House of Commons - Parliamentary Strengthening - International Development Committee

Parliamentary Strengthening - International Development Committee Contents

2 The Importance of Parliamentary Strengthening

Development, Democracy and Parliaments

6. Good governance has become an increasing focus for international development.[6] Since the 1990s there has been a global interest in promoting democracy, which has gradually become a key part of international development as well as international relations. Ideas about development have changed with theories of "development as freedom" and enabling environments for growth[7], and a shift to more "risk-based" approaches to development, which emphasise accountability, the risks of corruption and insecurity, and responding to the challenges of Fragile and Conflict-Affected states (FCAs). WFD argued that the links between poor governance and conflict is gradually shifting the international debate in favour of addressing the underlying political drivers of poverty[8] and the World Bank that good governance is increasingly recognised as a necessary condition for development to be effective and to move beyond aid and social welfare. With this focus DFID's work on governance has grown. Since 2011-12, it has spent over £700 million on annually governance and security, often its largest area of bilateral spending.[9]

7. Promoting democracy is a key part of governance work; the initial focus of this was ensuring free and fair elections as the cornerstone of democracy. While parliaments were relatively neglected apart from women's representation in them, which was a Millennium Development Goal (MDG)[10], the number of parliaments has grown and almost every national political system (190 of 193 countries) now has some form of representative assembly, accounting for over 46,000 representatives.[11] As WFD noted, the fall of the Berlin Wall led to an increase in the number of countries with effective democracies from about 50 in the 1980s to almost 90 today although the trend has not been consistent.[12]

8. While small sums have been spent compared with other aspects of governance, strengthening parliaments has become an increasingly prominent part of development work, both in the number and type of organisations that provide support and also in the amount of funding and number of parliaments being supported.[13] After 1990 the initial geographical focus for parliamentary strengthening was in Central and Eastern Europe.[14] In the past decade, as more and more European countries have joined the EU, OECD and NATO, there has been a shift to the Middle East, Africa and Asia.[15] There has been growing support to parliaments in fragile and post-conflict states—with some of the largest single programmes in Afghanistan and Iraq and more recently in countries affected by the Arab Spring.[16]

9. The focus of parliamentary strengthening initially tended to be on expanding formal powers and using them more effectively to enhance the capacity of parliaments to perform core functions; this included modernising rules of procedure and organisational practices, and improving communications with the public.[17] There have been successes: WFD argued that compared with 50 years ago, parliaments have become more accessible, more professionally-run and better-resourced. There is also evidence of emerging parliaments acting more independently, rejecting bills and appointments proposed by the executive.[18] This is particularly the case in areas of budgetary and fiscal oversight, where parliaments have come to be regarded as pivotal institutions for scrutinising government spending.

10. However, the existence of parliaments and participation and representation in elections has not proved to be a panacea. It is argued that the quality of democracy in poor countries has stagnated for the past 15 years.[19] Parliaments and MPs are themselves the object of much criticism. While the past two decades have seen expectations about what parliaments should deliver increase tremendously, in many countries parliaments remain weak and mistrusted.[20] Alina Rocha Menocal of Birmingham University and ODI told us that parliaments and political parties, were consistently ranked around the world as the institutions that people trust the least, while the military was the institution that enjoys most public confidence.[21]

11. Political parties and parliaments are often the weakest link in promoting democracy[22] largely because many parliaments are unable or unwilling to counter powerful executives. This results in parliaments not acting as independent power bases beholden to the electorate, but themselves beholden to their governments.[23] Parliaments are often characterised by factions and opportunism, with weak mechanisms for compromise.

12. These complications have meant that development agencies, including DFID, have been wary of engaging with parliaments.[24] Yet these complications are an argument for rather than against strengthening parliaments. As Lord Norton highlighted, there is a growing range of states with elections but without effective democratic systems.[25] There is recognition that work to promote democracy focused solely on ensuring free and fair elections is of little value without effective parliaments. As the International Republican Institute told us:[26]

While free and fair elections embody the ideals of democracy, what happens between elections—the act of governing—is equally important to ensuring the long-term success of democracy. Citizen confidence in government institutions is critical for a strong, sustainable democracy. This is especially true with regard to legislative bodies, the members of which are elected as direct representatives of their constituents. Where parliaments are unable or unwilling to fulfil citizen needs, the democratic process is undermined and risks becoming a democratic façade.

The Importance of Parliament

13. Strengthening parliaments is recognised as important to international development in 4 key ways.

Poverty reduction and economic growth: The World Bank notes that parliaments are a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for socio-economic development and hence for reducing poverty.[27] "More stable, open, responsive and inclusive political systems, driven by high levels of transparency, accountability, participation and competition" are thought to better promote and sustain economic development.[28] Greg Power informed us:

Security: The UK Government is committed to strengthening global democracy in the National Security Council's Building Stability Overseas Strategy.[30] Parliaments are particularly important for building a democratic culture and for managing conflict—providing a platform for different interests to express their views and preparing opposition groups for governing. Witnesses stressed how parliaments could prevent and mitigate the effects of conflict[31], albeit that the evolution of a national political culture where all the main political players accept democracy takes time.

Parliaments are seen as particularly important for addressing the security challenges of Fragile and Conflict Affected states (FCAs). Initial work to promote democracy focused on holding elections, but this often had highly disruptive and destructive consequences in low income and post-conflict situations.[32] It is essential, in addition, to build effective institutions which operate between elections.

DFID plans to devote 30% of its total spending to FCAs and acknowledges the importance of its governance work as part of this spending. The Secretary of State has stressed the key role parliaments should play in UK conflict prevention work.[33] DFID notes that the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund sees working with parliaments as a key aspect of support for building inclusive political systems affected by conflict and instability,[34] but there is some concern that the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund will give a higher priority to intervening in conflicts than in preventing them.

Accountability: Promoting domestic accountability and good governance is a prominent part of UK development policy, and development partnership principles.[35] The Prime Minister has emphasised "the golden thread of development," which highlights the importance for international development of political institutions that serve the many; the accountability of power holders to citizens; and the ability of citizens to demand their rights and participate in decisions that affect their lives.[36] According to the UN My World survey, after good education, accountability, i.e. "honest and responsive government" is the highest priority for citizens in poor countries.[37] Strong parliaments are increasingly acknowledged as central to this golden thread. Parliamentary scrutiny is often the main means by which government is held to account for its performance, able to have a ripple effect across public spending:

DFID stresses the importance of parliaments in promoting accountability in its agenda for the new post-2015 Millennium Development Goals regime.[39] The Minister highlighted the importance of parliaments in this agenda:

Transparency, trust and combatting corruption: International donors have increasingly stressed the need to make public spending more transparent;[41] this can help ensure the effectiveness of development spending and broad and democratic ownership of a country's development priorities.[42] DFID has been a global leader in agreeing to make its spending transparent for this very reason[43] and highlights transparency as one of the top priorities of its Governance, Open Societies and Anti-Corruption Department.[44] DFID currently makes available online its spending data by country,[45] but it does not currently report directly to developing countries' parliaments its spending in their countries, or to individual parliamentary committees. The Minister agreed with the Committee that it was important for the UK to report UK aid and sectoral spending to parliaments and their relevant departmental committees in the countries where DFID operates.[46]

Strengthening parliaments is important for challenging corruption, and can be used more in DFID's anti-corruption work. While parliaments themselves can be the source of corruption and patronage relations[47], strong parliaments are also often key to challenging corruption, as the Committee has witnessed first-hand in Tanzania. The World Bank notes that countries with parliamentary forms of government are more effective in controlling corruption than those with presidential forms and that greater parliamentary oversight is linked to lower levels of corruption:

The Minister emphasised the key role DFID saw for parliaments in combatting corruption through strengthening scrutiny of government.[49] DFID has organised its parliamentary strengthening work as part of the Department for Governance, Open Societies and Anti-Corruption, and has developed Anti-Corruption strategies for each of its priority countries. However, of DFID's 28 anti-corruption strategies, less than half (43%) mention a role for parliament in any form, and only two of the anti-corruption strategies for the countries where DFID has its largest 10 parliamentary strengthening programmes actually give it a role.[50] Anti-corruption work and parliamentary strengthening seemingly still operate in separate silos.[51]

14. It was argued that in other areas too, donors should show a greater appreciation of the value of parliaments.

Conclusions and recommendations

15. DFID is showing global leadership in different initiatives to promote better governance and address a number of the key risks in global development. Its work ranges from lobbying for goals on accountability in the post-2015 MDG framework to developing its own sophisticated country-level anti-corruption strategies. We commend DFID for these initiatives. We urge the Government to continue to press for "accountable, inclusive governments, including strong parliaments" in the post-2015 MDG development framework.

16. As Lord Norton points out, donors have spent great sums on programmes supporting elections, but these have limited value if they are not followed by effective parliaments. Moreover, parliaments are at the centre of a number of DFID's priorities, including poverty reduction and economic growth, security, accountability, transparency and anti-corruption work DFID is recognising the importance of parliaments and the political context in which development operates, but we believe DFID could do more to make the most of the opportunities offered by parliamentary strengthening. DFID needs to consider whether it has the resources, approach, and systems to maximise the value that parliamentary strengthening offers. 2015 is the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, and 750th anniversary of the Simon de Montfort Parliament. As the Foreign and Commonwealth Office witness highlighted, this provides an opportunity to reaffirm the value of parliaments in the contemporary world, but also to reassess the UK's role in promoting democracy and parliaments around the world.

17. We recommend that DFID

· recognise the role of parliaments in its work on poverty reduction, human rights, equality, economic growth, security, transparency, accountability and anti-corruption;

· in particular, include the role of the national Parliament in each of its country-level anti-corruption strategies when it next revises them

· report to national Parliaments and their relevant departmental committees its sectoral spending in countries where it has bilateral programmes from 2014-15 onwards, and include its intention to do so in its partnership agreements with recipient countries.

6 Thomas Carothers and Diane de Gramont term this the "almost revolution." See: Thomas Carothers & Diane de Gramont (2013) Development Aid Confronts Politics: The Almost Revolution, Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Back

7 Amartya Sen (2001), Development as Freedom, Oxford: OUP Back

8 Westminster Foundation for Democracy Submission, paragraph 3 Back

9 DFID spent £752 million on governance and security (governance is not reported separately) in 2011-12, out of a total of £4.22 billion (17.8%). This was its largest area of bilateral spending. In 2012-13 it similarly spent £711 million, out of a total of £4.28 billion, and £723 million in 2013-14. Chapter 2 analyses DFID's spending in detail. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67353/Annual-report-accounts-2011-12.pdf Back

10 MDG 3.3 on the "Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament" See also: DFID Submission, paragraphs 3, 9. DFID notes that progress has been slow with women holding 19.3% of seats in single/lower houses worldwide in 2011, up from 12% in 1997. Back

11 DFID Submission, paragraph 5 Back

12 WFD Submission, paragraph 2 Back

13 Submission from Alina Rocha Menocal and Tam O'Neil, ODI, paragraph 8 Back

14 The recent wave of UK parliamentary strengthening work can be marked by the establishment of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in 1992, which had a regional focus in Eastern Europe. The end of the Cold War saw the growth of a number of groups promoting the transition to democracy in Central and Eastern Europe and parts of the former Soviet Union, both private sector groups, like Adam Smith International, and large NGOs like Open Society. This transition has been broadly successful, with many former communist countries, the focus of initial strengthening efforts, now members of the EU and more applicant countries, notably in the Balkans, waiting in the wings. See: WFD Submission, Adam Smith International Submission, paragraph 1.1 Back

15 Regular Afrobarometer studies all show extremely wide support for democracy. See: Demand for Democracy Is Rising in Africa, But Most Political Leaders Fail to Deliver, Michael Bratton and Richard Houessou, 23 April 2014, Policy Paper #11 See also: Adam Smith International Submission, paragraph 1.1. http://www.afrobarometer.org/files/documents/policy_brief/ab_r5_policypaperno11.pdf Back

16 Submission from Alina Rocha Menocal and Tam O'Neil, ODI, paragraph 8 Back

17 World Bank Submission, Section 1 Back