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
stateswith 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 electionsthe act of
governingis 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:
An effective parliament should be amplifying
the public voice. It provides the connective tissue between people
and power, and should ensure that government priorities reflect
and respond to the needs of the people.[29]
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 conflictproviding 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:
Parliaments are the fulcrum of democratic political
systems. They sit at the centre of a web of domestic accountability
that links them to the executive and other branches of government,
to constituents and the wider public, and to political parties.[38]
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:
We are putting enormous diplomatic resources
into securing, for the post2015 agenda, the importance of
governance in institutions, the rule of law, all of which, I believe,
stem ultimately from a strong, functioning Parliament. I have
no doubt that the most important element is the Parliament.[40]
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:
There is substantial and growing empirical evidence
that parliaments are a necessary, if not sufficient, condition
for both socio-economic and democratic development
Countries
with parliamentary forms of government are more effective in controlling
corruption than those with presidential forms
Parliamentary
forms of government (along with there being a unitary state, rather
than federal arrangement, and an electoral system with proportional
representation, rather than a first-past-the-post system) help
reduce corruption
. The greater number of [oversight] tools
available to a parliament, the greater the level of economic development
and degree of democratization
Greater parliamentary oversight
[is] also linked to lower levels of corruption.[48]
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.
Parliaments should also be playing a pivotal
role in developing and tracking government targets in health and
education, monitoring budgets, ensuring value for money and tackling
corruption
Parliaments could be powerful partners for donors
in achieving all such objectives. Yet, for the most part, they
remain misunderstood and often avoided in development programmes.
[52]
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
18
Draft How To Note (November 2013) page 10. Back
19
WFD Submission, paragraph 2 Back
20
Submission from Alina Rocha Menocal and Tam O'Neil, ODI, paragraph
2 Back
21
Submission from Alina Rocha Menocal and Tam O'Neil, ODI, paragraph
3 Back
22
Greg Power submission, see also Thomas Carothers (2006) Confronting
the Weakest Link: Aiding Political Parties in New Democracies,
Washington Back
23
Adam Smith International Submission, paragraphs 3.2-3.3 Back
24
This is changing. Carothers and De Gramont note that more recently
a new lens on development has begun to change the world of international
aid, as the recognition that development in all sectors is an
inherently political process is driving aid providers to try to
learn how to think and act politically. See: Thomas Carothers
& Diane de Gramont (2013) Development Aid Confronts Politics:
The Almost Revolution, Washington: Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace Back
25
Lord Norton submission paragraph 9: "There is little point
in creating what LeDuc, Niemi and Norris have categorised as electoral
democracies without establishing a culture of rights and the protection
of rights through the legislature and the courts.There is still
a considerable way to go.According to LeDuc et al., there were
only 88 liberal-democracies in 2009, compared to 32 electoral
democracies (free elections, limited rights) and 65 electoral
autocracies (elections failing to meet international standards,
limited rights).Examples of electoral autocracies include Bangladesh,
Cameroon, and Uganda.Electoral democracies include Kenya, Nigeria
and Sierra Leone." Lord Norton cites: Lawrence LeDuc,
Richard G. Niemi and Pippa Norris (eds), Comparing Democracies
(London: Sage 2010), pp. 12-16 Back
26
Submission from the International Republican Institute, paragraph
2 Back
27
World Bank Submission, Section 3 Back
28
How To Note (November 2013), page 2 Back
29
Greg Power submission Back
30
See: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67475/Building-stability-overseas-strategy.pdf Back
31
Dick Toornstra of the OPPD notes that in a multipolar context
parliamentary strengthening and cooperation is essential for international
security and to avoid the emergence of "parliament-free zones"
of international decision making. See: Dick Toornstra, OPPD Submission,
paragraph 5 Back
32
Paul Collier, Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous
Places Back
33
Beyond Aid oral evidence session, 11 December 2014 Back
34
DFID Submission, paragraph 28 Back
35
DFID has four Partnership Principles, including one introduced
in 2011 on government commitment to strengthen domestic accountability
(enabling people to hold public authorities to account for delivering
on their commitments and responsibilities).The Partnership Principles
inform the overall strategy for engagement in all countries where
DFID provides bilateral aid See: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/358341/how-to-partnership-principles-march2014a.pdf
Back
36
DFID Submission, paragraph 1 Back
37
WFD Submission, paragraph 3 Back
38
Submission from Alina Rocha Menocal and Tam O'Neil, ODI, paragraph
1 Back
39
DFID Submission, paragraph 2; WFD Submission, paragraph 3 Back
40
Oral Evidence, Minister of State Desmond Swayne MP, 25 November 2014,
Q86 Back
41
Submission from Dr Rachel Kleinfeld, Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, paragraphs 22-24: "One key way to strengthen parliamentary
oversight is to provide parliaments-and citizens-with accurate
and timely budgets of foreign assistance
Opacity enables
corruption in the aid pipeline, and diminishes the ability of
parliament to exercise oversight over key sectors, such as the
military and law enforcement. The UK should ensure that it is
transparent in its assistance, provides budget numbers in a timely
manner to both local parliaments and citizens, and leads the way
in advocating for partner developed nations and multilateral institutions
to do the same." Back
42
Bond and UK Aid Network Submission, paragraphs 7-8 Back
43
The World Bank submission (Section 1) notes that commitments by
the international community in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness,
the Accra Agenda and the Busan Partnership to use 'national systems'
in order to improve country ownership of development assistance
and monitor development results underscore the importance of parliaments
in the development process. See also: Busan Principles (2011):
"21. Parliaments and local governments play critical roles
in linking citizens with government, and in ensuring broad-based
and democratic ownership of countries' development agendas. To
facilitate their contribution, we will: a) Accelerate and deepen
the implementation of existing commitments to strengthen the role
of parliaments in the oversight of development processes, including
by supporting capacity development-backed by adequate resources
and clear action plans. b) Further support local governments to
enable them to assume more fully their roles above and beyond
service delivery, enhancing participation and accountability at
the sub-national levels." DFID has committed through the
Busan Principles to strengthening national accountability institutions
in order to monitor aid effectiveness and improve country ownership
of development assistance. Back
44
"Transparency is one of the top priorities for the UK government.
It helps people see where the money is going and for what purpose.
It helps improve value for money and makes governments everywhere
more accountable to their citizens. DFID is a world leader in
aid transparency and has an ambitious vision for both DFID and
its partners
GOSAC work plays a central role in embedding
transparency in the governance and systems and development process
of DFID bilateral partners. Clear and accessible information is
essential to empower people in developing countries to hold their
government to account." Operational Plan 2011-16 Governance,
Open Societies and Anti-Corruption Department (Updated December
2014), p19 Back
45
Under the UK Aid Transparency Guarantee (2010), DFID publishes
extensive information on UK aid donations. It publishes full financial
details of all DFID projects over £500. It also publishes
project information, business cases, new contracts and tender
documents for new contracts over £10,000, both on the HMG
website gov.uk and the International Aid Transparency Initiative
website. See: http://www.iatiregistry.org/publisher/dfid Back
46
Oral evidence from Rt Hon Desmond Swayne MP, DFID Minister of State,
25 November 2014; Q100 Back
47
Submission from Dr Rachel Kleinfeld, Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, paragraphs 9-11 Back
48
World Bank Submission, Section 3 Back
49
Oral evidence from Rt Hon Desmond Swayne MP, DFID Minister of State,
25 November 2014; Q100 Back
50
DFID largest 10 parliamentary strengthening programmes can be
seen in table 2 in chapter 5. From these 10, the anti-corruption
strategies for Afghanistan and Burma mention parliament. The anti-corruption
strategy for Pakistan, which accounted for almost half of DFID's
spending on parliamentary strengthening in 2013-14 (and which
was ranked 126 out of 175 countries for corruption in 2014 by
Transparency International) does not discuss any anti-corruption
role for parliament. DFID's full list of anti-corruption strategies
can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/anti-corruption-strategies-by-country
The role of parliament is mentioned in a total of 12 anti-corruption
strategies, those for Afghanistan, Burma, Central Asia, Ghana,
Mozambique, Nepal, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Liberia, Tanzania,
Vietnam, Yemen, and Zambia. Back
51
ICAI recently gave evidence to the committee on DFID's anti-corruption work,
calling for DFID to do more to address the impact of corruption
on the poor, and re-emphasising the importance of parliament and
strengthening parliamentary scrutiny to address corruption. See:
DFID's Approach to Anti-Corruption and Its Impact on the Poor,
available at:http://icai.independent.gov.uk/reports/dfids-approach-anti-corruption-impact-poor/
Back
52
Greg Power, Global Partners Governance submission, Conclusion Back
|