DOCSLIB.ORG

Serbia and Montenegro

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Serbia and Montenegro SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO POLL WORKER TRAINING VOTER AWARENESS ASSESSMENT LEGAL REVIEW JULY 1997 - FEBRUARY 1998 PREPARED BY: CATHERINE BARNES,PROJECT TEAM LEADER TOM PARKINS,SENIOR TRAINER CARL SLAUGHENHAUPT,TRAINER PARVINDER SINGH,TRAINER ANTHONY REISSIG,TRAINER DANIEL FINN,LEGAL ADVISOR ALEXANDRA LEVADITIS,PROGRAM ASSISTANT International Foundation for Election Systems 1101 15th Street, NW, Third Floor Washington, DC 20005 This Report was made possible by a grant from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The opinions expressed in this Report are solely of the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES). This material is in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission, citation is appreciated. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE..................................................................... SUMMARY ...........................................................1 REPUBLIC OF SERBIA,POLLWORKER TRAINING PROGRAM,PHASE I I. PROJECT BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................6 A. ASSESSMENT OF SERBIA’S ELECTORAL ENVIRONMENT......................................6 B. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................6 C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES............................................................................................7 II. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................8 A. CHANGES IN THE PRE-ELECTORAL ENVIRONMENT.............................................8 B. CHALLENGES TO PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION....................................................8 C. ADJUSTMENTS TO PROJECT PARAMETERS...........................................................9 D. PROJECT ACTIVITIES ...........................................................................................10 1. IDENTIFICATION AND RECRUITMENT OF TRAINING ASSISTANTS AND CORE TRAINING GROUP..................................................................10 2. MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT.....................................................................11 3. CORE TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT OF SECONDARY TRAINERS.........12 4. SECONDARY TRAINING ............................................................................12 III. PROJECT EVALUATION ....................................................................................................14 A. PROGRESS TOWARD STATED GOALS..................................................................14 B. FEEDBACK FROM CORE TRAINING GROUP........................................................16 REPUBLIC OF SERBIA,POLLWORKER TRAINING PROGRAM,PHASE II I. PROJECT BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................20 A. PURPOSE OF ADDITIONAL TRAINING..................................................................20 B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES .........................................................................................20 II. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ...........................................................................................20 A. CONTACTING POLITICAL PARTIES AND DCTS..................................................20 B. CHANGES TO TRAINING CURRICULUM ..............................................................21 C. SECONDARY TRAINING OF POLLWORKERS.......................................................21 III. CHALLENGES TO PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION...............................................................22 A. VOTER APATHY ...................................................................................................22 B. LACK OF PARTY RESPONSE................................................................................23 C. GOVERNMENT IMPEDIMENTS .............................................................................23 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING................................................24 A. REPUBLIC OF SERBIA ..........................................................................................24 1. ON-GOING TRAINING IN ELECTION PROCEDURES................................24 2. ELECTION LAW WORKING GROUP.........................................................24 3. ELECTION RESOURCE CENTER................................................................25 4. VOTER LIST MAINTENANCE....................................................................25 5. CIVIC EDUCATION ....................................................................................25 B. SHIFTING ATTENTION AND RESOURCES TO THE REPUBLIC OF MONTENEGRO........................................................................25 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................26 REPUBLIC OF MONTENEGRO,VOTER AWARENESS ASSESSMENT I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................28 A. MISSION BACKGROUND .......................................................................................28 B. MISSION OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................28 C. SCOPE OF MISSION...............................................................................................29 D. COMPARATIVE EXPERIENCE:SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO...............................29 II. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................30 A. COUNTRY BACKGROUND .....................................................................................30 B. ORGANIZATION OF THE STATE............................................................................30 C. RECENT POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS..................................................................32 III. ELECTION FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................35 A. CONSTITUTION .....................................................................................................35 B. LAW ON ELECTION OF COUNCILORS AND REPRESENTATIVES..........................35 C. LAW ON THE REGISTER OF ELECTORS...............................................................38 D. LAW ON FINANCING OF POLITICAL PARTIES......................................................39 E. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION STRUCTURES........................................................40 F. AGREEMENT ON MINIMUM PRINCIPLES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A DEMOCRATIC INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................42 G. MULTI-PARTY WORKING GROUP ON ELECTORAL REFORM.............................43 IV. POLITICAL PARTY SCENE................................................................................................45 A. DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF SOCIALISTS.................................................................45 B. PEOPLE'S PARTY OF MONTENEGRO....................................................................46 C. LIBERAL ALLIANCE OF MONTENEGRO...............................................................46 D. SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY...............................................................................46 E. DEMOCRATIC UNION OF ALBANIANS .................................................................47 F. THE DEMOCRATIC LEAGUE OF ALBANIANS IN MONTENEGRO..........................47 V. THE MEDIA ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................................49 A. THE LAW ON PUBLIC INFORMATION..................................................................50 B. STATE MEDIA OUTLETS.......................................................................................51 C. INDEPENDENT MEDIA OUTLETS..........................................................................53 D. THE MASS MEDIA AND ELECTION CAMPAIGNS..................................................53 VI. NGO DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................55 A. NGO ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................55 B. ELECTION RELATED NGOS ................................................................................55 C. ELECTION ACTIVITIES OF STUDENT GROUPS....................................................56 VII. THE CITIZENRY ...............................................................................................................58 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................59 A. LEGAL REFORM ...................................................................................................59 B. ELECTION MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.............................................59 C. VOTER REGISTRIES ..............................................................................................60 D. SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION.............................................................................60 E. CANDIDATE NOMINATION AND CERTIFICATION................................................61 F. CAMPAIGNS,FINANCING, AND THE MASS MEDIA..............................................61 G. VOTER INFORMATION .........................................................................................61 H. POLLING SITE PROCEDURE .................................................................................62 I. BALLOT SECURITY AND CONTROL OF THE ELECTION PROCESS......................63
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessment of the National Integrity System of Montenegro
    ASSESSMENT OF THE NATIONAL INTEGRITY SYSTEM OF MONTENEGRO This project is supported by the European Union. The content of this does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the report lies entirely with the author ASSESSMENT OF THE NATIONAL INTEGRITY SYSTEM OF MONTENEGRO Title: ASSESSMENT OF THE NATIONAL INTEGRITY SYSTEM OF MONTENEGRO Publisher: Network for affirmation of NGO sector - MANS Monitoring and Analytic Programme Authors: Vanja Ćalović, Executive Director Vuk Maraš, Monitoring and Analytic Programme Director Aleksandar Maškovic, Analytic Programme Coordinator Veselin Radulovic, MANS’ Legal Advisor Print: 3M - Makarije Edition: 30 copies Contact: Dalmatinska 188, Podgorica, Montenegro Phone: +382 20 266 326 Fax: +382 20 266 328 E-mail: [email protected] www.mans.co.me CONTENTS I INTRODUCTORY NOTE ........................................................................................................................... 7 II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 11 III ABOUT THE NATIONAL INTEGRITY SYSTEM ASSESMENT .............................................. 21 IV COUNTRY PROFILE OF MONTENEGRO ..................................................................................... 27 V CORRUPTION PROFILE ......................................................................................................................... 31 VI ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTIVITIES .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Balkanologie, Vol. XI, N° 1-2 | 2008 “Blocked Political System”: Serbia 2000-2008 2
    Balkanologie Revue d'études pluridisciplinaires Vol. XI, n° 1-2 | 2008 Volume XI Numéro 1-2 “Blocked political system”: Serbia 2000-2008 Srdjan Cvijic Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/balkanologie/1293 DOI: 10.4000/balkanologie.1293 ISSN: 1965-0582 Publisher Association française d'études sur les Balkans (Afebalk) Electronic reference Srdjan Cvijic, « “Blocked political system”: Serbia 2000-2008 », Balkanologie [Online], Vol. XI, n° 1-2 | 2008, Online since 31 December 2008, connection on 17 December 2020. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/balkanologie/1293 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/balkanologie.1293 This text was automatically generated on 17 December 2020. © Tous droits réservés “Blocked political system”: Serbia 2000-2008 1 “Blocked political system”: Serbia 2000-2008 Srdjan Cvijic Introduction 1 After the demise of Milosevic’s regime and the parliamentary elections of December 2000 that followed, the political parties gathered in the anti-Milosevic coalition won more than 2/3 of the parliamentary seats, enabling them to radically change the Serbian political system and state structure. Soon after these elections, however, internal bickering among the ruling political elite began. It took 6 years to enact a Constitution and thus lay the foundation for the new democratic state. Weak governments, internal and external political instability, the institution of a Partycracy (Partitocrazia (it.) - referring to the monopolisation of state institutions by political parties), patronage, the consequent erosion of legitimacy of government institutions, the de-ideologisation of politics, and the political free-riding of the anti-system opposition comprised the ugly face of what could otherwise be branded the story of a relatively successful economic and social recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • Montenegro Guidebook
    MONTENEGRO PREFACE Podgorica, the capital of Montenegro, lies in a broad plain crossed by five rivers and surrounded by mountains, just 20 kilometers from the Albanian border. The city has a population of around 180,000 people. Bombed into rubble during World War II, Podgorica was rebuilt into a modern urban center, with high-rise apartment buildings and new office and shopping developments. While the latest Balkan war had a low impact on the physical structures, the economic sanctions had a devastating effect on employment and infrastructure. With the help of foreign investment, urban renewal is evident throughout the city, but much of it may still appear run down. Podgorica has a European-style town center with a pedestrian- only walking street (mall) and an assortment of restaurants, cafes, and boutiques. To many, its principal attraction is as a base for the exploration of Montenegro’s natural beauty, with mountains and wild countryside all around and the stunning Adriatic coastline less than an hour away. This is a mountainous region with barren moorlands and virgin forests, with fast-flowing rivers and picturesque lakes; Skadar Lake in particular is of ecological significance. The coastline is known for its sandy beaches and dramatic coves: for example, Kotor – the city that is protected by UNESCO and the wonderful Cathedral of Saint Typhoon; the unique baroque Perast; Saint George and Our Lady of the Rock islands – all locations that tell a story of a lasting civilization and the wealth of the most wonderful bay in the world. The area around the city of Kotor is a UNESCO World Heritage site for its natural beauty and historic significance.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Montenegro's Protests Are Unlikely to Spell the End for Milo
    blogs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/11/20/why-montenegros-protests-are-unlikely-to-spell-the-end-for-milo-dukanovic/ Why Montenegro’s protests are unlikely to spell the end for Milo Đukanović Starting in late September, Montenegro has experienced a stream of protests, with police at times resorting to the use of force to disperse protesters. Mirko Bošković writes that initially the protests were driven by an opposition party, the Democratic Front, and were perceived to be largely pro- Russian and anti-NATO in nature. While this ensured a substantial part of the country’s civil society did not participate in the demonstrations when they first began, the situation changed dramatically following the authorities’ attempts to repress the movement. The anti-government character of the demonstrations has now taken centre stage, with protesters calling for ‘the first free and fair elections in the history of Montenegro’ and the end of Milo Đukanović‘s 26-year-long rule. The ongoing protests that are taking place in Montenegro’s capital Podgorica started on 27 September, when the Democratic Front (DF), a composite coalition of opposition parties with different ideologies, placed tents on the boulevard in front of the Parliament, in an act reminiscent of the recent protests in neighbouring Macedonia. The demonstrations were directed against the government but also against Montenegro’s NATO membership. Officially, the goal of the protesters was not only to stop Montenegro’s advance toward joining NATO, whose invitation is expected to come on 1 December, but the timing of the demonstrations and the way in which the protesters have acted could not hide that objective.
    [Show full text]
  • 1998 Montenegro R01761
    Date Printed: 11/03/2008 JTS Box Number: IFES 8 Tab Number: 11 Document Title: Republic of Montenegro: Voter Awareness Assessment Legal Review, Nov 1997-Feb Document Date: 1998 Document Country: Montenegro IFES ID: R01761 A L o F \ o REpUBLIC OF MONTENEGRO VOTER AWARENESS ASSESSMENT LEGAL REVIEW NOVEMBER 1997 - FEBRUARY 1998 PREPARED By: CATHERINE BARNES, PROJECT TEAM LEADER ALEXANDRA LEV ADITIS, PROGRAM ASSISTANT DANIEL FINN, LEGAL ADVISOR IFES ~ International Foundation for Election Systems 1l0115th Street, NW, Third Floor Washington, DC 20005 This Report was made possible by a grant/rom the United States Agency for International Development (USA/D). The opinions expressed in this Report are solely of the International Foundation/or Election Systems (IFES). This material is in the public domain and may be reproduced wilhout permission, citation is appreciated. REpUBLIC OF MONTENEGRO VOTER AWARENESS ASSESSMENT LEGAL REVIEW NOVEMBER 1997-FEBRUARY 1998 ISBN 1-879720-48-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................•................................................... :.................................................... 1 VOTER AWARENESS ASSESSMENT I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................5 A. MISSION BACKGROUND .......................................................................................5 B. MISSION OBJECTIVES ...........................................................................................5 C. SCOPE OF MISSION ...............................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Montenegro, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 22 April 2001
    CG/CP (8) 5 REV Standing Committee Report on the observation of the early parliamentary elections in Montenegro, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 22 April 2001 Rapporteur : Mr Tomas JIRSA (Czech Republic) Adopted by the Standing Committee on 31 May 2001 --------------------------- At the invitation of Mr Svetozar Marovic, President of the Montenegrin Parliament, and of the Yugoslav authorities, through their Consul General in Strasbourg, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) was invited to observe the early parliamentary elections held on 22 April 2001. The elections were called by the President of the Republic of Montenegro on 20 February, following the People's Party's withdrawal from the governing coalition and the Montenegrin Parliament's decision to dissolve itself. At its meeting of 7 March 2001, the Bureau of the Congress decided to send an observer delegation comprising Mr Tomas JIRSA (Czech Republic, L, Head of the delegation), Mrs Ayse Bahar CEBI (Turkey, L), Mr Fabio PELLEGRINI (Italy, L), Mr Constantinos TATSIS (Greece, R) and Mrs Lea TOLONEN (Finland, R), accompanied by Mr Alessandro MANCINI and Miss Sylvie AFFHOLDER (Congress Secretariat). Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had appointed six observers: Mr Andreas GROSS (Switzerland, SOC), Mrs Vera SQUARCIALUPI (Italy, SOC), Mr Lauri VAHTRE (Estonia, EPP), Mr Claude FREY (Switzerland, LDR), Mr Cevdet AKÇALI (Turkey, EGD) and Mr Pierre GOLDBERG (France, UEL), accompanied by three members of its Secretariat. The Council of Europe delegation worked closely with the election observation mission appointed by the OSCE/ODIHR and wishes to thank Mr Vulchanov, Head of the Mission, and his team for their assistance and logistical support.
    [Show full text]
  • The Authenticity of the Founding of Tito's Yugoslavia As a Federation Communist Federation
    Sergej Flere1 UDC 94(497.1)"1943" University of Maribor Original scientific paper Faculty of Philosophy Submitted 06/11/2018 Maribor (Slovenia) Revised 29/12/2018 Accepted 08/01/2019 doi: 10.5937/socpreg52-19443 THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUNDING OF TITO’S YUGOSLAVIA AS A FEDERATION Abstract: It is widely accepted that Tito’s Yugoslavia was institutionally founded at AVNOJ, namely the Second Session of the Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia, held on November 29, 1943 in Bosnian woods. At the assembly, a Decree concerning the federal organization was to be adopted. The Decree contained principles of Yugoslavia’s future organization (six republics, along with the parity of republics and nationalities). Neither scholars nor politicians, in the former country and abroad, have questioned the veracity of the assertion that the Decree was adopted at this Session. The Decree was instrumental in the communist drive to impose a federation and communism, when confronted with pre-war politicians in the Transitional and Constitu- tional Assemblies, in 1945 and 1946. The communists were able to claim that federalism had already been instituted. Later, the Decree was widely invoked during Tito's Yugosla- via, both by those who advocated greater ''states' rights'' and by those claiming that Yugo- slavia was already too decentralized. On closer inspection, it is more than questionable whether such constitutional De- cree could have been adopted in such a situation. Many issues the decree governs were matters of contention and final decision making within AVNOJ after the Second Session (and in 1945). Technicalities also point to the Decree not being adopted at that moment, but in an informal situation by the communist leaders at a later date, however, not later than February 1945.
    [Show full text]
  • Inputs from the Government of Montenegro
    INPUTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF MONTENEGRO The activities led by the Government of Montenegro in the past have been recognised as an example of good practices to be followed in the region. Hereby you may find all relevant information in chronological order that address the activities, law measures, best practices in terms of law enforcement and LGBT Strategy measures aimed to fight the violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity. The inputs are divided into two parts. First part consists of measures and activities including projects and relative publications and the second one is about legislation. I PART: Measures and activities - In September 2011, the Government of Montenegro was the first state in the Western Balkans to host an International Conference on LGBT rights and freedoms. Further information about the Conference “Toward Europe, Toward Equality” are available at: http://www.gov.me/en/homepage/Conference_Toward_Europe_Toward_Equality - Montenegro was the first beneficiary state in the Council of Europe’s project “Combating discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity”, which began with the realization in September 2011 and lasted until the end of 2013. The project aimed to support countries involved in the preparation of measures and the implementation of actions in the fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in order to implement the Recommendation CM / Rec ( 2010 )5. A number of conferences and training were held that had the purpose to heighten visibility and improve the quality of life for LGBT persons. Those included the governmental conferences, meetings with the representatives of the Council of Europe along with the participation of civil society, panel discussion on multiple discrimination supported by William Institute, UCLA School of Law and the Conference on the LGBT rights where representatives of 11 governments of the region took part.
    [Show full text]
  • The Decision of the Citizens of Montenegro to Live in an Independent and Sovereign State of Montenegro, Made in the Referendum Held on May 21, 2006;
    Stemming from: The decision of the citizens of Montenegro to live in an independent and sovereign state of Montenegro, made in the referendum held on May 21, 2006; The commitment of the citizens of Montenegro to live in a state in which the basic values are freedom, peace, tolerance, respect for human rights and liberties, multiculturalism, democracy and the rule of law; The determination that, as free and equal citizens, persons belonging to nations and national minorities living in Montenegro: Montenegrins, Serbs, Bosnians, Albanians, Muslims, Croats and others, we are loyal to the democratic and civil state of Montenegro; The conviction that the state is responsible for the preservation of nature, sound environment, sustainable development, balanced development of all its regions and the establishment of social justice; The dedication to cooperation on equal footing with other nations and states and to the European and Euro-Atlantic integrations, the Constitutional assembly of the Republic of Montenegro, at its third meeting within the second regular session in 2007, held on October 19, 2007, adopts 1 THE CONSTITUTION OF MONTENEGRO PART ONE BASIC PROVISIONS The State Article 1 Montenegro is an independent and sovereign state, with the republican form of government. Montenegro is a civil, democratic, ecological and the state of social justice, based on the rule of law. Sovereignty Article 2 Bearer of sovereignty is the citizen with Montenegrin citizenship. The citizen shall exercise power directly and through the freely elected representatives. The power that is not stemming from the freely expressed will of the citizens in the democratic elections, in accordance with the law, shall not be established nor recognized.
    [Show full text]
  • 08.Association-Montenegro.Pdf
    Association for the Advancement of political, cultural and economic Cooperation between Montenegro, the Republic of Serbia and Republika Srpska Podgorica, Montenegro H.E. Аhmed Shaheed UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief Your Excellency, Encouraged by your invitation to, inter alia, civil society organisations to submit contributions to your thematic report on the elimination of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief and the achievement of a sustainable development goal 16, we are free to inform you about drastic forms of intolerance and discrimination in legislation and practices in Montenegro, as well as about the effects of such discrimination. Although the focus of your interest is on minority religious communities, as well as on vulnerable groups such as women and girls, indigenous peoples, and refugees and migrants, we are still of the opinion that developments in Montenegro, since the adoption of the new Law on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the Legal Status of Religious Communities, due to the discriminatory effects of that law, the practice of extreme intolerance shown by the Montenegrin authorities towards the Serbian Orthodox Church dioceses in that state and the potential escalation of the crisis, deserve your special attention and care and it is a negative example that should be reflected in your report for the 75th session of the UN General Assembly. At the very beginning of our contribution, we would like to draw your attention to a few, in our opinion, extremely important facts in the context of which the information we will provide in this text could be considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliament and Democracy
    ang_couv.qxd:Mise en page 1 29.1.2008 10:56 Page 1 PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRACY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY a guide to good practice PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRACY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY ISBN 978-92-9142-366-8 90000 9 789291 423668 ISBN 978-92-9142-366-8 2006 INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION 2006 •Anglais.qxd:Mise en page 1 3.12.2007 10:44 Page i Un Parlement qui rend des comptes I i PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRACY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY A GUIDE TO GOOD PRACTICE •Anglais.qxd:Mise en page 1 3.12.2007 10:44 Page ii ii I PARLEMENTS ET DÉMOCRATIE AU 21ÈME SIÈCLE •Anglais.qxd:Mise en page 1 3.12.2007 10:44 Page iii Un Parlement qui rend des comptes I iii PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRACY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY A GUIDE TO GOOD PRACTICE Written and edited by David Beetham Inter-Parliamentary Union 2006 •Anglais.qxd:Mise en page 1 3.12.2007 10:44 Page iv iv I PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRACY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY Copyright © Inter-Parliamentary Union 2006 All rights reserved Printed in Switzerland First reprint October 2007 ISBN: 978-92-9142-366-8 No part of this publication may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, via photo- copying, recording, or otherwise – without the prior permission of the Inter- Parliamentary Union. This publication is circulated subject to the condition that it shall not by way of trade or otherwise be lent, sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than in which it is published and without a similar condition, including this condition being imposed on the subsequent publisher.
    [Show full text]