Benchmarking and Self-Assessment for Parliaments

CHAPTER 1

Benchmarks and Self-Assessment Frameworks for Parliaments

Lisa von Trapp

The strength of the national legislature may be a—or even the—institutional key to democratization.

—M. Steven Fish (2006)

Introduction

Elections provide a basis for rule by the people, but they do not guarantee that citizens are effectively represented. True democracy requires that those who are freely elected have the power—and the political will—to fulfill their constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Faced with challenges such as declining public confidence and executive dominance, parliaments worldwide must ensure that they function in an internally democratic manner and have the necessary authority and resources to carry out their representative, legislative, and oversight functions.¹

Many parliaments today are seeking to improve their performance—among other things, to become more open, independent, accountable, and responsive. Every parliament is a product of its own country’s history and culture, and there is no magic formula or checklist for developing an effective parliament. However, an emerging international consensus finds that certain norms and standards regarding democratic parliaments transcend the particularity of political and legislative systems. Context matters enormously, but a benchmarking or self-assessment exercise, if done well, should allow context to be fully explored.

International consensus has emerged over time on a standards-based approach in the areas of human rights and elections,² but until recently, a standards-based approach around what constitutes a democratic parliament had fallen behind. Today a range of international parliamentary organizations, such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU); the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA); l’Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie (the Parliamentary Assembly of La Francophonie, or APF); and the Southern African Development Community Parliamentary Forum (SADC PF), together with their partners, such as the World Bank³ and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),⁴ recognizes that the development of standards and assessment frameworks can (a) contribute to parliament’s self-evaluative and reform efforts and (b) guide parliamentary development practitioners and donors in designing more appropriate support programs. More generally, the act of building consensus around standards is useful in further internationalizing the debate on what constitutes a democratic parliament and democracy in general.

This type of consensus building is expected to be a long-term process, and as with elections, a universal set of standards may never be agreed on. Moreover, just as there is a wide variety of organizations contributing to this work, a wide range of terminology is being used, including standards, benchmarks, norms, criteria, indicators, principles, and good practices. Nevertheless, given their shared goals and increasingly coordinated approach, the work of these different organizations has been mutually reinforcing, and a significant level of commonality can be found in the different assessment frameworks in terms of content. The reasons for this commonality are threefold:

• The frameworks have all drawn on or been influenced by one another. For example, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) provided technical support to the IPU as it developed its good practice guide, and the IPU guide was one of the resource documents, together with an NDI discussion paper, used by the CPA parliamentary study group to create the CPA’s benchmarks for democratic legislatures.

• All of the frameworks cover the core functions of parliament—namely, approving legislation, representing citizens, overseeing the executive, and approving the budget.

• There is a common understanding of what does not constitute a democratic parliament, such as executive dominance and corruption of members of parliament and parliamentary officials.

Therefore, variations in vocabulary aside, it is not unthinkable that a set of overarching principles or standards for democratic parliaments could eventually be adopted.

This chapter is based on a background publication (von Trapp 2010) prepared for the International Conference on Benchmarking and Self-Assessment for Democratic Parliaments, which took place in Paris on March 2–4, 2010. The aim of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive review of the work on developing assessment frameworks for democratic parliaments that took place in the lead up to the conference. The chapter is organized as follows: First, an overview is given of the key actors and assessment frameworks. Then, a discussion of parliamentary benchmarks and self-assessment frameworks as part of a larger trend follows. Commonalities and key differences across the frameworks are reviewed, and initial guidelines are suggested for using the frameworks and experiences at the national and state level. The chapter closes with some concluding remarks.

Key Actors and Assessment Frameworks

The main actors in the process of developing standards for democratic legislatures are organizations or associations of parliaments or parliamentarians. These organizations represent a broad spectrum of parliaments and parliamentarians from across the globe and are able to bring their members’ views to bear in the discussion. They are well placed to understand both the shared traits and the diversity represented in parliamentary democracies today. Other actors, such as the World Bank and UNDP, play a supportive role by mobilizing resources and providing expertise as appropriate. UNDP, the World Bank, NDI, and others bring valuable experience from their own parliamentary strengthening work with a range of legislatures.

The frameworks described in this section are living documents or works in progress that are open to eventual adaptation and elaboration. As they are discussed internationally and regionally and as they are applied at the national level, they will change. Indeed, specific regional considerations have already been identified, and new benchmarks have been suggested during the SADC PF workshops and during the CPA regional workshops for the Pacific and Asia. Moreover, just as legislatures are continuously evolving, standards will likely evolve and presumably rise. In the future, some organizations may even choose to develop more aspirational benchmarks.⁵

This section outlines four of the most commonly cited frameworks: (a) the NDI’s International Standards for Democratic Legislatures, (b) the CPA’s Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures, (c) the APF’s critères d’évaluation, and (d) the IPU’s Self-Assessment Toolkit for Parliaments. For further information on the historical debate on what constitutes a democratic parliament, refer to annex 1A.

The NDI’s International Standards for Democratic Legislatures

Founded in 1983, NDI describes itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working to support and strengthen democratic institutions worldwide through citizen participation, openness, and accountability in government.⁶ NDI has worked with individual members, parliamentary leaderships, committees, and political party caucuses in national and regional legislatures in more than 60 countries.

In January 2007, NDI published a discussion document titled Toward the Development of International Standards for Democratic Legislatures (NDI 2007). The process leading up to this publication involved a broad survey of existing documents from a range of organizations, such as the IPU, CPA, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, SADC, International Conference of New or Restored Democracies, Community of Democracies, and United Nations. Thus, the 88 standards identified in the NDI publication represent an attempt to codify already widely agreed principles. The standards are grouped into four main categories: (a) election and status of legislators, (b) organization of the legislature, (c) functions of the legislature, and (d) values of the legislature. Box 1B.1 in annex 1B provides an overview of the standards within these categories.

In 2008–09, NDI also designed a survey tool, the Standards-Based Questionnaire, which attempts to determine perceptions of the legislature’s (formal) authority and of its performance (that is, its behavior in practice). The survey covers 25 issues that are often included in benchmarks for democratic parliaments or in parliamentary self-assessment tools.

The CPA’s Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures

Established in 1911, the CPA is an association of Commonwealth parliamentarians who, irrespective of gender, race, religion, or culture, are united by community of interest, respect for the rule of law and individual rights and freedoms, and pursuit of the positive ideals of parliamentary democracy.⁷ Through a variety of activities, the CPA seeks to promote the advancement of parliamentary democracy, to build an informed parliamentary community able to defend the Commonwealth democratic commitment, and to further cooperation among its member Parliaments and legislatures. The CPA’s membership comprises around 17,000 parliamentarians from around 175 national, state, provincial, and territorial parliaments in Commonwealth countries.⁸

In November 2006, the CPA convened the Parliamentary Study Group, with CPA members representing different Commonwealth regions.⁹ Building on the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Accountability of and Relationship between the Three Branches of Government (CPA and others 2004), the NDI discussion paper, and the recommendations of 26 previous CPA workshops and study groups,¹⁰ the group worked to synthesize and codify a set of benchmarks to reflect the current state of good Commonwealth parliamentary practice. The group considered the following themes and recommended a set of benchmarks related to each:

• Representative aspects of parliament

• Assurance of the independence, effectiveness, and accountability of parliament

• Parliamentary procedures

• Public accountability

• Parliamentary service

• Parliament and the media

The end product is a set of 87 benchmarks that attempt to cover the features of a fully functioning and empowered democratic parliament (von Trapp 2007). As explained in chapter 3, these benchmarks are divided into four main topical headings: general, organization of the legislature, functions of the legislature, and values of the legislature. The CPA benchmarks are phrased as statements rather than questions, and no specific system or methodology to code responses to these benchmarks is provided. A CPA guidance note explains that the benchmarks are a useful tool to launch a debate, to provide a basis for measuring parliamentary effectiveness, or to help leverage reforms (CPA 2009).

According to CPA practice, the benchmarks are intended to be the beginning of a larger discussion rather than an end in themselves. The CPA expects that the development of regional versions of the benchmarks that reflect the diverse practices and priorities within the Commonwealth will also contribute to the evolution of the benchmarks. Some CPA regions have developed their own versions of the benchmarks, which affirm the majority of the original benchmarks while adding several new benchmarks. At the same time, the CPA is encouraging individual parliaments to undertake benchmark self-assessments and to share their experiences with their peers in other Commonwealth parliaments. Benchmarking assessments have been conducted by the Australian Capital Territory (see chapter 12), Bermuda (see chapter 14), Canada (see chapter 11), Kiribati (see chapter 13), Nauru, Niue, and Tuvalu, among others.

The APF’s Critères d’Évaluation

Established in Luxembourg in 1967, the APF is the consultative assembly of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (International Organization of La Francophonie, or OIF). The APF brings together 77 parliaments from four geographic regions: Africa, the Americas, Asia-Pacific, and Europe. It works through four standing committees and a network of women parliamentarians. The APF seeks to promote democracy, peace, and human rights; to enhance the influence of parliamentarians; and to promote the French language.¹¹ It provides technical assistance to member parliaments and is currently collecting a compendium of parliamentary procedures and practice from its members. The development of standards, in partnership with UNDP, is therefore seen as a natural extension of the APF’s core mission.

The APF took the CPA benchmarks as a starting point in developing a set of parliamentary standards. It also conducted a comparative study of the rules of procedure of several parliaments within the francophone countries, and drew on the work of the OIF.¹² Although many of the APF criteria match (or are similar to) the CPA benchmarks, the APF has gone further in some areas. For example, the APF has developed additional criteria around elections or measures to be included in parliaments’ rules of procedure and has significantly expanded the number of benchmarks on participation in international affairs. The final result of the APF’s exercise is 117 criteria, which were formally and unanimously adopted as La réalité démocratique des Parlements: Quels critères d’évaluation? (The Reality of Democratic Parliaments: What Criteria of Evaluation?) during the 35th session of the APF in Paris on July 6, 2009. Chapter 5 considers this document (APF 2009) in more detail.

The IPU’s Self-Assessment Toolkit for Parliaments

Established in 1889, the IPU is the world’s oldest interparliamentary organization. The IPU has more than 160 national parliaments as members and 10 regional parliaments as associate members. Members are divided into six geopolitical groups: Africa, the Arab Group, Asia-Pacific, Eurasia, Latin America, and Twelve Plus. However, some IPU members are not affiliated with any of these geopolitical groups. The IPU’s main areas of activity are representative democracy; human rights and humanitarian law; international peace and security; women in politics; sustainable development; and education, science, and culture.¹³

Published in 2008, the IPU toolkit developed out of a "major programme of work undertaken by the IPU, to examine what makes a parliament democratic, both in the way it functions and interacts with its electorate, and in its effectiveness in performing its roles within a democratic system of government" (IPU 2009b, 1, emphasis in original). The toolkit builds on a collection of best practices from many of the organization’s member parliaments, as well as on consultations with an expert working group. The toolkit’s self-assessment methodology draws extensively from the State of Democracy Assessment Methodology developed by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA).

The main objective of the IPU self-assessment toolkit is to assist parliaments in a systematic analysis of their performance, to identify their strengths and weaknesses, and to formulate recommendations for reform and development. The IPU self-assessment toolkit comprises 54 questions organized around six categories (IPU 2008, 5):

• The representativeness of parliament

• Parliamentary oversight over the executive

• The parliament’s legislative capacity

• The transparency and accessibility of parliament

• The accountability of parliament

• The parliament’s involvement in international policy

The toolkit is considered in more detail in chapter 2.

The IPU toolkit questions are framed in the comparative mode and ask how effective, adequate, systematic, and so forth the parliament is. A five-point scale is used to measure responses. Further questions then ask for the biggest recent improvement in each respective section, the most serious ongoing deficiency, and potential measures to remedy this problem.

The toolkit suggests a number of possible scenarios for its use but notes that the precise format for using the toolkit will depend on its purpose (IPU 2008, 12). The IPU believes that parliamentarians themselves are best placed to identify the challenges they face in practice and to suggest ways in which those problems may be overcome. Thus, the initiative for self-assessment should come from parliaments themselves. The toolkit suggests that key parliamentarians should be involved and that the assessment group should reflect the broadest possible range of perspectives from within the parliament. Some parliaments may choose to work in partnership with an outside organization or with outside experts or facilitators. In that case, participants should agree on the precise role and scope of the exercise in advance, as well as on the expected timescale and outcomes of the process (IPU 2009b, 2).

The IPU has trained facilitators to assist in the assessment process as requested. As a result of lessons learned during a first round of self-assessments in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and several other countries, the IPU drafted a preparation note for parliaments on carrying out a self-assessment to provide further guidance (IPU 2009a). Promoting the toolkit remains a high priority, and the IPU has initiated discussions with regional parliamentary organizations with a view to increasing awareness and use of the toolkit.

Parliamentary Benchmarks and Self-Assessment Frameworks as Part of a Larger Trend

Several other organizations, such as the Canadian Parliamentary Centre, have also developed parliamentary assessment frameworks. Others, such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) have expressed an interest in developing their own evaluative frameworks. Still others are including components on parliament within broader assessment frameworks such as the International IDEA State of Democracy Assessment Methodology or the Transparency International (TI) National Integrity System Assessment. Certain benchmarks or standards around democratic parliaments are reflected in sets of governance indicators such as the World Bank’s actionable governance indicators (AGIs). This section illustrates a few of these examples.¹⁴

The Parliamentary Centre’s Parliamentary Report Card Methodology

The Parliamentary Centre has developed the Parliamentary Report Card methodology (see figures 1.1 and 1.2) and a related set of 37 indicators on the budget process. The Parliamentary Report Card tests performance in four areas that are almost universally regarded as the core functions of parliament: legislation, representation, oversight, and the budget. It then evaluates these four lines of service against five performance tests on the level and range of activity, openness and transparency, participation, accountability, and policy and program impact.

Figure 1.1 Parliamentary Report Card

Source: Parliamentary Centre, Canada.

Figure 1.2 Sample of Report Card Performance Area and Related Indicators

Source: Parliamentary Centre, Canada.

The indicators are phrased as questions, and respondents use a scale of zero to five. The Parliamentary Centre has begun limited field-testing of the Parliamentary Report Card using this first set of indicators in Cambodia and in several African countries (for the latter, see chapters 9 and 15). To date, the methodology has not been widely used, and work is in progress to refine the methodology and to develop new indicators to better inform their assistance programs. Figures 1.1 and 1.2 demonstrate the format of the report card itself and sample indicators.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Self-Evaluation

PACE was the first European regional parliamentary group to explore assessment frameworks. In January 2009, PACE’s Bureau of the Assembly referred a motion to consider elaborating procedural guidelines for self-evaluation by national parliaments in Europe. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities, and Institutional Affairs has since produced and debated a draft paper titled Self-Evaluation by Europe’s National Parliaments: Procedural Guidelines, which takes into account work by the IPU and other organizations (PACE 2009). The committee then began work on a questionnaire for PACE’s members and considered several follow-up steps in this workstream, including (a) analyzing the relevance of existing self-assessment standards in the parliaments of Council of Europe (CoE) member states, (b) providing information on the strengths and weaknesses of CoE parliaments and identifying a model for an exemplary parliament, and (c) discussing the appropriateness of procedural guidelines for performance assessment by international parliamentary institutions in Europe.

International IDEA’s State of Democracy Assessment Methodology

As noted earlier, the IPU’s (2008) Self-Assessment Toolkit for Parliaments draws extensively from International IDEA’s State of Democracy Assessment Methodology. The IDEA methodology is a reform-oriented assessment with several aims: (a) to generate debate among stakeholders on various issues identified by the assessment, (b) to feed into evidence-based advocacy, (c) to contribute to policy reform, and (d) to raise awareness about the quality of democracy in the country assessed.¹⁵ International IDEA’s assessment framework has 4 pillars and 15 subpillars, each of which is assessed by answering a series of questions that examine whether certain democratic institutions and processes are in place and how they perform in practice. One of the subpillars focuses on the democratic effectiveness of parliament.

Transparency International’s National Integrity System Assessment

In 2009, Transparency International devised new indicators for the pillar legislature, one of 12 institutions assessed by TI’s National Integrity System.¹⁶ The purpose of this pillar was to examine the different parliamentary benchmarks and self-assessment frameworks. Similar to NDI’s Standards-Based Questionnaire, the TI tool indicators attempt to measure both formal powers (law) and practice.

World Bank’s Actionable Governance Indicators

The World Bank’s AGIs—described as narrowly defined and disaggregated indicators that focus on relatively specific aspects of governance and could provide guidance on the design of reforms and monitoring of impacts—reflect several of the standards identified by parliamentary organizations (Reid 2008).¹⁷ For example, Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability indicators PI-27 (Legislative Scrutiny of Annual Budget Law) and PI-28 (Legislative Scrutiny of External Audit Reports) are directly related to the standards addressing parliament’s role in the budget process. Human Resource Management (HRM) Performance Indicators and the HRM Diagnostic Instrument also contain indicators that can be linked to standards dealing with recruitment, retention, and codes of conduct for parliamentary staff members. Furthermore, other multilateral initiatives, such as the Global Initiative on Fiscal Transparency and the Open Government Partnership, all have components that relate to the role of parliament in the budget process or transparency.

The Frameworks: Commonalities and Differences

With this background, it is useful to take a closer look at the commonalities and differences across the various parliamentary assessment frameworks. To facilitate this examination, annex 1D provides a comparison table using the CPA benchmarks as a starting point and comparing them to the NDI standards and the APF criteria. Although the CPA benchmarks are presented in order, the NDI standards and APF criteria are not; instead they are presented in relation to the CPA benchmarks. The table uses a color-coded system. Benchmarks, standards, or criteria that match are coded as light gray, those that are very similar are coded as medium gray, and those that are new or that only appear in one set of standards are coded as dark gray. For reference, the Participants’ Statement from the March 2010 International Conference on Benchmarking and Self-Assessment for Democratic Legislatures also provides a brief summary of areas of consensus under five themes: institutional independence, procedural fairness, democratic legitimacy and representation, parliamentary organization, and core legislative and oversight functions.¹⁸

The comparative table in annex 1D allows readers to see the high level of consensus that exists between the main frameworks. Although there are differences between the frameworks, it quickly becomes apparent that those differences do not stem from conflicting principles but from different areas of focus or parliamentary traditions. For example, greater emphasis is given to ex post financial oversight and the specific role of public accounts committees in the CPA and SADC PF benchmarks,¹⁹ no doubt because of their importance in most Westminster-based systems.

The IPU’s toolkit does not lend itself to this type of comparison table, but certain questions can be matched to the different standards, and many of the possible procedural and institutional means identified in the IPU Framework on the Parliamentary Contribution to Democracy mirror the recommended benchmarks. For example, the framework identifies parliament’s control of its own budget, a nonpartisan professional staff separate from the main civil service, and adequate unbiased research and information facilities for members as procedural and institutional means for ensuring parliamentary effectiveness. All three of these issues are covered by the CPA benchmarks, NDI standards, and APF criteria.

The table in annex 1D reveals that more than 80 percent of the CPA benchmarks and the NDI standards are the same or similar. Differences include NDI standards (some of which are arguably influenced by the U.S. experience) that legislators have the right in nonparty-list electoral systems to leave their party group (4.2.2); that no partisan or nonpartisan staff member shall have any legislative or procedural authority, including voting (5.3.2); that the legislature shall have the power to amend the budget (6.3.1); that in the absence of a public referendum, constitutional amendments require the legislature’s approval (6.5.1); that the legislature have a nonpartisan ombudsman or similar body that investigates complaints of executive branch malfeasance and makes recommendations and reports directly to the legislature (7.3.1); that the legislature’s consent be required in the confirmation of senior judges and the legislature shall have mechanisms to impeach judges for serious crimes (7.6.1); and that the legislature be accessible to persons with disabilities (9.2.3).

The vast majority of both the CPA benchmarks and NDI standards also match or are similar to the APF criteria. However, the APF has developed around 30 additional criteria. In some cases, the APF simply uses two criteria to address what the CPA combines in one benchmark, or vice versa. Often new APF criteria specify that certain aspects be defined in the constitution, by law, or in the rules of procedure. This development is interesting, as other groups have shied away from benchmarks that force specific changes to the constitution or rules of procedure.

The APF has also developed additional criteria around topics such as elections and has significantly expanded the number of benchmarks on parliamentarians’ and parliaments’ participation in international affairs. For example, criterion 2.5.2.3 calls for parliamentarians to be included in government delegations participating in international negotiations. Another significant difference from the NDI and CPA frameworks is that the APF has not adopted criteria on no-confidence and impeachment measures. Finally, the APF criteria contain specific benchmarks related to gender equality that are not found in the CPA or NDI frameworks (such as 3.2.1.5, which calls for representation of women at all levels of the parliamentary administration, and 2.1.1.3, which calls on parliaments to preserve a balanced representation of women and men at all levels of responsibility within parliament).

Despite these variations, many areas of consensus across the different standards remain. For example, all frameworks recognize the right of legislators to immunity for speech during the exercise of their duties. Moreover, to reinforce the autonomy of the legislature, all recognize that the executive branch shall have no right or power to lift the immunity of a legislator.²⁰

Other measures to increase parliament’s autonomy that are addressed by the different standards include providing proper remuneration and reimbursement of expenses to legislators, as well as adequate physical infrastructure, information and communication technology facilities, and nonpartisan professional staff support. In addition, there are standards on the legislature’s control of the parliamentary service and terms of employment, including that the legislature have adequate resources to recruit a staff sufficient to fulfill its responsibilities, that the rates of pay for the parliamentary staff be broadly comparable to those of the civil service, and that recruitment be based on merit.²¹ These standards in part seek to address concerns that qualified staff members may be deterred from staying in the parliamentary service because of lower pay and benefits. Moreover, as the parliamentary service is part of the civil service more generally and is controlled by the executive, there is a risk that staff could be moved to other areas of the civil service, potentially disrupting the work of parliament.²² A final concern is that staff members who assist committees in conducting inquiries may feel pressured to tone down resulting reports if they reflect negatively on the