose all their incomes; assets; and relevant interests to an independent official agency. The public should have an opportunity to access information about the salaries and other benefits of the legislators whom they have elected. Like with parliamentary campaign finance, uniform and reliable software will

9 Helene Ponceau, AGSP Report, April 2001. This report is based on a questionnaire of the Association of General Secretaries of Parliaments approved at the Berlin session in October 1999 and sent to 56 countries.

16 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

help monitor the disclosures and verification and reporting by the independent official agency as well as civil society will foster more transparency and accountability.

PTAS.4: Representative Parliament

Broad-Based Representation: An inclusive, fully representative Parliament across gender, ethnicity, political affiliation, religion, etc. is one of the main tenets of a democratic society. CLHG; CSCE-CD; ECOWAS-P; IPU-GD; IPU-Res/03; UNHCHR; UPA-Res/00

There is increasing consensus at the international level that democratic institutions must be representative of the diversities of society. Parliament should therefore be composed of a broad cross-section of society, including members of different genders, ethnicity, political affiliation, religion, etc. Diversity in institutional membership echoes the Standards enshrined in the numerous conventions against discrimination which have been ratified in the past decades.10

A broad-based representative Parliament will contribute to the promotion of the right of everyone to take part in government and of all interests to be given expression. As noted by the IPU in its Declaration on Democracy, “Democracy is founded on the right of everyone to take part in the management of public affairs; it therefore requires the existence of representative institutions at all levels and, in particular, a Parliament in which all components of society are represented and which has the requisite powers and means to express the will of the people by legislating and overseeing government action.”

Some countries have taken additional steps to encourage participation by marginalized groups, such as women or minorities. For example, in Pakistan, quotas for gender participation were established: 33% quota in direct elections (local) and 17% quota in indirect national elections (legislature and senate). Women membership in the legislature is currently at 21%, slightly above the mandatory quota.

PTAS.5: Security of Tenure

Security of tenure: “Security of Members during their Parliamentary term is fundamental to Parliamentary independence”. CLHG; CSCE-CD

The legitimacy of Parliament rests on the fact that its membership is rooted in the will of the people who chose representatives in periodic elections. In order to guarantee that their will is respected, the term of office of legislators must be respected. Certain classes of legislators may have life terms (cite House of Lords, other examples), but most legislators are elected for fixed terms. Exceptionally, the tenure of legislators may be terminated, but such mechanisms must be narrowly defined and follow clear, transparent

10 See, for example, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [CERD] (1965) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women [CEDAW] (1979)

17 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

legal procedures. This may be the case for immunity waivers in case of criminal offences committed by a legislator or of dissolution of parliament by the executive.

The CLHG lists three requirements to protect the security of tenure of legislators in its guideline number 2: “ (a) The expulsion of members from Parliament as a penalty for leaving their parties (floor-crossing) should be viewed as a possible infringement of members’ independence; anti-defection measures may be necessary in some jurisdictions to deal with corrupt practices; (b) Laws allowing for the recall of members during their elected term should be viewed with caution; as a potential threat to the independence of members; (c) The cessation of membership of a political party of itself should not lead to the loss of a Member’s seat.”

PTAS.6: Freed Parliamentary Speech

Freedom of Speech: The true expression of democracy lies in the right to free speech. This should not just be a right guaranteed to the general public, but legislators also must be free from censorship and defamation laws that restrict the right to criticize government, thereby curtailing parliamentary oversight of the Executive. Banjul; CLHG; CLHP; CPA-Media; CPA-Rec/03; ECHR; IACHR; ICCPR; IPU-GD; IPU-DD; UPA-Res/00

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) expressly states in article 19(1) that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. Article 19(2) guarantees the right to freedom of expression and broadens it to include the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of choice. These rights are not absolute and may be restricted under specific circumstances as outlined in article 19(3).

Most international human rights instruments provide that every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law. Other instruments recognize the right of freedom of expression as an inalienable fundamental right. Free speech rights should entitle legislators to: • Put written and oral questions to members of the government and receive answers to these questions. The opposition in Parliament should also be entitled to speaking time proportionate to its numbers in sittings set aside for oral questions; • Request documents and receive such documents in a timely manner.

National security concerns constitute one of the main reasons why governments restrict freedom of expression. Freedom of expression should not be restricted on public order or national security grounds unless there is a real risk of harm to a legitimate interest and there is a causal link between the risk of harm and the expression.

18 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Defamation laws are a serious concern for legislators when seeking to protect or exercise their freedom of expression rights. Legislators should be free from improper pressures in the discharge of their functions. These improper pressures can be in the form of criminal laws and the use of defamation proceedings restricting legitimate criticism of the government by legislators. Criminal defamation laws need to be carefully reviewed. Similarly, the defense of qualified privilege with respect to reports of parliamentary proceedings should be drawn as broadly as possible to permit full public reporting and discussion of public affairs, and offence of contempt of Parliament should be drawn as narrowly as possible. There is a need to achieve a balance between the free speech rights of Legislators vis-à-vis the government and the public’s right of free speech vis-à-vis the Parliament.

PTAS.7: Participatory, Transparent Law and Decision-Making Processes

Parliamentary Processes: Parliament must be open, transparent and accountable to the public in its lawmaking and policymaking functions. In this regard, the free flow of information from Parliament to its members and the public, as well as avenues for effective public participation, is fundamental to a democratic Parliament. CLHG; CLHP; ECOWAS-P; IPU-GD; IPU-Res/03; UPA-Res/00

Law and policy-making are the primary responsibilities of Parliament as the elected body representing the people. The Executive may initiate laws and policies and the Judiciary may be constructive and purposive in the interpretation of legislation, neither must be seen as usurping Parliament’s legislative function. Ultimately, only the Parliament is entitled to adopt laws for the country. Consequently, legislators should be encouraged to adopt national policies and laws through open processes which allow for consultation and citizen participation.

Parliamentary processes must be not only transparent but also participatory. Participation starts with the right to form democratic political parties, and entails the need for transparent and fairness in the electoral process, including through appropriate access to funds and free, independent and pluralistic media.

Transparent decision-making and law-making processes create ownership in governance by the public, which is necessary in a democratic society. The Parliament should implement efficient mechanisms to allow and encourage public participation in the different stages of the law making process. From the moment that Parliament receives a bill from the Executive or from the moment a bill is drafted by a committee, civil society representatives should have a voice and be consulted. Civil society participation will add a fresh look and ensure a better response to community needs. Legislators will benefit from input and the resulting laws will better reflect real needs and local buy-in. Committees meetings and parliamentary sessions should be usually open to the public. Information on meetings and final decisions should be broadly disseminated.

Parliament should be consulted by the government on important questions affecting the life of the nation: war, national security, human rights, economic policy, social rights,

19 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework labor markets, etc. This will enable the opposition to take part in the debate and provide its input to the decision-making process. The opposition must also be able to raise matters regarding the Constitution with a view to its amendment.

PTAS.8: Transparent Oversight of the Executive

General Oversight: One of the core functions of Parliament is to provide a continuous check on the activities of the Executive. In performing this oversight function, Parliament must follow transparent procedures and respect strict standards of accountability. CLHG; CLHP; IPU-GD; UPA-Res/00

The separation of powers not only means that each branch of government is independent from the other two, but also that mechanisms of checks and balances are in place to avoid abuses and encroachments. To that end, the Parliament is traditionally entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing the activities of the Executive. The Executive, as Parliament, must follow high standards of accountability, transparency and responsibility in the performance of its duties. Parliament is responsible for ensuring that these standards are met and for providing adequate mechanisms to challenge the Executive for failure to meet these standards.

Oversight may take place in the form of periodic questions to the government in a parliamentary sessions or investigations undertaken by parliamentary commissions or votes of confidence/non-confidence. Parliamentary procedures should be transparent and allow for public scrutiny. Governments should be required to announce publicly, within a defined time period, their responses to committee investigations.

PTAS.9: Parliamentary Participation in the Formulation and Oversight of the Government’s Budget

Budget Design and Oversight: Parliament is traditionally responsibly for adopting the national budget. There is a growing international consensus that Parliaments around the world need to make maximum use of existing processes for exerting influence in national budget control, scrutiny and accountability. IPU-Res/03; UPA-Res/00

Parliament must have a certain amount of authority to affect the budget; otherwise, its role in establishing national policy and representing citizen interests will remain limited.11 Involvement should extend beyond budget approval and include budget formulation, tracking and accountability. Unless it has substantial involvement beyond approval, Parliament will do no more than rubberstamp the Executive’s budgetary and policy decisions. To promote more accountability in government, Parliament should be entitled to monitor income and expenditures, especially how effectively government programs and activities are administered.

11 USAID Handbook

20 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Parliamentary procedures should, therefore, provide adequate mechanisms to oversee the Executive, including accountability mechanisms targeted at budget development, effective money flows, budget implementation, etc. This can be achieved by allowing independent audits of public accounts, establishing that the opposition will chair the Public Accounts Committee, or a combination of the mechanisms and/or others.

PTAS.10: Parliamentary Participation in the Adoption of and Oversight of Compliance with International Obligations

International Obligations and Parliament: International treaties carry a general obligation for signatory States to ratify and to adopt all necessary measures for their implementation. Both functions should fall on Parliament. CLHG; CLHP; IPU-Res/03

The need for governments to respect their international law obligations has become more urgent post World War II, particularly as inter-State conflicts are on the rise. Legislators as law makers and representatives of the people need to be more proficient in their knowledge and understanding of human rights and humanitarian law instruments, including those relating to economic, social and cultural rights.

In a 2000 Declaration, the Conference of Presiding Officers of National Parliaments outlined the four inter-connected levels of intervention for Parliaments in relation to international obligations:

• “Influencing their respective countries’ policy on matters dealt with in the United Nations and other international negotiating forums; • Keeping themselves informed of the progress and outcome of these negotiations; • Deciding on ratification, where the Constitution so foresees, of texts and treaties signed by governments; and • Contributing actively to the subsequent implementation process.”12

Parliaments play a central role in adjusting domestic law to international standards. According to the legal systems of many countries, Parliaments are not only the bodies entitled to ratify international obligations, but also the ones responsible for adopting the necessary implementing legislation. Many international treaties, particularly those related to human rights, the environment, gender and corruption, require that States parties adjust their national legislation to match the minimum standards laid out in the treaties. For example, United Nations Convention against Corruption (2004) is explicitly applicable to legislators. Indeed, its scope covers “public officials” who are defined as including any person holding parliamentary office in a State party. Compliance with this provision and others often requires the adoption of legislation. Conventions generally include explicit requirements for the adoption of new laws by national Parliaments:

12 Conference of Presiding Officers of National Parliaments organized by the IPU in cooperation with the UN. Declaration adopted by at UN Headquarters, New York, 30 August – 1st September 2000.

21 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

• The United Nations Convention against Corruption (2004) establishes that each State party should develop and implement anti-corruption policies; • The Inter-American Convention against Corruption (1996) requires in its article VII the adoption by State parties of all “necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offences under their domestic law the acts of corruption described in Article VI(1) and to facilitate cooperation among themselves pursuant to this Convention.”

As guardians of the Constitution, legislators have an obligation to protect the human rights of people. This obligation is reinforced by the requirement to comply with international and regional human rights treaties. This obligation to protect and legislate in support of human rights should lead to increased oversight by Parliament in areas in which the Executive has traditional exercised blanket discretionary powers, such as national security. There has been a growing consensus on the need to shift focus away from military security to broader factors of “human security”, such as environmental, economic, social as well as political.13

PTAS.11: Transparent, Efficient Parliamentary Committees

Parliamentary Committees: The legislative and oversight functions of Parliament are actually undertaken by Parliamentary Committees, the powers and structures of which differ from country to country. It is essential for these committees to be properly structured and well funded to enable them to be effective in discharging Parliament’s legislative and policy making functions. CLHG; CPA-Media; CPA-CP; CPA-Rec/03; CPA-REc/04; IPU-GD

Committee structures may vary depending on the size of Parliament, its constitutional mandate and other country-specific factors. However, all committees should have adequate resources, both human and financial, and have the power to summon witnesses, including ministers, as necessary to fulfill their mission. Committee meetings should be generally open and allow for public attendance and participation. Committee reports should be published and made readily available to both the government and the public.

PTAS.12: Adequate, Independent Parliamentary Budget

Parliamentary Budget: It is the duty of the State to provide adequate resources to enable Parliament to perform its functions properly. CLHG

Parliamentary independence and effectiveness to carry out its functions is eroded when Parliament lacks control over its own budget or has inadequate finances to manage its committees and carry out various other internal, administrative duties.14 Parliament

13 IPU and the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF): Parliamentary Oversight of the Security Sector: Standards, Mechanisms and Practices by Hans Born, Philipp H. Fluri & Anders B. Johnsson, page 16 (Found at http://www.dcaf.ch/publications/e-publications/Handbook_eng/ ) 14 Indeed, without adequate resources for the training of new members; secretarial, office, library and research facilities; drafting assistance for bills, etc., Parliament is handicapped.

22 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

should be able to design its own budget based on its needs and negotiate with the Executive the amount allocated to it from the national budget. There should be sufficient autonomy over these finances by Parliament to protect the institutional independence and integrity.

It has been suggested that an all-party committee of members of Parliament should review and administer the parliamentary budget. Moreover, the parliamentary budget should not be subject to amendment by the Executive.15 It is the Parliamentary budget that, inter alia, funds training of parliamentary support staff; ensures that library and research facilities are properly and adequately equipped; guarantees that legislators have the necessary support staff to undertake their functions; and funds security services.

PTAS.13: Clear, Effective Conflict of Interest Rules and High Standards of Conduct

Parliamentary Conduct: Legislators are required to exhibit and promote high standards of professional conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in Parliament which is fundamental to its independence and legitimacy in a democratic society. ANTICORRUPTION TREATIES; CLHG; CLHP

The CLHG outline three components for a comprehensive ethical framework applicable to Parliament: • Conflict of interest rules and codes of conduct requiring disclosure of interests; • Access to ethics advisors; and • Restrictions on lobbying and interest group influence.

Ethical professional conduct requires legislators not only to conform to high standards of ethics in practice but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The need for financial transparency by public officials has increasingly gained acceptance as anti-corruption issues have become global. Legislators’ professional and private conduct must be subject to some system of internal codified rules regulating standards of behavior and making disclosure of personal income and assets mandatory. Other professions have codes of ethics regulating members’ behavior; for example, doctors and lawyers.

Ethical rules should include conflict of interest rules outlining incompatible professional activities or interests, such as holding another governmental office, and restricting certain ventures, such as participation or shareholding in corporations. These rules should also require the submission to an independent oversight authority of disclosures of income, assets and interests. These disclosures should then be publicized for broader ethical monitoring by the public. Disclosure of interests will go a long way in establishing institutional integrity, trust and respect by the public and effective discharge of duties on the part of legislators as they are fully conscious of the ethical parameters which govern them as a profession.

15 Commonwealth Latimer House Guidelines Number VII.6

23 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

PTAS.14: Clear, Fair and Transparent Disciplinary Rules, Procedures and Sanctions

Discipline: Just as other professionals have quasi-judicial bodies to regulate, discipline and even remove members, there should also be an internal or external authority to sanction legislators, conduct investigations and hearings, and adopt findings and conclusions. There should also be a clear appeals process available to any member aggrieved by a decision. CLHG

“The Committee recommends: • The House should appoint a person of independent standing, who should have a degree of tenure and not be a career member of the House of Commons staff, as Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; • The Commissioners should have independent discretion to decide whether or not a complaint merits investigation or to initiate an investigation”. Recommendations of Committee on Standards in Public Life: First Report16

Just as any other citizen, legislators should be bound by the law. In cases when legislators commit acts contrary to the laws and regulations, they expose themselves to disciplinary action and prosecution. Moreover, there are special conditions only for the status of being public servants that they must observe, such as compliance of high standards of ethics, assets disclosure, and conflict of interest rules. There must be a clear system of sanctions for non-compliance with the laws and regulations.

The disciplinary process in representative bodies is a very sensitive one. It should not be used to punish the opposition or dissidents. In this sense, the existence of an objective internal or external body to sanction legislators is essential to the proper operation of the system.

An additional problem represents the immunity that all legislators should have. The immunity is a protection to ensure that legislators can perform their duties without interference; it should not however be used as an excuse to avoid sanctions for common misconducts or crimes.

PTAS.15: Parliamentary Immunity

Immunity: Legislators shall enjoy personal immunity from civil suits and criminal prosecution for acts and omissions in the exercise of their functions. CLHG; ECOWAS-P; IPU-GD

Legislators should enjoy some degree of immunity from prosecution or civil suit for acts and omissions in the exercise of their functions. However, no one should be exempted from accountability. The requirements of parliamentary independence from political, institutional and societal forces must be balanced against those of public accountability.

16 These recommendations were implemented by the House of Commons, England. A Standing Order setting up the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was set up on 6 November 1995.

24 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Consequently, the immunity regime should be strictly regulated, especially through the recognition of:

• Clear limited scope of immunity (for example, it should not cover acts performed outside of office nor common crimes), and • Possibility of waivers in clearly defined cases and following a transparent procedure.

Regarding the scope of parliamentary immunity, its historical roots lie with the freedom of speech of legislators, as recognized in the British and American Bills of Rights. The underlying justification for immunity is that it allows legislators to fulfill their mandate without fear of retaliatory measures on account of their positions or votes. Legislators must therefore be protected against arrest and detention or civil and criminal prosecution for any acts performed or words spoken while in office or in the conduct of parliamentary affairs. Legislators should not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.

Immunity should not be limited to acts or speech within the parliamentary facilities. Rather, immunity must be interpreted as broadly as possible. For example, the members of the European Parliament enjoy immunity in their own States, in the territories of other Member States, and whilst traveling to and from the place of the meeting of the European Parliament.

However, immunity should not be absolute. The immunity regime applicable to legislators should provide for the possibility of waiving this immunity in limited circumstances in the interests of justice. Immunity is not a privilege benefiting individual members, but rather a guarantee protecting the independence of Parliament and its members in their relations with other governmental and private bodies.17 Parliamentary privileges must be clearly defined and established by law. These immunities are not meant to place legislators above the law, but to protect them from possible groundless proceedings or accusations that may be politically motivated. The grounds and terms for lifting of immunity must be clearly specified by law so that this may only occur following a decision taken by a competent body on a non-partisan basis.

PTAS.16: Parliamentary and Public Access to Information

Access to Information: Legislators, as well as the general public, must have access to accurate, timely information and data, including legislation, parliamentary procedures, governmental data, and relevant research data. Banjul; CLHG; CLHP; CPA-Media; CPA-CP; CPA-Rec/03; CPA- Rec/04; CSCE-CD; ECHR; IACHR; ICCPR; IPU-DD; IPU-GD; IPU-Res/03; UNHCHR

17 ECPRD: Parliamentary Codes of Conduct in Europe by Veronica Williams, November 2001

25 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

The free flow of information is essential in a democratic society. Access to information should not only be viewed in relation to the media and civil society’s right to access governmental documents, but also in relation to the legislators’ right to access relevant research and information from the government and other sources. Access to information can be facilitated by the use of databases, networks and information technology in general.

The media should be free to report the activities of Parliament, and the public should be able to attend parliamentary meetings and Committee sittings where appropriate. The CPA encouraged Parliaments “to provide live coverage of their proceedings on a dedicated channel and/or online” in its Recommendations for an Informed Democracy.

The environment should be made conducive for civil society organizations, the public and multiple stakeholders to exchange information with legislators to enable Parliament to effectively discharge its duties of oversight, policy making, law making, representation and recruitment. This could be achieved through the establishment of a public information office within Parliament.

Bills and Acts of Parliament must be published regularly and should be freely available to the public. Indeed, the CSCE Copenhagen Document notes that “legislation, adopted at the end of a public procedure, and regulations will be published, that being the condition of their applicability. Those texts will be accessible to everyone.”

In its recommendations following a conference on “What Parliament and Legislators Can Do”, the CPA noted that access should be granted “to basic information and documents produced by the parliamentary process, such as access to parliamentary libraries, the provision of on-line information and the distribution of Parliamentary speeches promptly after delivery in the House.”18 The type of information available to the public and to legislators should include:

• Attendance and voting records, • Registers of members’ interests • Bills and Acts of Parliament • Procedural rules • Codes of Conduct

Legislators should also have access to parliamentary archives as well as all necessary information and data from the government. The IPU Guidelines note that “legislators, from the majority and the opposition alike, are equally entitled to receive in a timely manner the same information from the government.”

18 Parliament and The Media: Building an Effective Relationship, 15-18 February 2000 [CPA-Media]

26 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

PTAS.17: Adequate Facilities, Equipment and Technology

Adequate Infrastructure: Parliament should have, at a minimum, the necessary infrastructure and technical assistance, including research capacity, adequate facilities and equipment to enable it to carry out its basic democratic functions. CPA-Rec/03; CPA-Rec/04; IPU-GD

The working conditions of legislators must be adequate and reflect the importance of Parliament as a key democratic institution. Parliament must be housed in one or more buildings with the necessary equipment and office space for legislators and their staff, including tables, chairs, and all other necessary office equipment. Adequate resources must be allocated to Parliament and/or legislators and support services to maintain and equip their facilities.

Some of the facilities and services which can be reasonably expected to be available to legislators include:

• Offices; • Secretarial services (general and/or individual); • Library and archive facilities; • Research services (to which requests for information can be submitted); and • Information technology.

In its 2002 Report, the CPA Study Group highlights the importance of information technology, including “improved networking between legislators and constituents, among legislators, between legislators and Parliament, and better information sharing and record keeping.” Information technology can also facilitate access to information and best practices on the broad range of issues which fall under the purview of parliament, including human rights, socioeconomic rights and gender issues. The use of information technology could include the development of intra-parliament networks and of searchable public databases on parliamentary activity as well as the increased access to outside information for legislators.

PTAS.18: Professional Training for Legislators and Staff

Adequate Training: Resources must be allocated to training programs both for new legislators and for the continuing education of sitting legislators. These programs must be geared towards developing the skills required by parliamentary functions as well as exposing legislators to substantive issues and developments affecting their legislative, oversight and representative functions. CLHG; CPA-CP

Training should be geared towards providing legislators with the specific skills and knowledge necessary to fulfill their parliamentary functions. Legislators, just like other professionals, need continuing education programs and professional development to keep them updated on emerging democracy and governance trends. Equally significant is the need to properly train new or incoming legislators on the constitutional rights and obligations of Parliament; internal procedures and order of business; ethics; etc.

27 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

PTAS.19: Adequately-Compensated Research, Library and Committee Staff

Support Staff: “Parliament should be serviced by professional staff independent of the regular public service.” CLHG; IPU-GD Parliamentary support staff in sufficient numbers and with the appropriate professional skills is crucial for an effective institution. Parliamentary staff performs duties such as:

• Assisting in bill drafting, • Tracking the status of bills in the legislative process, • Maintaining, and in some cases designing, web sites, • Producing and drafting documents about the legislature, • Undertaking accounting and various other clerkship duties.

High turnover of parliamentary staff requires more money for attracting new competent staff and providing them with the necessary training. It is important to ensure that staff is reasonably well compensated to attract good candidates for the job who will retain their jobs longer. When vacancies are not rapidly filled, parliamentary work can be undermined, resulting in misplacement of documents, errors and overall inefficiency.

Parliamentary staff should be independent from other public service offices. Their selection, promotion and discipline must be clearly defined and reflect merit-based criteria and transparent processes. Professional development opportunities and training should be offered to them. The longer support staff stay in Parliament, the more it benefits the institution, especially as it may provide new legislators with the information and support necessary to adapt to their new functions faster.

28 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

ANNEX 1: List of Acronyms

Banjul African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (1986) CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women ICERD Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination CLHP Commonwealth Latimer House Principles on the Accountability and Relationship between the Three Branches of Government (2003) CLHG Commonwealth Latimer House Guidelines (1998) CPA Commonwealth Parliamentary Association CPA-Media Parliament and the Media: Building an Effective Relationship, CPA (2000) CPA-CP Capetown Principles for an Informed Democracy, CPA (2002) CPA-Rec/03 Recommendation for an Informed Democracy, CPA (2003) CPA-Rec/04 Recommendation for Transparent Governance, CPA (2004 CSCE Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe CSCE-CD Copenhagen Document, CSCE (1990) CSCE-MD Moscow Document, CSCE (1991) ECHR European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Liberties (1951) ECOWAS-P Protocol A/SP1/12/02 on Democracy and Good Governance, ECOWAS (2001) IACHR Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (1978) ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) IPU Inter-Parliamentary Union IPU-DD Universal Declaration on Democracy, IPU (1997) IPU-GD Guidelines and Duties for the Opposition in Parliament, IPU (1999) IPU-Res/03 Resolution on Parliaments’ Role in Strengthening Democracy and Human Development in a Fragmented World, IPU (2003) UPA Union des Parlementaires Africains [African Parliamentary Union] UPA-Res/00 Resolution on the Role of Parliament in the Consolidation of Democracy and Confidence Building between Peoples and their Institutions (2000) UNHCHR United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Resolution 2000/47

29 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

ANNEX 2: Bibliography

Governmental Documents • Commonwealth Latimer House Standards • Commonwealth Latimer House Guidelines • Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) Parliament and the Media: Building an Effective Relationship • English Bill of Rights 1689 • Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) Guidelines • ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance Supplementary to the Protocol Relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security • Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities • ECPRD: Parliamentary Codes of Conduct in Europe (Compilation by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly) • IPU: Universal Declaration on Democracy • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) • The African (Banjul) Charter on Human and People’s Rights • The Johannesburg Standards: National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information • Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, 1990 • Declaration of Principle on Freedom of Expression in Africa • Union des Parliamentaires Africains on the Role of Parliaments in the Consolidation of Democracy and Confidence-Building Between the Peoples and their Institutions, 23rd Conference in Addis Ababa, 24-25 November 2000 • The Harare Declaration • IPU Conference of Presiding Officers of National Parliaments • International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women • Report of the Ethics Reform Task Force on H. Res. 168, 105th Congress, 1st Session, 17 June 1997 (found at http://www.house.gov/ethics/ethicsreport.txt ) • Parliamentary Standards and the Wicks Committee Report, Standard Note SN/PC/2200, 24 June 2003, by Ruth Winstone (found at http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-02200.pdf ) • Committee on Standards in Public Life: First Report , Cm 2850, Volume 1, 11 May 1995 (found at http://www.archive.official- documents.co.uk/document/cm28/2850/285002.pdf ) • Committee on Standards in Public Life: Sixth Report: Reinforcing Standards, Cm 4557, Volume 1, January 2000 (found at http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/ ) • Committee on Standards in Public Life: Eighth Report, Cm 5663: Standards of Conduct in the House of Commons, November 2002 (found at http://www- standards.gov.uk/reports/8th_report/report/eighthreport.pdf • African Union Declarations and Decisions

30 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

• The African Commission: Declaration of Principle on Freedom of Expression in Africa • United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Resolution 2000/47

Non-Governmental Documents

Transparency and Accountability of the Parliament • WBI Working Papers: Series on Contemporary Issues in Parliamentary Development: Anti-Corruption Commissions Panacea or Real Medicine to Fight Corruption? By John Heilbrunn, 2004 • PREM Notes Public Sector, No. 74, October 2002: Strengthening Oversight by Legislatures (found at: http://www1.worldbank.org/prem/PREMNotes/premnote74.pdf ) • PREM Notes Public Sector, No.63, March 2002: Strengthening Legislatures: Implications from Industrial Countries (found at: http://www1.worldbank.org/prem/PREMNotes/premnote63.pdf ) • WBI Working Papers: Building a Clean Machine. Anti-Corruption Coalitions and Sustainable Reforms, by Michael Johnston and Sahr J. Kpundeh, 2002 • IFES: IFES Parliamentary Toolkit, Transparency and Accountability Tools for Civil Society • PREM Notes Public Sector, No.59, October 2001: Features and Functions of Supreme Audit Institutions • World Bank Institute: Improving Governance and Controlling Corruption. Towards a Participatory and Action-oriented Approach Grounded on Empirical Rigor, October 2001 • World Bank: Towards Transparency in Finance and Governance, by Tara Vishwanath and Daniel Kaufman, September 6, 1999 • World Bank Institute: Pillars of Integrity: The Importance of Supreme Audit Institutions in Curbing Corruption, by Kenneth M. Dye and Rick Stapenhurst, 1998 • Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments (ASGP): Promoting the Work of Parliament: Report by Mr. Ian Harris, Clerk of the House of Representatives of Australia19, Autumn 2000 (found at http://www.asgp.info/discussions.htm#studies) • USAID Handbook on Legislative Strengthening : http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/gov.html • Parliamentary Centre, Canada: Controlling Corruption: A Parliamentarian’s Handbook: http://www.parlcent.ca/index_e.php • Parliamentary Centre, Canada: Parliamentary Accountability and Good Governance: http://www.parlcent.ca/index_e.php

19 This report contains a detailed analysis of the answers from a Questionnaire of how the public is provided information about the operation and work of Parliament. The review was launched at the Conference of the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments which was held in Autumn 2000 in Jakarta.

31 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

• Center for Democracy and Governance, February 2000: USAID Handbook on Legislative Strengthening • Parliamentary Centre: Parliamentary Accountability and Good Governance: A Parliamentarian’s Handbook • Parliamentary Centre: Forum on Parliamentary Reform • NEPAD Library: Emerging Legislatures in Emerging African Democracies • Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and World Bank Institute: Recommendations for Transparent Governance. Conclusions of a CPA Study Group on Access to Information, Accra Ghana, 5-9 July 2004 • GOPAC: Parliamentarians Fighting Corruption. A Conceptual Overview \\PCentrefs\PCentreS\Projects\Parliamentary_Relations\GOPAC\WBI\ • International IDEA: Democracy Assessment Questionnaire www.idea.int/ideas_work/14_state/democracy_assessment.pdf • NDI and UNDP: Parliaments and Poverty Series Toolkit No.1: Legislative- Executive Communication on Poverty Reduction Strategies • NDI: Strengthening the Accountability Process and Parliamentary Reform. A Report on the Parliamentary Roundtable Held in Bhurban, Pakistan, March 1-2, 1997

Independence of the Parliament • NDI: Strengthening Legislative Capacity in Legislative-Executive Relations Paper #6: http://www.ndi.org/globalp/gov/governance.asp • Venice Commission: Opinion on the Draft Proposal for Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia, by Georg Nolte, July 5, 2002 • Venice Commission: Report on the Referral of a Law Back to Parliament by the Head of State, November 15, 1996 • AGSP: The Role of the Secretary General in the Administration of Parliament, Report by Mr. Ugo Zampetti, General Secretary of the Chamber of Deputies (Italy), October 2000, Review no. 180 • AGSP: Constitutional and Parliamentary Information: The Status of Parliamentary Groups

Parliamentary Immunity • European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD): Rules on Parliamentary Immunity in the European Parliament and the Member States of the European Union: Part Three: Immunity in the European Parliament, June 2001 • Venice Commission Opinion 1/1995: Report on the Regime of Parliamentary Immunity CDL – INF(1996) 007 6/4/96 (found at http://venice.coe.int/site/dynamics/N_Opinion_ef.asp?&L=E&OID=1 ) • Venice Commission: Supplementary Opinion on the Revision of the Constitution of Romania, October 18, 2002

32 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

• Venice Commission: Draft Report – The Regime of Parliamentary Immunity, April 29, 1996 • Venice Commission: Questionnaire on Parliamentary Immunity, prepared by Mr. G.W. Maas-Geesteranus, June 19, 1995

Freedom of Parliamentary Speech • AGSP: The Immunities of Members of Parliament, Report prepared by Mr. Robert Myttenaere, September 1998 • AGSP: Position of Witnesses before Parliamentary Committees, Report prepared by Mr. Demaree J.B. Raval, April 1997

Conflict of Interest & Ethics • Parliamentary Affairs A Journal of Comparative Politics, Volume 55 No. 4 October 2002: Conduct Unbecoming: The Regulation of Legislative Ethics in Britain and the United States, by Robert Williams • Parliamentary Affairs A Journal of Comparative Politics, Volume 52 No. 3 July 1999: Parliament in the Age of Internet, by S. Coleman, J.A. Taylor and W. Van de Donk • European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD): Parliamentary Codes of Conduct in Europe, an Overview, November 2001 • European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD): Rules on Parliamentary Immunity in the European Parliament and the Member States of the European Union, June 2001 • Research Paper Commissioned on behalf of The Committee on Standards in Public Life, May 2002: The Regulation of Parliamentary Standards – A Comparative Perspective (found at http://www.public- standards.gov.uk/reports/8th_report/report/research.doc • House of Representatives Resolution 168 on the Report of the Ethics Reform Task Force, 18 June 1997 • NDI: Accountability, Ethics and Transparency in Government, Pakistan Study Mission to South Africa, June 3, 1997 • NDI: Report on Regional Consultative Workshops – Ethics Questionnaire, August 1998 • Council of Europe Steering Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR): Public Ethics at Local Level Model Initiatives Package, November 25, 2002 • NDI: Legislative Research Series Paper No. 4 – Legislative Ethics: A Comparative Analysis, 1999 • OECD: United States Case Study – Ethics and Corruption: The Management of Ethics and Conduct in the Public Service, by Stuart Gilman, December 1995 • OECD: Recommendations of the Council on Guidelines for Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service, June 2003

33 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Sanction and Removal of Legislators • Venice Commission: Comments on the Draft Law of the Chechen Republic on Elections to the Parliament of the Chechen Republic As Submitted to Referendum, by Mr. G. Nolte, March 23, 2003 • Venice Commission: Opinion on the Draft Law on the Public Attorney (Ombudsman) of “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, March 15, 2003 • Venice Commission: Comments on the Draft Law on the Public Attorney (Ombudsman) of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, by Ms. Serra Lopes, February 28, 2003 • Venice Commission: Draft Law on the Public Attorney (Ombudsman) of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, February 2003 • WBI: PREM Notes Public Sector Number 19, April 1999: Using an Ombudsman to oversee Public Officials • AGSP: The Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, March 1994

Salaries and Benefits of Legislators • AGSP: The Social Protection of Parliamentarians, Report by Mrs. Helene Ponceau, General Secretary of the Senate Quaestor’s Office [Havana Senate Treasurer’s Department], Review No. 181, April 2001

Professional Development and Training • SADC Parliamentary Forum: MPs Orientation Handbook – Professional Performance and Development: http://www..sadcpf.org/about/index.asp

The Parliament and the Budget Cycle • OECD Development Centre Policy Brief No. 22: Strengthening Participation in Public Expenditure Management: Policy Recommendations for Key Stakeholders by Jeremy Heimans • OECD, May 2001: OECD Best Practices for Budget Transparency • AWEPA European Parliamentarians for Africa OPS#5: The Budget Process and Good Governance, 1999 (found at http://www.awepa.org/downloads/OPS05- _The_Budget_Process_and_Good_Governance.pdf ) • AWEPA European Parliamentarians for Africa OPS#5: The Budget Process and Good Governance, 1999 (found at http://www.awepa.org/downloads/OPS05- _The_Budget_Process_and_Good_Governance.pdf ) • ASGP: The Administrative and Financial Autonomy of Parliamentary Assemblies: Report prepared by Michel Couderc (France), adopted at the Moscow Session (September 1998) • WBI Working Papers: Series on Contemporary Issues in Parliamentary Development: The Legislature and the Budget, by Frederick Stapenhurst, 2004: http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/parliament/

34 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

• WBI Working Papers: Series on Contemporary Issues in Parliamentary Development: Back from the Sidelines? Redefining the Contribution of Legislatures to the Budget Cycle, by Joachim Wehner, 2004 • PREM Notes Public Sector, No.59, October 2001: Features and Functions of supreme audit institutions (http://www1.worldbank.org/prem/PREMNotes/premnote74.pdf ) • World Bank Institute: Case Study: PRSPSs and Parliament, by Stephen Langdon • World Bank Institute: Parliaments and Poverty Building the Capacity to Tackle the Problems • WBI Working Papers: Series on Contemporary Issues in Parliamentary Development: Parliaments and the PRSP Process, by Scott Hubli and Alicia P. Mandaville, 2004 • WBI Working Papers: Series on Contemporary Issues in Parliamentary Development: Back from the Sidelines? Redefining the Contribution of Legislatures to the Budget Cycle, by Joachim Wehner, 2004 • WBI: PREM Notes Public Sector, No.59, October 2001: Features and Functions of supreme audit institutions (http://www1.worldbank.org/prem/PREMNotes/premnote74.pdf ) • WBI: PREM Notes Public Sector Number 74, October 2002: Strengthening Oversight by Legislatures • World Bank Institute: Case Study: PRSPSs and Parliament, by Stephen Langdon • World Bank Institute: Parliaments and Poverty Building the Capacity to Tackle the Problems • Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA): The Parliamentarian 2002, Issue Two 179: Parliaments and Poverty, by Ms. Frannie A. L’eautier • Parliamentary Centre, Canada and WBI and CIDA (with support from the International Development Research Centre): Handbook on Parliamentarians and Policies to Reduce Poverty, May 2001 • Parliamentary Centre: Cambodia Focus Group on Parliament’s Role in the Budget Process : Analysis • Parliamentary Centre: Indicators of Parliamentary Performance in the Budget Process • The International Budget Project: Legislatures and Budget Oversight: http://www.internationalbudget.org/themes/LEG/index.htm • NDI: Legislatures and the Budget Process: An International Survey, 2003: http://www.ndi.org/globalp/gov/governance.asp • NDI Parliaments and Poverty Series Toolkit No.1: Strengthening Parliamentary Involvement in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Process and Millennium Development Goals: Legislative-Executive Communication on Poverty Reduction Strategies • NDI Parliaments and Poverty Series Toolkit No.2: Strengthening Parliamentary Involvement in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Process and Millennium Development Goals: Parliamentary-Civic Collaboration for Monitoring Poverty Reduction Initiatives

35 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

• NDI Parliaments and Poverty Series Toolkit No.3: Strengthening Parliamentary Involvement in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Process and Millennium Development Goals: Legislative Public Outreach on Poverty Issues • UNDP, IPU, WBI and UNIFEM: Parliament, The Budget and Gender: http://www.undp.org/dpa/publications/governance.html • IMF: Finance & Development Magazine, December 2002, Volume 39, Number 4: A Bigger Role for Legislators • Case Study: PRSPs and Parliament by Stephen Langdon • Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Netherlands, March 2002: Economics and Finance (b) Budget Impact Assessments (Gender Budgeting) • Cagatay, N., M. Keklik, R. Lal and J. Lang (2000), “Budgets As if People Mattered: Democratizing Macroeconomic Policies”, SEPED Conference Paper Series, Number 4, May. • Navarro, Z. (1998), “Participation, Democratizing Practices and the Formulation of a Modern Policy – the Case of “Participatory Budgeting” in Porto Alegre, Brazil (1989-1998), Development, Sage, London, Volume 41, number 3 September.

Representative and Inclusive Parliament • Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA): Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians Into The Democratic Mainstream, August 2002 • CPA: EnGendering Development and Democracy, May 2004 • IPU and UNDP: Guidelines on the Rights and Duties of the Opposition in Parliament, May 19, 1999 (Unanimously adopted by the participants at the Parliamentary Seminar on Relations Between Majority and Minority Parties in African Parliaments, Libreville (Gabon), 17-19 May 1999) • AWEPA European Parliamentarians for Africa OPS#7: Parliamentary Gender Handbook: South Africa, 2001 (found at http://www.awepa.org/downloads/OPS07-_Parliamentary_Gender_Handbook- _South_Africa.pdf

Free Elections of Legislators • Venice Commission Opinion 250/2003: Report on Electoral Systems - Overview of Available Solutions and Selection Criteria Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 57th Plenary Session CDL – AD(2004)003 (found at http://venice.coe.int/docs/2004/CDL-AD(2004)003-e.asp ) • Venice Commission Opinion 239/2003: Comments on the Draft Law of the Chechen Republic on Elections to the Parliament of the Chechen Republic CDL (2003)021rev (found at http://venice.coe.int/docs/2003/CDL(2003)021rev-e.asp ) • Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly: Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters: Resolution 1320 (2003) http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/TA03/ERES1320.htm • Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly: Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, Document 9267, 15 October 2001

36 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

• UNDP: Political Parties in the Legislature www.undp.org/governance/parldev/docs/political.htm • UNDP: The Impact of Electoral Design on the Legislature www.undp.org/governance/parldev/docs/impact.htm • Singapore Management University: Free and Fair Elections, by Riccardo Pelizzo • Parliamentary Centre: Forum on Parliamentary Reform

Access to Information • Commission of the European Communities, 30/04/2004, COM (2004) 347 final: Report from the Commission on the Application in 2003 of Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 Regarding Public Access to European Parliament, Council and Commission Documents (found at http://europa.eu.int/eur- lex/en/com/rpt/2004/com2004_0347en01.pdf ) • Commission of the European Communities, 30/01/2004, COM (2004) 45 final: Report from the Commission on the Implementation in EC Regulation No. 1049/2001 Regarding Public Access to European Parliament, Council and Commission Documents (found at http://europa.eu.int/eur- lex/en/com/rpt/2004/com2004_0045en01.pdf ) • European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD): European Affairs Committees; The Influence of National Parliaments on European Politics, an Overview, 4 March 2003 (found at: http://www.ecprd.org/Doc/publica/OTH/European%20Affairs%20Committees.pdf ) • ASGP: Promoting the Work of Parliament, by Mr. Ian Harris, Clerk of the House of Representatives of Australia www.asgp.info/discussions.htm#studies • Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA): Study Group on Access to Information, February 21, 2003: Recommendations for an Informed Democracy • CPA Parliament and the Media: Cape Town Standards for an Informed Democracy, April 18 2002 • CPA Parliament and the Media: Building an Effective Relationship, February 18, 2000 • Venice Commission: Opinion on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Access to Information as Guaranteed in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, October 14, 2000 • NDI: The Public’s Right to Know: Providing Access to Government Information, October 3, 1994

Treaties and International Obligations • Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA): Report of a CPA Study Group on Parliament and the International Trading System, February 2002

Parliament’s Control of its Own Budget

37 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

• European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission): Opinion on the Draft Law on the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus 17-18 October 2003(found at: http://venice.coe.int/docs/2003/CDL-AD(2003)014-e.pdf) • ASGP: The Administrative and Financial Autonomy of Parliamentary Assemblies, Report prepared by Mr. Michael Couderc, adopted at the Moscow Session (September 1998) www.asgp.info/publications.htm

Parliament and the Use of Technology • WBI Working Papers: Series on Contemporary Issues in Parliamentary Development: e-Parliaments The Use of Information and Communication Technologies to Improve Parliamentary Processes, by Tess Kingham, 2003 • WBI: Parliamentary Libraries, Institutes and Offices. The Sources of Parliamentary Information, by Robert Miller, Riccardo Pelizzo and Rick Stapenhurst • European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation: Knowledge & Power The Essential Connection Between Research and the Work of the Legislature, A European Overview • UNDP: International Organizations of the Legislative Branch www.undp.org/governance/parldev/docs/internalorg.htm • International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) Publications 87: Parliamentary Libraries and Research Services in Central and Eastern Europe: Building more Effective Legislatures, by K.G.Saur, Munchen 1998. Edited by William H. Robinson and Raymond Gastelum under the auspices of the Section of Library and Research Services for Parliaments • Congressional Research Service (CRS) US Library of Congress: Possible Design of a Research Capability for the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria, November 1993

Training • ASGP: Constitutional and Parliamentary Information Number 183 (1st Semester 2002): Parliamentary Civil Employees (the case of Burkina Faso)

Security of Legislators • IPU and Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF): Parliamentary Oversight of the Security Sector Standards, Mechanisms and Practices, by Hans Born (edited by Philipp H. Fluri & Anders B. Johnsson) www.dcaf.ch/publications/e-publications/Handbook_eng/contents.html

38 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Public Participation on Parliamentary Matters • CPA: How Can Parliaments Best Re-Engage the Public, June 13, 2003 • OECD Development Centre, Policy Brief No. 22: Strengthening Participation in Public Expenditure Management: Policy Recommendations for Key Stakeholders, by Jeremy Heimans • OECD (2001), “Engaging Citizens in Policy-making: Information, Consultation and Public Participation”, Public Management Policy Brief, Number 10, November, Paris. • World Bank (2001), “Civic Engagement in Public Expenditure Management Case Studies: Uganda – Tracking Public Expenditures (PETS), unpublished, Washington, D.C. www.worldbank.org/participation/web/webfiles/cepemcase5.htm • World Bank: The Participation Group Social Development Department: Case Study 1: Bangalore, India Participatory Approaches in Budgeting and Public Expenditure Management, February 2001 • Wehner, J. (2001a), “Nigeria: Democracy brings opportunities for participation in budget process”, unpublished, Institute for Democracy in South Africa, 12 November. • Wehner, J. (2001b), “Zambia: Participation of Civil Society and Parliament in the Budget”, unpublished, Institute for Democracy in South Africa, 12 June. • Wampler, B. (2000), “A Guide to Participatory Budgeting”, unpublished, October www.internationalbudget.org/resources/library/GPB.pdf • Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI): Best Practices of Participatory Constitution Making www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/const/india/practices.htm • NDI: Parliamentary-Civic Collaboration for Monitoring Poverty Reduction Initiatives (Parliaments and Poverty Series Toolkit No. 2) • NDI: Legislative Public Outreach on Poverty Issues (Parliaments and Poverty Series Toolkit No. 3) • NDI: Governance and Public Participation: A Summary of Focus Group Survey Findings, September 2001 • UNDP: The Legislature and Constituency Relations www.undp.org/governance/parldev/docs/constrelat.htm • European Convention: The Union’s Founding Standards: Democratic Life http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/european_convention/democracy_en.htm • Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly: Resolution 1121 (1997) On Instruments of Citizen Participation in Representative Democracy • Parliamentary Affairs A Journal of Comparative Politics, Volume 54 No. 3 July 2001: Public Interest in Government, by Patrick Dunleavy, Helen Margetts, Trevor Smith and Stuart Weir • Fung, A. and E.O. Wright (2001), “Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance”, Politics and Society, Volume 29, Number 1, March.

39 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Other Readings • Scottish Liberal Democrats: Best Practice Lessons the House of Commons can learn from the European Parliament, by Chris Davies Leader of the British Liberal Democrat MEPs, July 2004 www.scotlibdems.org.uk/docs/eubp04.htm • NDI: OSCE Human Dimension Seminar: Democratic Institutions and Democratic Governance, Remarks by K. Scott Hubli, May 13, 2004 www.accessdemocracy.org/library/1713_gov_osceremarks_051304.html • World Bank Public Sector Reform and Capacity Building Unit (Africa Region): Emerging Legislatures in Emerging African Democracies, by Joel D. Barkan, Lapido Ademolekun, Yongmei Zhou, Mouftayou Laleye and Njuguna Ng’ethe, August 21, 2003 • Parliamentary Affairs A Journal of Comparative Politics, Volume 53 No. 3 July 2003: Designing the Scottish Parliament by Alice Brown; Designing the National Assembly for Wales by Martin Laffin and Alys Thomas; Designing the Northern Ireland Assembly by Rick Wickford • UNDP: Parliamentary Development Practice Note, April 2003 • Department for International Development (DFID) Governance Department: Capacity Development in Legislatures: Good Practice and Some Lessons Learnt From a Donor Perspective, November 22, 2002 • UNDP Policy Dialogue on Legislative Development: Approaches to Legislative Strengthening: A Survey and Thematic Evaluation of SIDA’s Parliamentary Strengthening Portfolio, November 22, 2002 • Parliamentary Affairs A Journal of Comparative Politics, Volume 54 No. 1 January 2001: New Labor: New Pathways to Parliament by Eric Shaw` • AWEPA European Parliamentarians for Africa OPS#8: Parliament as an Instrument for Peace, 2001 (found at http://www.awepa.org/downloads/OPS08- _Parliament_as_an_Instrument_FOR_pEACE.pdf ) • European Commission: The Future of Parliamentary Democracy: Transition and Challenge in European Governance, Green Paper prepared for the Conference of the European Union Speakers of Parliament, September 2000 • USAID: Center for Democracy and Governance: USAID Handbook on Legislative Strengthening, February 2000 • The Parliamentary Mandate by Marc Van der Hulst (Inter-Parliamentary Union [IPU] Books, 2000) • NDI: Legislative Research Series Paper # 6, 2000: Strengthening Legislative Capacity in Legislative-Executive Relations • UNDP: A Concept Paper on Legislatures and Good Governance, by John K. Johnson and Robert T. Nakamura, July 1999 • Development Associates, Inc prepared for USAID, January 1996: Evaluation of Parliamentary Assistance in Central and Eastern European (CEE) Countries Under the Democratic Governance and Public Administration Project • Parliaments in the Modern World by P. Laundy (IPU Books, 1989)

40 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

• Representative Democracy and the Role of Parliaments: An Inventory of Democracy Assistance Programmes, by Dr. Hans Born • UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office Democracy and Good Governance: Human Rights www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Pag • SADC Parliamentary Forum: MP’s Orientation Handbook: Professional Performance and Development for Parliaments • UNDP: Legislative Chambers: Unicameral or Bicameral? www.undp.org/governance/parldev/docs/chambers.htm • Parliamentary Centre, Canada: The Parliamentary Centre in Asia www.parlcent.ca/asia/index_e.php

Parliamentary Associations • Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CAP): http://www.cpahq.org/topics/default.aspx • Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU): http://www.ipu.org/english/home.htm • Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments (ASGP): http://www.asgp.info/ • Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption (GOPAC): http://www.gopac.org/ • IFES: http://www.ifes.org//rule_of_law/ROL_TK.htm • European Centre for Parliamentary Research & Documentation (ECPRD): http://www.ecprd.org/ • OSCE Parliamentary Assembly www.osce.org/pa • World Bank Institute Parliament Programs www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/parliament/

Indicators • Aldons, M. (2001), “Performance Indicators for the Parliament – Sharp or Blunt Instruments of Reform?” in Australasian Parliamentary Review, Spring 2001, Vol.16(2), 27-37

41 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Annex 3: Draft Indicators for Democratic Parliaments

CONTEXT

Public Perception of the Parliament

Is Parliament respected by the public? Are legislators respected by the public? Are there public surveys related to the public perceptions of the Parliament and/or legislators? If so, does the public have confidence in Parliament as an institution? In individual legislators? Are these surveys periodically performed? Are they performed by the Parliament itself? By civil society? By an independent entity? If Parliament is perceived as not independent, what external forces are seen as interfering with its decision-making process? Who is considered to exercise more control over the Parliament? The Executive? The Judiciary? The private sector? The media? Criminal organizations? Others? How accessible to the public is the parliamentary decision-making process? What is the general public’s perception of parliamentary openness, accountability, delivery of services and conduct?

PTAS.1: Independence of Parliament

Institutional Independence Is the principle of separation of powers formally set out either in the text of the Constitution or in law? Is the Parliament an institution independent in practice? Does the executive branch develop laws or policies or institutions that contradict with duly passed statutes or contravene the law-making role of Parliament? Does the executive branch and military develop and implement in practice consistent policies complementary to the laws passed by parliament? Is an independent parliament clearly defined in the Constitution and supported by laws, policies and procedures? Is illegal external interference with the Parliament clearly defined in the law and properly sanctioned?

Personal Independence Are individual legislators subject to undue influences or interferences in the decision-making process? Are legislators complicit in this interference? Is this the leadership or certain factions or individuals or both? What external forces are interfering with the legislative decision-making process? Are legislators illegally forced or under undue pressure to pass certain laws or policies or not to undertake their oversight responsibilities? If so, by whom, and/or what groups?

42 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Are legislators obligated to vote according to their political party directives by law, policy or internal procedural rules? Are there laws, procedures and policies in force to protect legislators from illegal external interference and to punish those who interfere? Are they enforced in practice? Is there any formal or informal mechanism or policy to punish legislators considered “too independent”? Is corruption criminalized? Does it clearly include the bribery of legislators? Is it legally permitted for legislators to receive outside income or benefits from external groups? If so, is this law, rule or policy clear and does it require timely, public disclosure of this income? Are legislators or their staff offered bribes in return for their legislative support? Is this practice routine? What is the nature of these bribes? Financial? Promotion? Punishment? Who usually bribes legislators or staff? Do legislators usually receive direct or indirect economic, career or physical threats to rule in a determined way? Their families? Their staff? Are there any group –media, civil society – specialized in monitoring of external interference? If yes, is there information available to the public? Is the boundary between public monitoring and external interference clearly defined? Is the boundary between public participation and external interference clearly defined? Are members attempting to reorganize and revitalize the parliament and important committees to promote its independence and carryout its constitutional responsibilities?

Institutional and Personal Physical Security Is there a clear law and policy relevant to the personal security of legislators and of the parliamentary premises? Is it implemented in practice? Are there adequate resources and political will to implement it? Are legislators commonly subject to physical threats? Is violence used to “punish” the official activities of any legislator? What are the most typical acts of violence exercised against legislators? Are the parliamentary premises reasonably secure and properly protected? Is there a formal procedure for security checks for anyone seeking entry to the Parliament? Do legislators require special security or protection during the course of exercising their official responsibilities inside or outside the Parliament? Are the members provided with security services for their private residences, if needed?

43 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

PTAS.2: Free and Fair Parliamentary Elections

Do parliamentary elections comply with international standards for free and fair elections? Does the Constitution call for free and fair parliamentary elections? Does the legal framework regulating parliamentary elections comply with the Constitution and international standards? Do parliamentary elections take place according to legal framework under the Constitution and applicable laws? In general, do parliamentary elections take place in a non-violent, non- threatening, secure environment? Is voting mandatory? On average, what percentage of eligible voters votes in parliamentary elections? Does the law require a minimum turnout for the election to be valid? Are all legislators required to be elected under the nomination of a political party? Are the rules for party nominations and elections fair and transparent? Do they allow fair representation of regional, ethnic and gender groups? Are they enforced in practice? Is the electoral system arbitrarily biased in favor of any political faction by law, policy or practice? (for example, districting or suffrage rules) Are regions or provinces fairly represented in the National Parliament?

PTAS.3: Transparent, Adequate Political Financing and Compensation

Transparent political financing Do political parties have to submit financial accounts? If yes, to whom? Are financial accounts published? Does the disclosure requirement apply to income as well as expenditure of political parties? Does the disclosure requirement include disclosure of the identity of donors and the origins of income of political parties? Do parliamentary candidates have to submit their campaign budget? If yes, to whom? Are campaign accounts published? Does the disclosure requirement apply to income as well as expenditure of parliamentary candidates? Does the disclosure requirement include disclosure of the identity of donors and the origins of income of parliamentary candidates? Do donors have the obligation to disclose their donations to an independent public authority? If yes, to whom? Are donation disclosures published? Does the disclosure requirement for apply to corporate and individual donors? Is there a threshold for reporting donations? Are there mechanisms for political parties or parliamentary candidates to access public funding? When do political parties have to disclose their financial accounts? When do political parties have to disclose the donations that they have received?

44 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

When do parliamentary candidates have to disclose their campaign accounts? When do parliamentary candidates have to disclose the donations that they have received? Are there any sanctions for failure to comply with the disclosure requirements? Do they include loss of the parliamentary seat? Do they include temporary ineligibility? Do sanctions apply to incomplete disclosure? Do sanctions apply to false disclosure? Do sanctions apply to failure to submit disclosure within the legal timeframe? Do sanctions apply to failure to submit disclosure altogether? Do incumbents use parliamentary resources for their campaigns? Is this practice allowed by the law? Is it allowed in practice? Is the information on political financing readily available to the public?

Reasonable and appropriate compensation of legislators Do legislators have adequate salaries and benefits? Are there disparities among legislators? Are the salaries, benefits and pensions sufficient to attract and retain qualified candidates? Are they excessive? What is the total annual salary and benefit package of a legislator by law and in practice? What are the elements of the benefit package? How do legislators’ salaries compare with salaries of other high level government officials? Are salaries defined by law? By the Parliament itself? Are there adequate and clearly outlined procedures for salary or benefit package increases? Are legislators accountable for official expenditures and reimbursable expenses included within their benefit package? Are the rules for parliamentary accountability clear and enforced? Is the information regarding the salaries, benefits, pensions and expenses of legislators accessible to the public? Are the legislators provided with in-kind benefits? (For example: per diem, automobiles, housing, airplane tickets, office space, medical insurance, discounts on education for their children, etc)? Are legislators permitted to have other sources of income? If yes, what are they?

General Income and Asset Disclosure Is income and asset disclosure mandatory for legislators and key staff? If yes, is the disclosure obligation made by the Constitution, law or judiciary decision? Who is subject to the disclosure requirement? Does it apply to legislators only or also include their dependents and family members? Does it also include people with whom legislators have financial interests? Is the kind of incomes and assets to be disclosed clearly defined? What are they? Must the sources of income be disclosed? Is basic information about the incomes and assets of legislators accessible to the public? Is the information available on the Internet?

45 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

What institution is responsible for collecting the data? For investigating? For imposing sanctions? Is this institution independent? Are the procedures transparent and objective? What are the sanctions for non compliance (e.g. for lack of disclosure, erroneous disclosure, misleading/false disclosure, incomplete disclosure)? Are these sanctions fair and effective? Are they applied in practice? Are legislators obligated to disclose their incomes and assets periodically? Upon taking office? Upon leaving office?

PTAS.4: Representative Parliament

Is representation in Parliament generally reflective of the different parties, gender and religious elements of society? What is the percentage of women in Parliament? What is the percentage of relevant minorities in Parliament? Is their a law or policy that requires specific representation of various elements of society? Is it objective? Is it enforced in practice? Do all members have an equal right to vote in Parliament and committees? Is there discrimination against any opposition legislators or factions in practice? Is this practice legal or sanctioned by parliamentary rules? If so, are these sanctions or rules fair in theory and enforced fairly in practice? What are the basic rights of opposition parties in Parliament? What is the percentage of women legislators? Has there been an increase since the last parliamentary elections?

PTAS.5: Parliamentary Security of Tenure

Can legislators be removed at will by the Executive? Do legislators enjoy security of tenure for the duration of their term?

PTAS.6: Free Parliamentary Speech

Is freedom of speech protected by the Constitution? By law? Are restrictions to freedom of speech clearly defined under the law? Do Legislators enjoy freedom of speech under the law? Is freedom of speech respected in practice? Does the law provide for criminal sanctions for defamation, libel, slander, insult and/or blasphemy? Does the law provide for civil sanctions for any of these acts? Are these acts clearly defined? Are these acts broadly or narrowly defined? Are any of these criminal or civil laws enforced in practice or used as threats? Is there a clear enforcement policy that is accessible to the public? Do any result in self-censorship, particularly within the parliament or the media?

46 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Are legislators subject to more limitations than ordinary citizen? Are these limitations reasonable given their function? Are they subject to censorship? Have any of these laws or policies been used to punish legislators? Is the opposition to the government silenced through threats of criminal accusation? (especially for defamation) Can the opposition safely criticize the government publicly? Do the media publish opposition criticism of the government?

PTAS.7: Participatory, Transparent Law and Policy-Making Processes

Parliamentary process Is the parliamentary process for considering and passing laws clear? Is it transparent? Is it well understood by legislators and the public? Are the procedural rules clear? Are they transparent? Are they well understood by legislators and the public? Are they readily accessible to legislators and the public? Are the laws and decisions of Parliament published? Are they readily accessible by the public? Does the Parliament follow, in practice, the parliamentary rules of procedure for developing and making laws and policies? Are there relevant, viable parliamentary committees that can develop, analyze and amend draft and current legislation? Is there a parliamentary policy or practice geared towards the protection of human rights and the effective implementation of human rights laws?

Broad Public Participation in the Parliamentary process Are citizens allowed to visit Parliament? Are they allowed to attend plenary and committee sessions? Are plenary and committee meetings open to the media? Are legislative sessions accessible to citizens via radio, television, or the Internet? Do citizens have effective, timely access to their elected representatives? Do members have district offices or offices in their constituencies which maintain business and non-business hours and which are adequately staffed? Do Legislators return telephone calls, faxes, and e-mail in a timely manner? Does the public have access to legislators and parliamentary schedules, calendars and committee information? Is there regular public opinion polling? Are their results publicized?

PTAS.8: Transparent Oversight of the Executive

Does the Parliament play an oversight role with regard to Executive branch decisions on national security issues? Do committees perform their legal government oversight responsibilities in an open, transparent manner and do they have access to government information?

47 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Does the Parliament oversee the Executive on issues of national security? On issues of fundamental human rights?

PTAS.9: Parliamentary Participation in the Formulation and Oversight of the Government’s Budget

What powers does Parliament have in formulating the government’s budget? Can Parliament amend the budget? Can it increase or decrease the total amount or adjust specific items? Can Parliament control the effective disbursement of the amounts under each item? If yes, does it effectively exercise this control? In practice, does the Parliament analyze and debate the government’s budget or just approve the project sent by the Executive? Can legislators make amendments to the budget sent by the Executive? In practice, do they make amendments? Is there public participation and debate on budgetary issues? Is there both formal and informal discussion between legislators and government officials responsible for formulating and implementing the budget? Does the Parliament ask civil society experts their opinion on the budget? Is their opinion taken into account? Does Parliament have a Public Accounts committee? Does it engage in an audit of government accounts? Are such audits annual? Is there adequate technical assistance on strategies to enhance oversight, for example, on-line access to government accounts?

PTAS.10: Parliamentary Participation in the Adoption of and Oversight of Compliance with International Obligations

Does Parliament have the legal right to participate in the formulation or review of international treaties? Does it have the power to approve or ratify them or is this power invested in some other entity? If so, is there a clear procedure or policy that allows Parliament to informally or formally participate in the ratification process? Does Parliament exercise that power in practice, even in those cases when it opposes the Executive? Has Parliament established a legal committee responsible for keeping abreast of international instruments, declarations, treaties and conventions – their content and obligations – which the government is required to ratify from time to time? Is there a system in place for informing and keeping members abreast of the international obligations of the government? Does Parliament have sufficient time, technical capacity and resources to adequately review legislation proposed by the Executive in order to ascertain the level of compliance with international obligations?

48 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Does Parliament have the power to draft and amend legislation it receives from the Executive? Are there parliamentary committees in place to oversee the effective implementation of international obligations and laws?

PTAS.11: Transparent, Efficient Parliamentary Committees

What is the committee structure of Parliament: How many committees? What are their functions? How many members? Do all legislators have a right to serve as members of parliamentary committees? Do opposition legislators or factions have the opportunity to serve on key committees or in positions of power within the parliament? Are there committee rules that require public committee hearings on important tasks such as review and approval of the government’s budget? Are committees composed of representatives of various party factions within the parliament, including gender, political party and regions? Are there limits on the tenure of committee members? Do new members receive training in substance from sitting members? Do committees have sufficient staff and resources to perform their functions effectively? Do committees have investigative powers? Are these powers sufficient to compel the disclosure of information? Do committees have sanction powers for non-compliance with their requests? Can committees protect witnesses who appear before them? Does protection include non-prosecution? Are committee hearings public? Are they broadcast by the media? Are regulations, policies, parliamentary inquiries and commission and committee reports published? Are they readily accessible by the public?

PTAS.12: Adequate, Independent Parliamentary Budget

Does Parliament have adequate financial resources to carry out its constitutional and legal responsibilities effectively? Does Parliament develop and approve its own budget? What is the percentage of the national budget allocated to the Parliament? Is this percentage fixed or varied every year? Is it determined by the Constitution? Is the percentage subject to negotiation between the Parliament and the Executive? What proportion of the parliamentary budget is actually approved and disbursed by the government in practice? Does Parliament have actual and effective control over how this budget is spent (e.g. to hire staff, manage committees, purchase furniture and technology, etc.)? Which institution represents the Parliament in the budget negotiations? Which institution is responsible for adopting the budget? Which institution is responsible for disbursing the funds?

49 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Which parliamentary entity is responsible for proposing, allocating and managing the budget? Are there clearly defined criteria and priorities for allocating the budget? Are the funds redistributed every year? Are there clearly defined rules governing the administration of the parliamentary budget? Are they applied in practice? Are there oversight mechanisms to monitor the budget and control expenses? Are legislators and staff trained to develop and manage the parliamentary budget? Is the percentage of the budget allocated to the Parliament sufficient and how does it compare to other national budgets? To the budgets of other Parliaments in comparable countries? Are the processes of drafting, adoption, disbursement and allocation of the Parliamentary budget transparent? Does the public have access to the parliamentary budget information? Are there undisclosed funds allocated to Parliament, specific committees or legislators which are disbursed discretionarily?

PTAS.13: Clear, Effective Conflict of Interest Rules and High Standards of Conduct

Conflict of Interest Are there clear conflict of interest rules set by law? Is their scope clearly defined? Do they apply to legislators only or also include close relatives and immediate members of their families? Does the public and legislators have timely access to these laws and/rules? What are the prohibited functions, responsibilities or interests? Are members required to publicly disclose this information? What entity is responsible for adopting conflict of interest rules applicable to legislators and does it perform its legal responsibilities? What entity responsible for enforcing conflict of interest rules and investigating violations? Does it have the power and resources necessary to undertake investigations, resolve cases and impose sanctions? What are the sanctions for non compliance with conflict of interest rules? Are these sanctions fair and effective? Are they applied in practice? Are there clear and effective mechanisms for the enforcement of conflict of interest rules? Are criminal laws applicable to legislators? In which circumstances? Is there an express bar on members entering agreements which restrict their freedom to perform their official duties or speak or which effectively make them representatives of outside bodies and not the public?

Ethics Rules Is there a code of ethics for legislators? Is it enforced in practice? What are the sanctions for non compliance with the code of ethics? Are these sanctions fair and effective? Are they enforced in practice?

50 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Are there parliamentary committees in place for handling complaints from anyone, including legislators or individual citizens? Are parliamentary and committee disciplinary or ethical rules and procedures fair, clear and enforced in practice? Are legislators sufficiently familiar the ethics code and parliamentary disciplinary procedures, such as Standing Orders and precedents? Are there formal and informal procedures for seeking advice or guidance with regard to the ethics code and policies? What programs or activities are available to legislators to promote and reinforce standards of conduct through guidance and training, including induction training for new members?

Illegal Enrichment Is there a transparent process for investigating illegal enrichment? Is it clearly defined in the law? Are there criminal sanctions for illegal enrichment? Are these sanctions fair and effective? Are they enforced in practice?

PTAS.14: Clear, Fair and Transparent Disciplinary Rules, Procedures and Sanctions

What are the essential rules and policies of the parliamentary disciplinary process? Are these rules clear and transparent? Are they fair and effective? Are they applied in practice? Is the parliamentary disciplinary process clearly defined by law? Are the due process rights of legislators guaranteed in disciplinary processes? Are these rights respected in practice? Do legislators have the right to judicial review of disciplinary processes? Does the disciplinary process rely on objective criteria? Are these criteria transparent? Are they complied with in practice? Are they accessible to legislators? To the public? Does the disciplinary process take into account a certain degree of subjectivity and flexibility? Are there formal and informal procedures by which legislators can seek advice and guidance regarding compliance with the procedures and law? Is the parliamentary disciplinary process politicized? Is it effectively controlled by the Executive? Is it effectively controlled by the political parties? Is the parliamentary disciplinary process transparent? Which institution or office is responsible for the disciplinary process? Is this office fair, efficient and independent? Is the parliamentary disciplinary process participatory in practice? Are NGOs invited to participate in the process? Does the public participate in the process? Is the disciplinary process perceived as fair and effective? Is it fair and effective in practice? Is there discrimination within or a bias against anyone within the disciplinary process?

51 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Are conducts giving rise to disciplinary action (i.e. disciplinary offenses) clearly defined under the law? What types of conducts may lead to a disciplinary process? Are sanctions for disciplinary offenses clearly defined under the law? Are they proportional to the offense or misconduct (under the law/in practice)? Are they dissuasive? Are they effectively applied and enforced? What types of sanctions may be imposed? Do legislators have access to information on and modifications to the disciplinary offenses and sanctions? Are complaint procedures available to legislators? To the public? Describe the kinds and numbers of cases that have been investigated and their disposition?

PTAS.15: Parliamentary Immunity

Are the concepts of legislative independence, immunity and accountability clearly established under the Constitution and the law? Are there institutional mechanisms to balance these concepts? Does immunity apply to criminal prosecution? Does it apply to civil liability? Is immunity a privilege or a guarantee of the parliamentary function? Is it absolute or limited to certain conducts or acts? Are there cases in which the legislator has absolute immunity? Is immunity recognized by the Constitution? By law? By parliamentary resolution? Is immunity limited to acts and omissions in the exercise of the parliamentary function? If yes, what is the scope of the notion of “exercise of the parliamentary function”? If legislators may be held criminally responsible, under what circumstances can they be prosecuted? If legislators may be held civilly liable, under what circumstances can they be sued for compensation? Is the legislators’ freedom of speech reinforced by and balanced with the concept of immunity? Can immunity be waived? If yes, who or which entity is responsible for waiving immunity? Is it a jurisdictional body or not? Is there a clearly defined procedure to waive immunity? Are the cases in which immunity may be waived clearly defined and justified?

PTAS.16: Parliamentary and Public to Access Information

Does Parliament provide the public with timely access to parliamentary information? Does Parliament have access to government information and research?

52 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Does Parliament solicit public opinion through polls, hearings, or other ways? How often? Does Parliament have a public affairs office? Does this public affairs office have a clear procedure or mechanism for receiving requests or information from the public? How accessible is that office to members of the general public? To the media? To NGOs? How regular is communication in the form of briefs and or publications from the office to the public? Are records kept of legislative meetings accurate, timely, and available to the public? Are there various methods for the public to contact legislators or staff for timely information/inquiries? Does the public have access to information on bills being debated in Parliament? Does Parliament make available publications such as member directories, pamphlets, and brochures? Does Parliament have a website? Is it regularly updated? Is it easy to find information on the website?

PTAS.17: Adequate Facilities, Equipment and Technology

Does Parliament have an adequate library on its premises? If yes, do legislators have access to the library? Do they have access to parliamentary archives? Is the library reasonably equipped with up to date, relevant information? Do the resources include information from other countries and parliaments? Is the library staff adequately trained to handle queries on what materials are available, where to find other materials and how to access them? Is the library linked to other libraries, regional and/or international? Are the physical facilities adequate to enable Parliament to conduct its business (e.g., public access meeting rooms, member and party offices, heating, air- conditioning, etc.)? Does Parliament have appropriate equipment (e.g., furniture, telephones, copy machines, computers, sound systems, etc.)? Do legislators and their staff have computers? What is the ratio of computers to legislators? What is the ratio of computers to staff? Do parliamentary facilities have an intranet network linking legislators and staff? Is parliamentary information, and relevant electronic resources, available on the intranet? Do parliamentary facilities have internet access? If so, is this used for complementary research?

PTAS.18: Professional Training for Legislators and Staff

53 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Is there a specific institution or unit within the Parliament providing legislative training? If not, is there such an institution outside the Parliament? Is it public or private or mixed? Who manages, administers and controls the training institution? Is the training institution adequately funded? Is there a specific budget for legislative training programs? What is the range of training programs for legislators and parliamentary staff? What are the training gaps? Do they exist for both new and existing legislators and staff? Are there international cooperation programs related to parliamentary training? Is the training institution adequately staffed? Is the staff adequately qualified? Is the staff selected according to a transparent process based on objective and merit- based criteria? Is there political support for legislative training and continuing legal education? Parliamentary support? Are training programs open to all legislators and non-discriminatory? What policies, systems and procedures are in place for training new legislators on parliamentary procedures? Is training provided only upon starting the term or employment? Or is it provided on a periodic basis? Or is it provided on an ad hoc basis? Do training programs include training on law drafting? Recent legal modifications? Comparative law training? Legislative ethics training? Who determines training needs? Are legislators involved in the development of the training institution’s curriculum? Is the curriculum responsive to the legislators’ perception of their needs? Is it responsive to the public perception of legislative weaknesses?

PTAS.19: Adequately-Compensated Research, Library and Committee Staff

Do legislators have access to the necessary professional staff to assist them in policy, law and budget making; research; compliance with rules of procedure; IT; and oversight? Do legislators have the necessary staff to provide services to their constituents? Do parliamentary employees and personnel have adequate salaries and benefits? Are their salaries, benefits and pensions sufficient to attract and retain qualified candidates? Is the staff adequately trained? Are they employees of Parliament or are they civil servants under the supervision of the Executive? Are they employed, promoted and disciplined within a meritorious human resources system? Are the criteria objective and clearly-defined? Is the process transparent? Does it rely on competitive examinations? Is support staff selected based on political affiliation or based on skills and knowledge? Does it vary depending on the position and/or department? Do members have their own research staff inside or outside of Parliament? Are bill drafting services available? If so, by whom?

54 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Are there clear salary schedules for staff? Is there a system for performance appraisals, increases and promotions? Who pays support staff? Are there training programs for administrative staff? If so how regular are they?

55 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit DRAFT Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Annex 4: Cross-Reference Table [INITIAL DRAFT: “?” AND “N/A” indicate research is underway] Parliamentary Transparency and Accountability Standards International and Regional Consensus Principles

Instruments Human Rights Instruments Anti-corruption Documents Africa Regional Documents Americas Regional Asia RegionalDocuments Documents Europe Regional IPU Instruments Union Instruments Regional Parliamentary Documents CPA Instruments Latimer House

PTAS 1 Independence of Parliament ? N/A N/A N/A PTAS 2 Free and Fair Parliamentary Elections N/A N/A N/A PTAS 3 Transparent, Adequate Political Financing and Compensation N/A N/A N/A PTAS 4 Representative Parliament N/A N/A N/A PTAS 5 Parliamentary Security of Tenure N/A N/A N/A PTAS 6 Free Parliamentary Speech N/A N/A N/A PTAS 7 Participatory, Transparent Law and Policy-Making Processes ? ? N/A N/A N/A PTAS 8 Transparent Oversight of the Executive ? ? N/A N/A N/A PTAS 9 Parliamentary Participation in the Formulation and Oversight of the N/A N/A N/A Government’s Budget PTAS 10 Parliamentary Participation in the Adoption of and Oversight of ? ? N/A N/A N/A Compliance with International Obligations PTAS 11 Transparent, Efficient Parliamentary Committees N/A N/A N/A PTAS 12 Adequate, Independent Parliamentary Budget N/A N/A N/A ? PTAS 13 Clear, Effective Conflict of Interest Rules and High Standards of ? N/A N/A N/A ? Conduct PTAS 14 Clear, Fair and Transparent Disciplinary Rules, Procedures and ? N/A N/A N/A Sanctions PTAS 15 Parliamentary Immunity N/A N/A N/A PTAS 16 Parliamentary and Public to Access Information N/A N/A N/A PTAS 17 Adequate Facilities, Equipment and Technology N/A N/A N/A PTAS 18 Professional Training for Legislators and Staff N/A N/A N/A PTAS 19 Adequately-Compensated Research, Library and Committee Staff N/A N/A N/A IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit DRAFT Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Human Rights Instruments ICCPR, ECHR, IACHR, ACHPR UNHCHR Resolution 2000/47 on Promoting and Consolidating Democracy

Anticorruption Instruments UN, OAS, COE, AU Conventions

Africa Regional Documents ECOWAS Protocol A/SP1/12/01 on Democracy and Governance (2001)

Americas Regional Documents

Asia Regional Documents

Europe Regional Documents Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) Copenhagen Document (1990) CSCE Moscow Document (1991) Venice Commission Draft Report on Parliamentary Immunity (1996)

Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) Instruments Universal Declaration on Democracy (1997) Guidelines and Duties for the Opposition in Parliament (1999) Resolution on Parliaments’ Role in Strengthening Democracy and Human Development in a Fragmented World (2003)

Regional Parliamentary Unions African Parliamentary Union (UPA) Resolution on the Role of Parliament in the Consolidation of Democracy and Confidence- Building between Peoples and their Institutions (2000)

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) Instruments Parliament and the Media: Building an Effective Relationship (2000) Capetown Principles for an Informed Democracy (2002) Recommendation for an Informed Democracy (2003) Recommendation for Transparent Governance (2004)

57 IFES Parliamentary Tool Kit DRAFT Model State of Parliament Report: Framework

Latimer House Instruments Commonwealth Latimer House Guidelines (1998) Commonwealth Principles on the Accountability and Relationship between the Three Branches of Government (2003)

58