Strengthening Parliamentary Accountability ... - World Bank Group

GOVERNANCE WORKING PAPER SERIES

Parliamentary Strengthening Program

Strengthening Parliamentary Accountability, Citizen Engagement, and Access to Information: A Global Survey of Parliamentary Monitoring Organizations Andrew G. Mandelbaum

Research and publication supported by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland and BNPP

WORKING PAPER

Strengthening Parliamentary Accountability, Citizen Engagement, and Access to Information A Global Survey of Parliamentary Monitoring Organizations Andrew G. Mandelbaum

Andrew G. Mandelbaum currently serves as a senior program officer with the Governance Team of the National Democratic Institute (NDI), having previously served as a consultant to the World Bank Institute and NDI on this project. Formerly, he spent two years in Morocco consulting for international development projects. His clients included the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Moroccan Parliamentary Support Project at the State University of New York’s Center for International Development. Mr. Mandelbaum, who speaks Arabic, has also worked on the Muslim World Initiative at the U.S. Institute of Peace. He holds a BA in public policy studies from Duke University and an MA in democracy and governance from Georgetown University.

© 2012 National Democratic Institute and World Bank Institute 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org E-mail: [email protected] All rights reserved. Portions of this work may be reproduced or translated for noncommercial purposes provided the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the World Bank Institute (WBI) are acknowledged as the sources of the material. This paper is the product of cooperation between NDI and the WBI. It was produced by a consultant funded jointly by both organizations, who has since become an employee of NDI. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of either organization, their directors, or, in the case of WBI, the governments they represent. Neither NDI nor the World Bank guarantees the accuracy of the data in this work. The National Democratic Institute is a nonprofit organization working to strengthen and expand democracy worldwide. Calling on a global network of volunteer experts, NDI provides practical assistance to civic and political leaders advancing democratic values, practices, and institutions. NDI works with democrats in every region of the world to build political and civic organizations; safeguard elections; and promote citizen participation, openness, and accountability in government. The World Bank Institute is a global connector of knowledge, learning, and innovation for poverty reduction. It is part of the World Bank Group. WBI connects practitioners, networks, and institutions to help them find solutions to their development challenges. With a focus on the “how” of reform, WBI links knowledge from around the world and scales up innovations. WBI works with and through global, regional, and country-based institutions and practitioner networks and helps them develop customized programs that respond to their needs. WBI connects globally and delivers locally.

Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Characteristics of PMOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 2.1 PMO Functions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 2.2 Challenges Facing PMOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 2.3 International Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Practices for Monitoring Individual MPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 4. Practices for Monitoring Parliaments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 4.1 Explaining and Tracking the Legislative Process and Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2 Monitoring Parliamentary Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3 Conducting Comprehensive Parliamentary Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 4.4 Conducting Issue-Value Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. Good Practices in Parliamentary Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 5.1 Increasing Transparency of Parliamentary Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 5.2 Sustaining Funding for PMOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.3 Overcoming Parliamentary Resistance to Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 5.4 Using Parliamentary Monitoring to Support Reform and Reinforce Public Activism . . . . . . . . . .21 5.5 Using Parliamentary Informatics Effectively to Monitor Parliaments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 iii

iv

Strengthening Parliamentary Accountability, Citizen Engagement, and Access to Information

5.6 Developing Effective Media Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 5.7 Using Sound Methodologies and Reporting Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6. Preliminary Recommendations for the Donor Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Appendix: List of PMOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Boxes Box 2.1: The Parliamentary Informatics Trend in Parliamentary Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Box 5.1: Changing Game Plans in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Box 5.2: Factors a PMO Should Consider When Contemplating Using Parliamentary Informatics . . . .24 Figures Figure 1.1: Pictorial Tool Developed by Congresso Aberto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Figure 2.1: Number of PMOs and Number of National Parliaments Monitored by PMOs, by Region . . .3 Figure 2.2: Common Activities Conducted by PMOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Box Figure 2.1a: Example of a Website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Figure 3.1: Sample MP Profile from Directorio Legislativo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 3.2: A Global Participation Chart Developed by Regards Citoyens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Figure 4.1: Screenshot of a Video That Educates Citizens about Chile’s Legislative Process . . . . . . . . . .14 Figure 4.2: Example of Vote Analysis on an Informatics Website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Figure 4.3: Monitoring Tool by the African Legislatures Project: Legislative Assertiveness of Selected African Parliaments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table Table 2.1: Challenges Facing PMOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Acknowledgments

This working paper presents the findings of a joint research project on parliamentary monitoring organizations conducted by the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the World Bank Institute (WBI). The full report is available at http://www.ndi.org/files/governanceparliamentary-monitoring-organizations-surveyseptember-2011.pdf. The author is grateful to both NDI and WBI for their generous support of this initiative. The project was managed by K. Scott Hubli, Director of Governance at NDI, and David Kuennen,

former Senior Program Officer on NDI’s Governance Team; and Rick Stapenhurst, Mitchell O’Brien, and Deena Philage of WBI’s Parliamentary Strengthening Program. These individuals, as well as Koebel Price and Jared Ford of NDI, Marcos Mendiburu of WBI, and Lacey Kohlmoos, formerly of NDI; provided valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this publication. The author would also like to express appreciation to the many individuals at parliamentary monitoring organizations (PMOs) and other organizations who contributed to the project.

v

Foreword

The World Bank Group’s Governance and AntiCorruption Strategy underscores the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches to tackling the challenges of poor governance and improving development outcomes. Collaborative governance draws from the experiences, expertise, and insights of diverse stakeholder groups and permits the social monitoring of public institutions so that they are more responsive and accountable to citizens. These approaches are affirmed in the Guidance Note on Bank Multi-Stakeholder Engagement1 and are embedded in the World Bank Institute’s Renewal Strategy. They are also being embraced by governments the world over, as manifested in the Open Government Partnership. More recently, in 2011, the president of the World Bank Group, Robert Zoellick, amplified the ap-

proaches in his speech at the Peterson Institute, asserting that policy reforms must be underpinned by broad-based and inclusive consultations—including with young stakeholders. Civil society organizations (CSOs) represent a key stakeholder. They are engaged at all levels to promote good governance and improve development outcomes—from policy advocacy to independent budget analysis, public expenditure tracking, and monitoring of service delivery. CSOs also work to influence parliament and strengthen its oversight role. A particularly important type of CSO in this respect is the parliamentary monitoring organization (PMO), to which this Working Paper is dedicated. The work of PMOs is critical because the parliament is a preeminent institution of governmental accountability, and the importance of its oversight mandate cannot be overstated. PMOs’ work, which includes assessing the functioning of parliaments, informing citizens, and promoting public participation in parliamentary processes, can be key to strengthening parliamentary capacity. This Working Paper therefore seeks to provide insight into the forms and functions of PMOs globally. It aims to broaden our under-

1 The Guidance Note highlights the “increasingly strong evidence of the importance of engaging with and strengthening a broad array of stakeholders and improving principles such as participation, empowerment, transparency, and accountability” (page 5). See http://www-wds. worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/ WDSP/IB/2009/07/08/000333037_200907082354 04/Rendered/PDF/492200BR0SecM2101Official0Use 0Only1.pdf.

vii

viii


standing of how these groups are able to form constructive, arm’s-length relationships with parliaments that enhance transparency and connect officials more directly with the people they represent. Ultimately, the goal is to increase understanding of how the mutually reinforcing relationship between parliaments and civil society

can help advance the goal of capable, accountable, and responsive governance. Jeff Thindwa Lead Specialist and Social Accountability Cluster Leader World Bank Institute

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AFLI API CDF COMFREL FOI FORMAPPI ICT IPU KDI LALT MANS MP MUHURI NDI NICFEC OECD DAC PILDAT PMG PMO PRS TIB

African Leadership Institute Africa Parliamentary Index constituency development fund Committee for Free and Fair Elections in Cambodia freedom of information Forum Masyarakat Peduli Parlemen Indonesia information and communications technology Inter-Parliamentary Union Kosova Democratic Institute Latin American Network for Legislative Transparency Network for Affirmation of the NGO Sector (Montenegro) member of parliament Muslims for Human Rights National Democratic Institute Neutral and Impartial Committee for Free and Fair Elections in Cambodia Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Development Assistance Committee Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency Parliamentary Monitoring Group parliamentary monitoring organization PRS Legislative Research Transparency International Bangladesh

ix

x


TISA TÜMIKOM WBI

The Institute for Social Accountability Association of Committees for Monitoring Parliamentarians and Elected Officials (Turkey) World Bank Institute

Executive Summary

Parliamentary monitoring organizations (PMOs) are citizen-based groups that monitor or assess the functioning of parliaments or their individual members, often seeking to facilitate and promote public knowledge of, and participation in, parliamentary processes. PMOs have shown promise in strengthening a number of components of democratic governance, including accountability of parliaments to the electorate, citizen engagement in the legislative process, and access to information about parliaments and their work. Some PMOs have shown the capacity to encourage parliamentary reform. Given the lack of research on PMOs, the National Democratic Institute (NDI)1 and the World Bank Institute (WBI)2 undertook a joint project to identify PMOs worldwide, document good practices in parliamentary monitoring, and suggest recommendations for the international donor community regarding PMOs. To meet these objectives, the project consultant surveyed 63 PMOs, analyzed their websites and other outputs, and interviewed a range of individuals at organizations involved in conducting or supporting parliamentary monitoring activities. Findings include the following:

xi

More than 190 PMOs monitor more than 80 national parliaments worldwide. According to the project survey results, most PMOs (94 percent) monitor national parliaments, whereas 24 percent monitor subnational legislatures. They primarily focus on monitoring the activities or performance of individual parliamentarians, but many also monitor parliaments as institutions, political parties, committees, or specific issues such as parliamentary transparency. Although a wealth of good practice information exists, the overall quality of PMO methodologies and interventions remains mixed, and opportunities for sharing good practices among PMOs remain limited. Some PMOs monitor quantitative indicators related to parliamentary activity or performance without providing a qualitative assessment of the results. Others invest more in monitoring than in developing effective outreach and advocacy strategies. Regional networking, which has commenced in Latin America and in the Middle East and North Africa, represents a recent and limited development despite the potential ben-

xii


efits of sharing information and experience among PMOs worldwide. The application of information and communications technologies (ICTs) to parliamentary work, often known as parliamentary informatics, is a rapidly growing trend in parliamentary monitoring. These tools can (a) automatically aggregate and organize information from parliamentary websites and other information sources; (b) generate visualizations (for example, of voting behavior or sources of political finance); and (c) create new platforms for citizens to interact with members of parliament (MPs) or participate in parliamentary monitoring and policy analysis. Many PMOs have used these tools to develop innovative, informative, and attractive websites, although most successful websites are technology enabled rather than technology driven. Major challenges facing PMOs include limited access to information, insufficient financial support from local and international sources, and parliamentary resistance to their activities. Sixty-three percent of PMOs mention lack of access to information as a challenge, whereas lack of funding appears to be an obstacle for most PMOs. In countries receiving international development assistance, donor support is a critical source of funding. Few PMOs offer funding models that appear transferable to other contexts, although many have developed innovative techniques for accessing labor (for example, partnering with universities) and for drawing public attention (for example, conducting advocacy campaigns around elections and providing direct access to websites through popular media sites), which can draw donor support.

PMOs vary in their approaches to parliamentary monitoring, with some taking more adversarial stances toward parliaments and others choosing a more collaborative course. Some PMOs have found it helpful to complement monitoring activities with more constructive approaches that support legislative development. In designing their monitoring interventions, PMOs should consider whether they are likely to stimulate democratic reform or to inadvertently reinforce public cynicism of parliament. The international donor community can encourage effective parliamentary monitoring in the following ways: –– Continuing medium- to long-term investments in PMOs that allow them time to develop their approaches and methodologies by forging credible and effective working relationships with MPs; –– Working with PMOs to help them translate quality parliamentary monitoring into successful advocacy for reform and constructive parliamentary engagement; –– Supporting networking and peer-topeer sharing among PMOs to consolidate effective activities and tools and to encourage the use of good practices throughout the PMO community; –– Supporting and engaging PMOs in efforts to improve parliamentary transparency, including the development of minimum transparency standards for parliaments, indexes of parliamentary transparency, and open data standards –– Engaging the parliamentary informatics community to improve sharing and

Executive Summary

encourage development of common ICTs; and –– Including PMOs in the continued development of international norms and

standards for democratic parliaments to reinforce these efforts and encourage consensus around the normative approach.

xiii

1 Introduction

Figure 1.1: Pictorial Tool Developed by Congresso Aberto

During the past decade, parliaments have received increasing attention from the international development community.3 Some scholars have gone so far as to suggest that “the strength of the national legislature may be a—or even the—institutional key to democratization” (Fish 2006, 18). Parliamentary monitoring organizations (PMOs) monitor and assess the functioning of parliaments or their individual members, often seeking to facilitate and promote public knowledge of and participation in parliamentary processes. More than 190 of these organizations monitor more than 80 national parliaments worldwide. They have shown promise in strengthening a number of components of democratic governance, including accountability of parliaments to the electorate, citizen engagement in the legislative process, and access to information about parliaments and their work. Despite the potential of PMOs to strengthen democratic parliaments and the increased international support for their efforts, little research has been undertaken about PMOs and their activities.4 Although PMOs tend to face similar challenges, few initiatives have facilitated the sharing of best practices and exchange of ideas among them. This situation has impeded peer-

Source: Congresso Aberto (http://bit.ly/i9T5aU). Note: This depiction by Congresso Aberto (http://www.congressoaberto.com.br) shows Brazilian political parties’ ideology (x-axis) and allegiance to the government (y-axis), according to roll call votes (in gray).

to-peer learning and has prompted many PMOs to invent their own tools (see, for example, figure 1.1) and methodologies—with mixed results— 1

2


rather than build on the good practices already developed by their counterparts. To advance an understanding of PMOs and the activities they conduct, the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the World Bank Institute (WBI) initiated a joint project to (a) identify PMOs worldwide and collect basic information regarding their activities, (b) document good practices in parliamentary monitoring, and (c) suggest possible recommendations for the international donor community regarding PMOs. To meet these objectives, the project consultant identified PMOs by contacting international civil

society networks and NDI field offices. A questionnaire was provided that asked PMOs a range of questions related to their basic roles and functions, the activities they conduct, and the problems they face. The questionnaire, which was released in English, French, and Spanish, was completed by 63 PMOs of the approximately 170 contacted, for a response rate of 37 percent.5 Other good practices were identified by conducting interviews with selected PMOs and by analyzing PMO documents, PMO websites, and secondhand information from sources such as the Technology for Transparency Network.6

2 Characteristics of PMOs

PMOs are part of a subset of organizations that monitor political processes, including public budgets and expenditures, campaigns, and government implementation of policy.7 This project identified

191 PMOs monitoring 82 national parliaments, a number of subnational parliaments, the European Parliament, and the United Nations General Assembly.8 Figure 2.1 illustrates that PMOs are wide-

Figure 2.1: Number of PMOs and Number of National Parliaments Monitored by PMOs, by Region 50 40 30 20 10 0

Pacific

Eurasia

Middle United East States and and North Africa Canada

Western Europe

SubSaharan Africa

Asia

Central and Eastern Europe

Latin America

number of national parliaments

number of PMOs

Source: Author’s representation. Note: Five PMOs that monitor international legislative institutions exclusively are excluded from the figure. The other four PMOs that monitor an international legislative institution in addition to a national parliament are included in the region of the national parliament. No PMOs monitor parliaments in more than one region. 3

4


spread in countries with democratic parliaments and strong parliamentary or legislative traditions, particularly in Europe (47 identified, of which 19 are in Western Europe and 28 are in Central and Eastern Europe) and Latin America (42 identified). However, the existence of PMOs is by no means limited to developed countries.9 In Sub-Saharan Africa, 24 PMOs have been identified, in part owing to the advent of civil society monitoring of constituency development funds. Sixteen are found in the Middle East and North Africa. Of the 63 PMOs that completed the project’s survey,10 94 percent monitor national parliaments, and 24 percent monitor subnational parliaments (19 percent monitor both subnational and national parliaments).11

2.1 PMO Functions and Activities How PMOs monitor parliaments and the types of activities they conduct (see figure 2.2) depend on a variety of factors. As objectives, most PMOs seek to improve parliamentary transparency, accountability, or citizen accessibility to parliament and parliamentary information. Some aim to bolster the ability of members of parliament (MPs) to access quality information, whereas others may view parliamentary monitoring as a way to influence the government’s approach to particular issues, such as increasing transparency or combating corruption. Depending on its strategic outlook, one organization may seek to monitor parliament as an objective and nonanalytical observer, whereas another organization may endeavor to play an evaluative role that includes subjective analysis. PMO activities are also affected by the broader operating environment within which monitoring takes place, including such issues as internet access, openness of the political environ-

ment, and amount of information available about the parliament. If one compares PMOs monitoring parliaments in countries participating in the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD DAC),12 which represents major foreign assistance donor countries, and those in foreign assistance partner countries,13 the latter appear more inclined to view parliamentary monitoring as part of their broader advocacy work.14 PMOs in foreign assistance partner countries are also more likely than PMOs in OECD DAC countries to make freedom of information requests,15 engage in public interest litigation, and monitor constituency development funds or other funds managed by MPs that are intended to support local development projects. Another important factor that appears to affect how PMOs monitor parliaments is their use of parliamentary informatics,16 which involves using advanced information and communications technology (ICTs) to monitor parliaments (see box 2.1). Approximately 40 percent of PMOs surveyed use such tools to (a) automatically aggregate, reorganize, and disseminate information from parliamentary websites and other sources; (b) automatically generate graphs of votes and other useful graphics; and (c) create new platforms for citizens to interact with MPs or participate in parliamentary monitoring and policy analysis. Irrespective of their geographic location, PMOs that use informatics appear more likely to conduct a hands-off approach to parliamentary monitoring that prioritizes citizen access to parliamentary information. This approach includes the creation of profiles or scorecards that aggregate data on individual MPs, including their votes, floor speeches, oversight activities, and other data. Meanwhile, PMOs that do not use informatics are more inclined to engage MPs in their activities.17 They are more likely to testify in

Characteristics of PMOs

Figure 2.2: Common Activities Conducted by PMOs

38

conducting public opinion polls 33

conducting polls or surveys of MPs

65

assessing parliamentary performance as an institution 41

summarizing parliamentary activities assessing parliament as part of political system assessment

32

assessing parliamentary institutional capacities

32

evaluating parliament using tools designed by international groups

25

developing MP profiles

49

developing scorecards

30

summarizing legislation

40

tracking legislation

29

engaging in public interest litigation

29 48

proposing legislation to promote reform 44

fulfilling requests of parliamentary actors or parties for information 24

testifying in parliamentary committees or plenary sessions 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

share of PMOs surveyed (%)

Source: Author’s representation.

parliament, to fulfill information requests from parliament on specific issues or legislation, and to propose MP codes of conduct. Although it is important to not overstate differences among PMOs on the basis of any single

factor, distinctions related to the use of informatics may carry some useful implications given the appeal and increasing use of these tools. In particular, PMOs that use informatics appear more engaged than other PMOs in improving data

5

6


Box 2.1: The Parliamentary Informatics Trend in Parliamentary Monitoring Parliamentary informatics in- Box Figure 2.1a: Example of a Website volves the use of advanced ICTs to monitor parliaments in the contexts of both developed and developing countries. One effective parliamentary informatics tool automatically aggregates publicly available information from parliamentary websites, databases, and other sources and then organizes those data on the PMO’s own website to improve searchability, citizen understanding, and use of that information. Other informatics websites create graphics, such as maps indicating where MPs receive the most votes or charts of campaign contributions, to fa- Source: OpenCongress.org. cilitate citizen understanding of available—and sometimes com- Note: OpenCongress.org, a popular parliamentary monitoring website in the United States, uses informatplex—data. “Crowd-sourcing” ics to aggregate information about MPs, bills, issues, and techniques, another feature of more. Analysis is available on the OpenCongress.org blog parliamentary informatics, can (http://www.opencongress.org). also be used to facilitate public participation in the political process by allowing citizens to comment on legislation or converse with their MPs. Websites using wikis and other similar tools may allow users to build or collaborate on content development more broadly. Parliamentary informatics is used by approximately 40 percent of PMOs surveyed for this project and represents a rapidly growing trend. Although its use remains more commonplace in developed democracies in Europe and North America, application of informatics has increased significantly in Southeast Asia and Latin America, as well as in parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. These tools have mostly been developed on an ad hoc basis. Although some developers converse with one another electronically, more can be done to develop a cohesive community of informatics developers and users who could benefit greatly from sharing good practices and exchanging experiences.

availability, and they do so with a particular focus on MPs. Meanwhile, PMOs that do not use informatics tend to conduct activities that engage and support the parliament directly. They also focus more broadly on parliamentary per-

formance, in addition to that of individual MPs, and on parliament’s role within the political system. As a broader range of PMOs adopt parliamentary informatics, ensuring that these tools enable PMOs to meet the full spectrum of their

Characteristics of PMOs

monitoring objectives, rather than drive PMO behavior, is important. Parliamentary monitoring should be technology enabled rather than technology driven.

2.2 Challenges Facing PMOs Despite the diversity in their approaches and activities, PMOs’ challenges are shared. As shown in table 2.1, the most prominent challenges facing PMOs concern access to information and lack of funding, followed by resistance to the organization’s goals by parliamentary actors and lack of citizen interest in PMO work. Because of the importance of information for improving citizen understanding and engagement in the legislative process and the requisite of structured data for processing by informatics, enhancing parliamentary transparency is a common objective among PMOs at large. The issue of parliamentary resistance to monitoring is central to this challenge, although in a substantial number of countries, the lack of information is also related to challenges of staff capacity and resources. The funding chal-

lenge for PMOs is also manifest worldwide. Such techniques as automating data collection using informatics software and tapping universities for free labor have helped to bolster some PMOs; nearly all PMOs depend on donor support or foundation grants of some sort.

2.3 International Context In addition to the parliamentary informatics trend (discussed in box 2.1), the parliamentary strengthening trend has played an important role in the emergence of parliamentary monitoring. Parliamentary strengthening refers to the increasing focus of the international community18 on parliamentary development as a means of enhancing democracy worldwide. The international community serves as an essential funding source for PMOs in developing countries, funding 86 percent of these PMOs and serving as the principal funding source for 67 percent of them. In a number of instances, this funding is accompanied by technical assistance to help PMOs strengthen their monitoring methodologies, develop more

Table 2.1: Challenges Facing PMOs Challenge

Share of PMOs affected (%)

Difficulty in gaining access to desired information

63

Lack of financial support from local funding sources

62

Lack of international donor support

54

Resistance to parliamentary monitoring activities by MPs, parties, or parliamentary staff members

35

Lack of interest from local citizens and organizations

27

Source: Author’s compilation.

7

8


effective tools, and use information to encourage outcomes that aim to bolster democratic reform of parliament. The international community has also developed a variety of resources, such as standards for democratic parliaments and guidelines for parliamentary websites, that can help inform PMO methodologies and may provide a useful opportunity for engagement.19 Although the parliamentary informatics and parliamentary strengthening trends have somewhat distinct roots, they have begun to converge as informatics developers look to deepen parliamentary engagement and as civil society organizations increasingly adopt the use of informatics. However, the lack of international networking opportunities remains a challenge that prevents cross-fertilization and sharing of good practices between and among PMOs in both trends. The eDemocracy Summit20 is one forum where a major discussion topic focused on parliamentary in-

formatics, but the last event was held in October 2009. Several partnerships among PMOs have led to the development of international monitoring tools, but these efforts have not been sustained. Recently, recognition of the importance of international networking has emerged with the creation of the Latin American Network for Legislative Transparency,21 led by Fundación Directorio Legislativo (Argentina) and Fundar (Mexico),22 and the efforts to establish the Civic Network for Parliamentary Monitoring in the Arab World, led by the Al-Quds Center for Political Studies ( Jordan).23 Additionally, NDI has continued efforts to support PMO networking through the Agora Portal for Parliamentary Development, a social networking website for MPs, parliamentary staff members, parliamentary development professionals, and civil society organizations engaged in monitoring and parliamentary support.

3 Practices for Monitoring Individual MPs

Individual MPs are a primary focus of parliamentary monitoring activities for 86 percent of PMOs surveyed. Many PMOs view individual MP monitoring as a means to develop a culture of accountability within parliament. Their tools are generally aimed at helping citizens better understand the work of MPs—both to facilitate MPs’ decision making at the polls and to encourage MPs’ participation in the political process between elections. This type of monitoring helps MPs recognize that they are subject to public scrutiny and conveys the expectation that MPs conduct the duties of their office honorably (although PMOs often seek to balance “naming and shaming” tactics with support for broad-based parliamentary reform). Many PMOs also, somewhat more obliquely, try to establish a link between citizens and elected people by building mechanisms to facilitate citizen input to their MPs on legislation or other types of constituent requests and to expedite MP responsiveness.24 Two commonly used tools for monitoring the level of activity or performance of individual MPs are profiles and scorecards. Profiles of MPs often include their educational and professional background, personal statistics, contact information, party affiliation, electoral circumscription,

committee or caucus membership, and other data that facilitate understanding of an MP’s interests and affiliations. Scorecards often quantify data related to MP work and report the findings in comparison with other MPs as individual dimensions or as a composite index. Depending on the medium used for conveying the information (that is, webpage or paper) and the amount of information available—or obtainable—about an MP’s work and the objective of the PMO (that is, to facilitate understanding of the work of individual MPs or to promote comparison among them), profiles and scorecards may be based on much the same information. Figure 3.1 is taken from Directorio Legislativo, a “Who’s Who” guide of MPs from both houses of the National Congress of Argentina developed by Fundación Directorio Legislativo (2011).25 It includes basic background information about the MP and how he or she can be contacted. It also offers information about each MP’s legislative activities, roll call votes, and personal finances, as well as information about elected officials from the MP’s region and the distribution of the MP’s political party in the National Congress. The information is obtained through a survey that Fundación Directorio Legislativo sends to mem9

10


Figure 3.1: Sample MP Profile from Directorio Legislativo

Source: Fundación Directorio Legislativo 2011, http://www.directoriolegislativo.org/fotos/2011/06/Diputados-Nacionales.pdf.

bers every two years after elections, to reflect the composition of the new National Congress. Fundación Directorio Legislativo published its first legislative directory in 2000—a time when little information about Argentina’s legislators was shared and information was not expected to be available in the public domain. But this expectation has changed, according to Noel Alonso Murray, general coordinator of programs at Fundación Directorio Legislativo. Murray notes that legislators in Argentina “now realize that this information is public and should be made known to citizens. Every time we do [the legislative di-

rectory], it becomes easier to get the information.”26 Whereas approximately half of Argentina’s legislators responded to the survey when the first legislative directory was created, more than 95 percent are estimated to have responded to the 2010–11 survey. MP scorecards often aim to provide citizens with comparative information about the work conducted by individual MPs. This information is often quantitative, although organizations such as India’s Satark Nagrik Sangathan have added qualitative information in their “report cards.”27 Most scorecards aggregate data on MP attendance, contribution to parliamentary debate, questions asked of the executive, pieces of legislation written, votes, and other measurable indicators of MP activity level. Whereas some PMOs, such as the Institute for Public Policy Research (Namibia), may conduct deeper analyses of one aspect of these data areas (see Tjirera and Hopwood 2009), some organizations, such as the Kosova Democratic Institute (KDI) and the Openpolis Association (Italy), develop indexes that summarize an individual MP’s performance data in a range of areas using a single value.28 Regards Citoyens (France),29 at the website NosDéputés.fr, has charted an MP attendance, participation, and oversight data timeline, as depicted in figure 3.2. Most PMOs release scorecard and index results with additional information aimed at providing context. Parliamentary informatics websites often allow visitors to parse through floor and committee speech records, votes, and newspaper articles in which MPs appear. The work conducted by Africa Leadership Institute (AFLI) in Uganda on parliamentary scorecards is instructive from a number of perspectives.30 The scorecard itself is designed to rate an MP’s performance in three arenas of parliamentary work: plenary, committee, and constituency.31 The plenary performance score com-

Practices for Monitoring Individual MPs

Figure 3.2: A Global Participation Chart Developed by Regards Citoyens

Source: NosDéputés.fr (http://www.nosdeputes.fr/martine-billard).

bines MP rankings for performance, attendance, and “debate influence,” an indicator that counts how many responses an MP’s comments receive. Committee performance is simply based on attendance and participation, and constituency performance includes four indicators: attendance at local council meetings, whether or not the MP accounted for the constituency development fund monies that he or she spent, existence of local offices and assistants, and citizen accessibility to the MP (see AFLI 2009). In addition to the rigorous scorecard development process, which is explored in the introductions of recent scorecards and other available documents,32 the project stands out for its incorporation of a peer assessment, one of the few tools that evaluates the intangible aspects of parliamentary work (such as quality) that are so essential to successful conduct of the job. To obtain these data, AFLI asked MPs to rate 15 other randomly selected MPs in six areas: quality, analysis, teamwork, oversight, intraparty influence, and public conduct. The scores reported—including an overall score based on the average of the six listed areas—are percentiles that are adjusted

to account for party bias. To help readers interpret the final results, AFLI has charted the scores along with the averages of the opposition and governing coalitions. Through its analysis, AFLI has discovered that MPs within these coalitions, as well as frontbenchers and backbenchers, face different opportunities and constraints that affect their overall performance scores. As a result, it has developed design features to encourage accurate comparison.

We want to influence them to take their jobs more seriously.… Constituents have no tools to follow their MPs. There are no structures to help that interaction between citizens and MPs. So, at least now, we are trying to use the scorecard to structure this relationship and make MPs more accountable. —David Pulkol Africa Leadership Institute (Uganda)

11

4 Practices for Monitoring Parliaments

Many PMOs go beyond the individual MP to monitor or assess political parties, party groups or blocs, committees, and parliament as an institution. Whereas monitoring MPs is more effective when greater amounts of information about their work is available, broader parliamentary monitoring does not necessarily require the same level of detail. Moreover, monitoring the work of political parties or party groups may be more appropriate, for instance, where parliamentary elections are conducted through proportional representation systems in which citizens do not vote directly for MPs. Many PMOs have found that MP monitoring can positively affect the behavior of individual MPs but that such changes do not necessarily translate into collective or institutional reform. Institution-level monitoring, however, can help PMOs identify shortcomings within a parliament’s overall framework and may reveal why MPs do not perform more effectively. The tools and techniques used to monitor a parliament and its functions are as varied as those for monitoring individual MPs. Many PMOs monitor the performance or productivity of a parliament within the previous session, year, or term, whereas other PMOs develop indicator frameworks to assess the work of political parties,

party groups, or committees. PMOs concerned with citizen engagement in the legislative process may provide background information on parliamentary functioning and legislative tracking or research services. Others may monitor specific areas of parliamentary functioning, such as transparency, openness, or voting behavior.

4.1 Explaining and Tracking the Legislative Process and Legislation For PMOs, explaining how parliament functions is key to providing citizens with greater access to the political process and, ultimately, to encouraging public participation in making decisions that affect their lives. Although a number of PMOs develop tools to help citizens understand the legislative and budget processes, Fundación Ciudadano Inteligente designed a creative YouTube video that animates Chile’s legislative process (see figure 4.1).33 13

14


Figure 4.1: Screenshot of a Video That Educates Citizens about Chile’s Legislative Process

Source: Fundación Ciudadano Inteligente (http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=fovPgBS2FKM).

Many PMOs additionally track individual pieces of legislation as they move through the legislative system and explain what changes they could impose on society. These tools often aim to benefit both citizens and MPs, who, particularly in many underfunded parliaments, may not have access to effective legislative tracking tools or to nonpartisan explanations of bills under consideration. The “Bill Track” feature developed by India’s PRS Legislative Research (PRS) contains all bills and their status as well as documents related to each bill.34 Bills can be searched by their status, which ranges from “To Be Introduced” to “Passed” by one or both chambers. Available documents may include the text of the bill and committee reports, as well as legislative briefs, committee report summaries, and analyses produced by PRS. Yet some PMOs, such as South Africa’s Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG),35 relieve the burden of searching for parliamentary information by sending e-mails about parliamentary or committee developments to those who sign up. GovTrack.us, a website created by Civic Impulse

(United States), has developed “trackers” that allow visitors to receive immediate updates about the bills of their choice through a personalized RSS feed on their own computers or Web pages.36 PMOs can also play a valuable role in translating complicated legal terminology into plain language that is understandable to MPs and citizens of various educational levels. PRS developed several tools to simplify legislation and describe its intended effect in plain words. Such tools include PRS’s well-known legislative briefs, which are “easy-to-understand 4–6 page documents providing a jargon-free, non-partisan overview of the issues and implications of Bills.”37 PRS sends the briefs to all MPs, to journalists, and to other interested groups and individuals. A more advanced tool, developed by Regards Citoyens at NosDéputés.fr, seeks to simplify legislative texts.38 The tool links the law to an explanation of why it was proposed and separates the law by section and article, linking all references to other laws with the original text and explaining changes required by the new law. Beyond facilitating visitor access to legislation, the website promotes citizen engagement by allowing visitors to leave comments under each article, amendment, and reference. This tool has fostered the development of a community of active citizens to coalesce, share ideas, and develop advocacy ideas around specific legislative areas, such as Internet freedom.

4.2 Monitoring Parliamentary Performance As when they monitor MP performance, PMOs are generally inclined to monitor a finite number of

Practices for Monitoring Parliaments

Figure 4.2: Example of Vote Analysis on an Informatics Website

Source: VoteWatch.eu (http://www.votewatch.eu/cx_epg_coalitions.php). Note: VoteWatch.eu depicts the frequency of winning majorities for specific coalitions in the European Parliament.

parliamentary activities, including parliamentary attendance and presence, composition, numbers of legislative pieces or oversight activities undertaken, and voting behavior. However, some PMOs develop tools to assess compliance with parliamentary rules of procedure, administrative capacity, parliamentary transparency, or anticorruption activity. Methodologies used may be based on available information or international parliamentary assessment tools and may mix public opinion research and methods to collect MP opinions with more traditional data sources. However, a common challenge faced in monitoring parliamentary performance through a combination of indicators is an overreliance on quantitative methods, which may reveal particular trends without necessarily revealing why or how they have occurred. The capacity for parliamentary informatics to display vast amounts of information in different ways has led to the development of websites dedicated to facilitating the exploration of voting data. Drawing on European Parliament vot-

ing data since 2004, VoteWatch.eu, a collaborative effort by the London School of Economics and Université Libre de Bruxelles, has created an innovative “voting trends” section to its website that allows for vote analysis by party group, issue, coalition, or voting bloc during a period of time specified by the visitor.39 Figure 4.2 shows the frequency of specific winning majorities. To gain insight into the role of parliaments in the legislative process, which may have an important effect on power dynamics within a political system, PMOs may monitor a parliament’s role in the legislative process. In figure 4.3, the African Legislatures Project, based at the University of Cape Town, considers legislative assertiveness in five parliaments by counting the number of bills introduced; reviewed, passed, and amended in committee; and amended in plenary.40 These calculations provide a number of insights into the strength of committees in the countries studied, as well as the roles of the parliaments in shaping legislation. Although most PMOs monitor a

15

16


Figure 4.3: Monitoring Tool by the African Legislatures Project: Legislative Assertiveness of Selected African Parliaments

Source: African Legislatures Project (http://www.africanlegislaturesproject.org/).

single parliament, many could undertake a similar exercise by comparing changes in the parliament’s legislative assertiveness over time.

4.3 Conducting Comprehensive Parliamentary Assessments The most common parliamentary monitoring assessment aggregates various data related to the parliament’s functioning and level of activity and assesses the parliament’s performance against similarly functioning parliaments (for example, parliaments hailing from the Westminster tradition) or against the same parliament in a different session or year. Such assessments are most useful

when differences or changes in quantitative data are accompanied by qualitative explanations. In Performance of the 13th National Assembly: The First Parliamentary Year (PILDAT 2009a), the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT)41 discusses “key performance indicators” and includes sections on “positive initiatives” by parliament to improve its performance and “key areas of concern.” PILDAT’s model combines irrefutable data—provided by the parliament itself—with an approach that seeks to balance “carrots and sticks” to encourage reform. International assessment frameworks that have been developed through collaborative processes with MPs and parliamentary staff members offer an additional degree of legitimacy that may benefit PMO monitoring efforts and facilitate MP participation. In addition to its legislative session reports, PILDAT also conducted an evaluation of the Pakistani National Assembly in cooperation with MPs, analysts, and members of

Practices for Monitoring Parliaments

the media using the framework of a toolkit developed by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) known as Evaluating Parliament: A Self-Assessment Toolkit for Parliaments.42 The 28 participants (half of whom were MPs) were asked to rate the National Assembly on questions posed in the six sections of the IPU’s toolkit using a 10-point scale. The final report, Evaluation of Parliament 2008–2009, states the results and recommendations developed by participants to improve the parliament’s effectiveness (PILDAT 2009b). Although many of the recommendations have yet to be implemented, the National Assembly’s secretary credits the evaluation with prompting the decision to allow an opposition leader to chair the public accounts committee and with encouraging the National Assembly’s continued efforts at self-assessment. Commenting on the National Assembly’s recent adoption of a private member bill to establish an internal research organization, PILDAT Joint Director Aasiya Riaz stated that it “took us years to sensitize MPs [to understand] that this is something they need to undertake their work. It’s still in the teething stage, but an act of parliament has been passed.”43

4.4 Conducting Issue– Value Assessments PMOs have also engaged in a number of efforts to research and evaluate specific issues or values of importance to parliamentary functioning, such as parliamentary transparency and openness, or parliament’s role in the budget process. The Regional Index of Parliamentary Transparency was a joint effort by Participa (Chile), Poder Ciudadano (Argentina), and Acción Ciudadana (Guatemala) to test parliamentary transparency by assessing the

concepts of access to information and accountability along four dimensions (comprising 62 variables) of work in which the legislature is involved.44 Each dimension was weighted according to the percentage of time the legislature devotes to it. This framework is accompanied by an analysis of laws regulating legislative transparency. Charts containing the final results of the study are color coordinated to demonstrate where a parliament is fulfilling its legal obligations, where it is not fulfilling such obligations, and where it is making information available in excess of legal requirements (Participa, Poder Ciudadano, and Acci�� ó�� n Ciudadana 2008). To assess the role of African parliaments in the budget process, the Parliamentary Centre Africa Programme has developed the Africa Parliamentary Index (API), which takes the form of a parliamentary self-evaluation facilitated by an independent external assessor (Parliamentary Centre Africa Programme 2011). The participants are first asked to weigh the importance of six factors that affect the parliament’s ability to influence the national budget: representation, legislation, oversight functions, financial scrutiny, institutional capacity, and institutional integrity. The participants then rate the parliament’s functioning in each area on a four-point scale. The average of the participants’ scores and the relative weight assigned to each area are multiplied to obtain the final results. A similar exercise is conducted with civil society organizations in each country to validate the results. Among the findings of the API, which has been implemented in seven countries, is that parliamentary budget offices have “considerably influenced the effectiveness of their Parliaments with regard to budget oversight” and that civil society often disputes the results of the parliamentary self-evaluations, calling on parliaments to become more accessible to citizens (Parliamentary Centre Africa Programme 2011, 24).

17

5

Good Practices in Parliamentary Monitoring

credits the Regional Index of Parliamentary Transparency (Participa, Poder Ciudadano, and Acción Ciudadana 2008), discussed in section 4, with helping the organization lobby Congress to improve the public availability of parliamentary information. Fundación Directorio Legislativo found that developing MP profiles and publishing a parliamentary directory helped acclimate MPs to being monitored and helped strengthen the parliament’s openness. Other organizations have campaigned for parliamentary candidates to sign a good governance pledge that serves as a public commitment on the part of the candidate to improve parliamentary transparency and openness if elected. The Al-Quds Center for Political Studies used Jordan’s 2010 elections to secure candidate signatures on an “Agreement with Jordan” that included a pledge to develop a parliamentary code of conduct once elected. The FairPlay Alliance (Slovak Republic) has organized elaborate advocacy campaigns that have successfully encouraged candidates to volunteer more detailed asset declarations than required by law.45 Forty-nine percent of PMO respondents to the NDI–WBI survey indicated that they request information under a freedom of information (FOI) law. A number of PMOs file lawsuits when

PMOs have developed a variety of innovative and effective techniques and approaches to monitor parliaments. This section highlights approaches developed by PMOs for addressing common challenges and discusses some of the qualities of PMOs that—according to PMO representatives themselves—have led to the PMOs’ successes. Because parliamentary monitoring is a continuously evolving field, the good practices reviewed in this section, as well as the associated recommendations to the international donor community in the next section, should be considered tentative and preliminary. They may, however, provide the basis for future research and discussion.

5.1 Increasing Transparency of Parliamentary Information Opaque parliaments do not lend themselves to effective monitoring, and many PMOs consider the lack of parliamentary transparency an important challenge. Acción Ciudadana (Guatemala) 19

20


requests are denied, late, or only partially complete. Although each country stipulates its own requirements for making FOI requests, some good practices are universal. For example, many PMOs have suggested that FOI requests be succinct and targeted to specific information so that requests do not overwhelm parliamentary staffs with limited resources or capacity.

5.2 Sustaining Funding for PMOs Many PMOs worldwide struggle with issues of funding. Although few sustainable funding models appear transferable, some PMOs have developed innovative ideas for generating revenues. For example, mySociety (United Kingdom) has created a for-profit website development business to help fund its nonprofit websites.46 Because of the popularity of its website (which is searchable from some of Germany’s largest media outlets, including Der Spiegel), Abgeordnetenwatch.de has been able to raise funds, in part, by charging MPs for premium profile pages hosted on the website.47 PMG sells subscriptions for its monitoring services to businesses. Other innovations may not necessarily generate revenue, but they may cut costs. For instance, a number of PMOs associated with universities call on students to conduct research, assess trends in legislative activity, or conduct other activities that would otherwise require hiring additional staff members. This practice has the added benefit of engaging students in parliamentary processes. Congreso Visible (which is affiliated with the Universidad de los Andes)48 has developed an agreement with a popular media outlet that links its content to news articles pertaining to parliament, thereby generating more than 65,000 hits

on a recent day and helping to bolster the PMO’s viewership substantially (Michener 2012). As mySociety’s Tom Steinberg recommends, another way to increase Web traffic—and possibly help PMOs fundraise or generate revenues from advertisements—is through “Search engine optimization [and other] techniques to make your stuff come up higher on Google.”49 The signature website of mySociety, TheyWorkForYou.com, averages 200,000 to 300,000 visits per month (Escher 2011).

5.3 Overcoming Parliamentary Resistance to Monitoring Just as the executive branch may not encourage robust parliamentary oversight, parliamentarians may not be accepting of rigorous civic oversight of their work as individuals or as an institution. At its core, neutralizing hostility to monitoring requires a PMO to strengthen its organizational credibility with parliamentary actors and the public. PMOs have suggested a range of good practices in this area:

Providing accurate, verifiable information—Iftekhar Zaman, executive director of Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), believes that credibility rests with accurate information. “Corruption is very bad here, but it is improving,” says Zaman. “To combat it, we need information that is impeccable and defendable, because we need to bring out the corruption in the media. Whatever we say and do, we must have information to back it up.”50


Parliaments are not exactly popular.... If the discourse of the [PMO] is similar to what the feeling of the people is—and doesn’t question the negative image that people have about the Congress—then we are not doing much.… If citizens don’t realize that Congress is a very important branch for a political system to work, then we’re not going to be a democracy. –Mónica Pachón, Congreso Visible (Colombia)

Building public support—TIB has also developed credibility through its strong public support, including more than 4,600 members and a network of 36 Committees of Concerned Citizens. An independent evaluation found that “TIB is now identified as being synonymous with tackling corruption in Bangladesh” (Knock and Yasmin n.d.). Although such an accolade does not shield TIB from attack, it helps the organization gain access to parliament and the ear of politicians. Combining monitoring activities with parliamentary support—PMOs have bolstered their credibility with MPs by providing support for parliamentary development in conjunction with their monitoring and evaluation activities. For example, Transparency International Georgia was able to obtain office space within the parliament to facilitate citizen and civil society input into the lawmaking process.51 PMOs can also strengthen their credibility within parliament by supporting MPs in working toward shared objectives. When parliaments conduct question-and-answer sessions, for instance, PMOs can help publicize effective questions posed by MPs and monitor execu-

tive responses. This additional publicity may also produce an incentive for MPs to conduct effective oversight work. Ensuring “clean hands”—To effectively criticize a particular parliamentary practice or issue, PMOs need to practice what they preach. PMOs that advocate for improved transparency of parliamentary information have a responsibility to ensure that they hold their own organization to exceptionally high standards regarding transparency. Poder Ciudadano and the Al-Quds Center, for instance, require members to abide by the organization’s own code of ethics, and Abgeordnetenwatch.de posts its donors in a searchable database on its website.

5.4 Using Parliamentary Monitoring to Support Reform and Reinforce Public Activism Citizens are often skeptical of their parliaments. When PMO activities confirm public cynicism of parliament, citizens may undermine democratic governance or even bolster the executive as an alternative to a corrupt or unproductive parliament. For instance, while “naming and shaming” MPs who commit crimes or illegal acts may mitigate bad behavior, confrontational approaches may do less to help generate incentives for MPs to engage in reform processes or constructive dialogue with PMOs. PMOs have pursued a number of avenues to encourage positive behavior and reform. For

21

22


example, Fundación Directorio Legislativo presents an award for the most innovative MP, which not only brings public recognition to the MP, but has also been combined with awarding the MP a study mission trip to learn more about related innovations or reforms in other countries.52 Congreso Visible publishes interviews with parliamentary actors in its bimonthly magazine, which highlights MPs’ positive actions.53 At an institutional rather than individual level, PILDAT publicizes the National Assembly’s positive steps.54 A number of PMOs believe that the manner in which information is released can be as important to encouraging reform as the content of the in-

formation itself. For many PMOs, the first step in releasing information involves seeking media attention, believing that the resulting outcry will trigger a reform process. For some PMOs, including The Institute for Social Accountability (Kenya)55 and the Fair-Play Alliance, the initial step may be to alert affected individuals within parliament and other governing institutions before launching their media campaign. In some instances, providing public officials with an opportunity to initiate change or plan a face-saving response before the release of embarrassing information can help spur reform while also involving the PMO in any subsequent negotiations (box 5.1).

Box 5.1: Changing Game Plans in Kenya In Kenya, PMOs have begun to coordinate their efforts to reform the constituency development fund (CDF). Believing that organizations such as Muslims for Human Rightsa (MUHURI) had effectively documented the misuse of the CDF, The Institute for Social Accountability (TISA) decided to switch from data collection to applied monitoring. After the government acknowledged the need for CDF reform, TISA and other civil society partners developed a reform proposal. They subsequently shared their recommendations with potential reformers within parliament and other state bodies engaged in setting CDF polices. TISA moved to monitor the reform process. According to TISA Coordinator Wanjiru Gikonyo, We have taken a long-term view to reform—and emphasize change in practice as we push for legal reforms.… When you use an antagonistic approach, you get locked out and citizens give up. Our approach has been a little more conciliatory. We really do say the facts, but we say them directly to the stakeholders. We don’t say them to the media first.… Before we upload anything on our website, we share it with the institution first and give them a right of reply.b Gikonyo believes that this approach has helped the cause of CDF reform. After issuing a letter in December 2009, TISA received an immediate response from the CDF board addressing some of its concerns. TISA also publicly releases its reports on the reform process. a. The organization’s website is http://muhuri.org/. b. Author interview by phone with Wanjiru Gikonyo, The Institute for Social Accountability, March 9, 2010.


5.5 Using Parliamentary Informatics Effectively to Monitor Parliaments Examples of effective and creative use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for parliamentary monitoring demonstrate the promise that parliamentary informatics hold for future monitoring initiatives. However, survey results and discussions with PMO leaders reveal that those tools do not necessarily resolve challenges facing PMOs. Organizations that do not use informatics appear more inclined to conduct activities that engage the parliament directly, whereas organizations applying informatics most often use the tool to aggregate parliamentary information. According to what informatics developers often counsel, organizations that are considering integrating informatics into their programming should (a) view informatics as a tool rather than as a solution and (b) develop a plan with welldefined objectives to ensure effective implementation of informatics.56 Factors to consider when contemplating using informatics are discussed in box 5.2, and Michener offers additional good practices for building citizen demand for parliamentary information in an analysis of three PMO websites (Michener 2012).

5.6 Developing Effective Media Outreach PMOs benefit from a growing body of experience and good practice in their efforts to engage

media in their monitoring and advocacy activities. A number of PMOs have noted greater success in attracting local and regional media, rather than national media, particularly where MPs have geographic constituencies and the news cycle is more locally focused. Many PMOs have noted that innovative techniques for parliamentary monitoring, such as regional indexes, can effectively attract media interest. Some PMOs use gimmicks to initially capture public attention for something trivial, which may eventually attract more lasting interest in serious reform. For example, TheyWorkForYou.com tracks MP use of three-word alliterative phrases (for example, “she sells seashells”) in speeches contained in the Hansard (the official reports of parliamentary debates). In the website’s words, “We’ve added the silly statistic to catch your attention.”57 Other PMOs have offered training to help educate journalists on parliamentary affairs.

5.7 Using Sound Methodologies and Reporting Practices For many PMOs, parliamentary monitoring reports often represent their most visible product. As such, their reputations are heavily based on the credibility of those reports. Some of the most commonly cited good practices for developing quality reports are the following:

Stating the methodology and acknowledging limitations—Most PMO reports include a thorough description of their data collection techniques and the methodology used in analyzing the data and preparing the report. Many PMOs recognize that some of

23

24


Box 5.2: Factors a PMO Should Consider When Contemplating Using Parliamentary Informatics When an organization is contemplating the use of parliamentary informatics to bolster its monitoring activities, it should consider these issues: •

•

•

•

Planning strategically—Informatics tools are not effective in all environments and in all circumstances. It is imperative that PMOs have clear objectives in mind when considering the use of informatics and have a strategic plan for engaging citizens once the website is implemented. Assessing availability of parliamentary information—Tools that aggregate information from websites are most effective when tailored to structured, machinereadable data that are available directly on parliamentary websites. Although these tools can also aggregate news articles, they are less effective when used in this manner. When data are unavailable on parliamentary websites, PMOs should consider focusing efforts on developing tools to help address the lack of information. Even with access, Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou, a developer at Regards Citoyens, suggests that effective organization of parliamentary data requires a thorough understanding of the legislative process.a Developing the capacity to adapt and improve informatics tools—Informatics are not labor intensive once implemented, but several PMOs have cautioned that these tools often require numerous adaptations after the website is launched and visitor preferences become known. Methodological changes may also require further, potentially costly, changes to the website. When considering using informatics, organizations must factor in the technical and financial costs involved in not only building them but also sustaining them. Accounting for characteristics of the target audience—Some informatics can be more effective when aimed at a specific audience. Crowd-sourcing tools, for example, may be best used for information sharing among specific groups, such as single-issue policy activists. Determining a clear audience to target when developing informatics can help ensure that projects are informatics enabled rather than informatics driven.

a. Author interview by phone with Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou, Regards Citoyens, January 26, 2010.

the quantitative statistics have little relation to the quality of MPs’ work. Acknowledging these shortcomings and rationalizing the use of indicators, which remain an important monitoring tool, is important. Focusing on information that is meaningful, not on information that is just accessible—Many PMOs monitor parliamentary

and MP activity by developing techniques using available data and information. Focusing on available information comes with the drawback of developing monitoring tools and methodologies that neglect relevant information. The Kosova Democratic Institute has addressed this issue by including “pillars of analysis” into its scorecards to explore de-


velopments related to parliaments’ work and functions.58 Drawing on international standards, benchmarks, and assessment tools—As highlighted previously, a number of interparliamentary organizations representing parliaments around the world have adopted benchmarks or assessment tools for democratic legislatures. By adopting these frameworks, in full or in part, and adapting them to local contexts, a PMO may strengthen its standing with parliament because of the added measure of legitimacy provided by observing internationally recognized methodologies. Engaging MPs in the development and refinement of monitoring methodologies—By involving MPs in developing monitoring methodologies, a number of PMOs have used the evaluation process to help educate MPs and citizens. AFLI in Uganda has

engaged MPs and citizens in the creation of its parliamentary scorecard, which has led to a number of improvements (such as the inclusion of a rating system for constituency work). Comparing performance over time and with similar parliaments—Comparisons with past performance or with performances of similarly structured parliaments may provide users with an important frame of reference. In the Vital Stats section of the website of PRS Legislative Research,59 PRS explores topics related to parliamentary functions from multiple perspectives. For instance, in a discussion of private member bills in the Lok Sabha, India’s lower house, the introduction of private bills is explored over time by party, by a ministers-to-backbenchers comparison, and by the introduction and discussion of the bills.60

25

6

Preliminary Recommendations for the Donor Community

As noted, the international donor community is an important source of funding and technical assistance for PMOs in donor assistance partner countries. International donors have also begun to collaborate with PMOs in donor countries to strengthen parliamentary monitoring activities, particularly with respect to the use of informatics. At a conference in March 2010, members of the donor community and representatives of international parliamentary associations, MPs, and staff members from more than 30 parliaments agreed that the donor community’s engagement of PMOs obligates it to “encourage [PMOs] to improve their methodologies and to engage in fair, responsible monitoring of parliamentary performance in accordance with international norms” (WBI and UNDP 2010, 5). This report offers six preliminary recommendations for the donor community to consider. Make medium- to long-term investments in PMOs to help strengthen accountability structures and contribute to democratic reform processes. PMOs have shown promise in strengthening a number of components of democratic governance, including the accountability of parliaments to the electorate, citizen engagement in the

legislative process, and access to information about parliaments and their work. Eighty-six percent of PMOs in donor assistance partner countries list international donors as an important funding source. Yet the effectiveness of PMOs in strengthening accountability structures and contributing to democratic reform processes remains uneven. In lieu of developing funding models that can help PMOs sustain their activities in the absence of international support, the donor community can directly provide medium- to longterm support that can help PMOs improve their results on a variety of levels. The support can afford them the time needed to develop credible working relationships within parliament and effective monitoring methodologies (perhaps with the participation of MPs, who often lack interest in the work of PMOs until they see their first performance review in a PMO scorecard or report). In some instances, the provision of funding to sustain an organization between election periods allows a PMO to plan over the life of the parliament and provide a more realistic window in which to produce results. It may also help MPs view monitoring as an institu27

28


tionalized facet of their political system that they may use to their advantage. Work with PMOs to help them translate quality parliamentary monitoring into successful advocacy for reform and constructive parliamentary engagement. PMOs face a variety of challenges in developing tools that, on one hand, gain public interest and, on the other hand, do not increase public cynicism of the parliament. Some PMOs tend to focus on producing quality reports rather than on using those reports as a basis for active advocacy. For those PMOs, advocacy is often limited to issuing press releases and conducting press conferences. Other PMOs may use monitoring results to “name and shame” MPs or to reveal sensitive information in ways that generate publicity at the parliament’s expense. As noted, those tactics can serve to expose some of the poorest performing MPs, but they may also fuel public suspicion of representative institutions. When monitoring a parliament, PMOs must strike a balance between the desire to gain public attention and the necessity to constructively criticize parliament in a manner that can benefit both citizens and lawmakers. Technical assistance and peer-topeer exchanges may help strengthen the advocacy skills of PMOs and encourage more constructive parliamentary practices (such as capacity-building programs by PMOs for parliament or award programs or recognition for parliamentary reforms or MPs who have advanced parliamentary reform). Including PMOs in international discussions with MPs on issues related to parliamentary performance can help forge more understanding relationships between PMOs and MPs. Support networking and peer-to-peer sharing among PMOs to bolster domes-

tic monitoring efforts and the exchange of experiences and good practices. Until now, few efforts have been undertaken to share good practices among PMOs, despite the wealth of creative ideas that have been generated from within the PMO community. The exchange of good practices among PMOs can help consolidate and improve their activities and tools as well as stimulate the development of new ideas. According to Noel Alonso Murray of Fundación Directorio Legislativo, a founding member of the Latin American Network for Legislative Transparency (LALT), international tools and networks may also help provide comparative perspectives that channel MP interest and engagement.61 Support for this peerto-peer sharing of information could take multiple forms. WBI’s support for LALT is one model that could be replicated in other regions. Initiatives driven by leading PMOs from within the region show potential for having a cumulative effect that is greater than the sum of the individual PMOs. Support PMO efforts to improve parliamentary transparency, which can lead to more effective monitoring and strengthen citizen and civil society engagement in policy issues. The lack of parliamentary information remains a significant challenge to PMO monitoring activities and to citizen engagement in decision-making processes more broadly. Until now, international frameworks for democratic parliaments made little mention of parliamentary transparency. With the exception of the IPU’s (2009) “Guidelines for Parliamentary Websites,” less attention has been paid to developing consensus on the format and type of information that parliaments should release publicly. PMO initiatives to develop

Preliminary Recommendations for the Donor Community

open data standards for parliaments to ensure the release of data in machine-readable formats merit support and attention. At the regional level, support for monitoring networks, such as LALT and the Civil Network to Monitor Parliaments in the Arab Region, could continue to address transparency issues. A range of activities could also be supported at the country level, particularly in countries where parliamentary transparency remains elusive. As a follow-up to this report, NDI and WBI have convened discussions with PMOs to explore opportunities for collective action at a global level. This collective action may include a number of activities related to strengthening parliamentary transparency (for example, through the global PMO community’s adoption of standards on parliamentary transparency or the possible development of a global index of parliamentary transparency using tools being developed by LALT). Engage the parliamentary informatics community to increase sharing and development of common tools. Although the use of informatics for parliamentary monitoring is increasing, a number of challenges to developing effective informatics tools remain. Differences in the formats, standards, and basic structures of information provided by parliaments prevent the application of most software to parliamentary information other than the software for which it is originally designed. Because innovation is ad hoc, code is not often written to be used by other developers even if it is freely available. Furthermore, PMOs that do not employ their own developers often overpay for informatics and may have difficulty obtaining necessary refinements to tools once the initial de-

sign phase is complete. Greater efforts are needed to develop solutions to these challenges and to increase the effectiveness of code sharing. By engaging parliamentary informatics developers in these issues, the international community can help improve access to these tools and speed up the pace of innovation. Include PMOs in the continued development of international norms and standards for democratic parliaments to reinforce these efforts and encourage consensus on the normative approach. The donor community has supported interparliamentary associations and organizations to codify international norms and standards for democratic parliaments. Most of the world’s population lives in countries that belong to parliamentary associations that have adopted benchmarks for democratic parliaments or are in the process of doing so (for example, the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Southern African Development Community Parliamentary Forum, and the Parliamentary Confederation of the Americas).62 Because parliamentary monitoring is a relatively new area, significant work remains to be done in building and reinforcing international consensus around normative standards for democratic legislatures. PMOs also have an important role to play in this arena with respect to (a) endorsing elements of normative standards that have already been developed, (b) expanding the body of international norms to areas of particular interest to PMOs (such as transparency of parliamentary information), or (c) monitoring parliamentary performance against international norms.

29

Appendix: List of PMOs

This appendix lists the PMOs identified as part of this mapping project. However, any list of this nature is necessarily incomplete. Efforts will be made to update this information on the Agora Web portal, http://www.agora-parl.org. Please send any additions or corrections to [email protected].

PMO

Website

Albania Mjaft!

http://www.mjaft.org

Center for Parliamentary Studies

http://scorecard.ascpdp.org/english

Argentina Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia

http://www.acij.org.ar

Asociación por los Derechos Civiles

http://www.adc.org.ar

Centro Para la Apertura y el Desarrollo de América Latina

http://www.cadal.org/english/default.asp

Fundación Directorio Legislativo

http://www.directoriolegislativo.org

Poder Ciudadano

http://www.poderciudadano.org

Armenia Freedom of Information Center of Armenia

http://www.foi.am/en

Australia Open Australia

http://www.openaustralia.org

Austria Meinparliament.at

http://www.meinparlament.at

31

32


Azerbaijan Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Center

http://www.smdt.az/en

Bangladesh BRAC University Institute of Governance Studies

http://www.igs-bracu.ac.bd

Transparency International Bangladesh

http://www.ti-bangladesh.org

Vote BD

http://www.votebd.org

Bolivia Fundación de Apoyo al Parlamento y la Participación Ciudadana

http://www.fundappac.org

Bosnia and Herzegovina Center for Civic Initiatives

http://www.ccibh.org

CA “Why Not?”

http://www.zastone.ba http://www.istinomjer.ba http://www.razglasaj.ba

Brazil Adote Um Vereador

http://www.adoteumvereadorsp.com.br

Congresso Aberto

http://www.congressoaberto.com.br

Departamento Intersindical de Assessoria Parlamentar

http://www.diap.org.br

Transparência Brasil

http://www.transparencia.org.br

Votenaweb

http://www.votenaweb.com.br

Bulgaria Bulgarian Association for the Promotion of Citizens’ Initiatives

—

Bulgarian Center for Not-for-Profit Law

http://www.bcnl.org/en/index.html

Centre for Liberal Strategies

http://www.cls-sofia.org/en

Programme and Analytical Centre for European Law

http://www.pacelonline.org

Burkina Faso Le Centre pour la Gouvernance Démocratique

http://www.cgd-igd.org

Cambodia Center for Social Development Cambodia

http://www.csdcambodia.org

Committee for Free and Fair Elections in Cambodia (COMFREL)

http://www.comfrel.org/eng

Appendix

Neutral and Impartial Committee for Free and Fair Elections in Cambodia (NICFEC)

http://www.nicfec.org/HOME.php

Canada How’d They Vote?

http://www.howdtheyvote.ca

Chile Chile Transparente

http://www.chiletransparente.cl

Corporación Humanas

http://www.humanas.cl

Corporación Participa

http://www.participa.cl

Fundación Ciudadano Inteligente

http://www.votainteligente.cl

Fundación Pro Acceso

http://www.proacceso.cl

Colombia Bogotá Cómo Vamos

http://www.bogotacomovamos.org

Congreso Visible

http://www.congresovisible.org

Concejo Visible Barranquilla

http://www.cvisible.com

Concejo Visible Bucaramanga

http://www.concejovisible.com/website

Concejo Visible Neiva

http://www.ccneiva.org/index. php?objeto=cvisible

Fundación Seguridad y Democracia

—

Instituto de Ciencia Política, Universidad de Los Andes

http://www.icpcolombia.org/observatorio.php

Observatorio Cali Visible

http://calivisible.javerianacali.edu.co

Transparencia por Colombia

http://www.transparenciacolombia.org.co

Croatia GONG

http://www.gong.hr

Denmark Buhl & Rasmussen

http://www.hvemstemmerhvad.dk http://www.itsyourparliament.eu

Egypt, Arab Rep. El Sadat Association for Social Development and Welfare

http://www.el-sadat.org

Human Rights Association for Community Development in Assuit

http://www.assuithumanrights.org/English_Site/ index.php

Egyptian Democratic Institute

—

Justice and Citizenship Center for Human Rights

None

Mogtamaana for Development and Human Rights Association

—

33

34


El Salvador Fundación Salvadoreña para el Desarrollo Económico y Social

http://www.fusades.org http://www.observatoriolegislativo.org.sv

European Parliament Stowarzyszenie 61

http://www.art61.pl http://www.mamprawowiedziec.pl

Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek

http://www.prodemos.nl http://www.stemmentracker.nl

KohoVolit.eu

http://www.kohovolit.eu

Parlorama.eu

http://www.parlorama.eu

Political Memory

http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Political_ Memory

Qvorum Institute

http://www.qvorum.ro/en http://parlamentultau.ro

VoteWatch.eu

http://www.votewatch.eu

Buhl & Rasmussen

http://www.itsyourparliament.eu

France Mon Député

http://mon-depute.fr

Regards Citoyens

http://www.regardscitoyens.org http://www.nosdeputes.fr http://www.nossenateurs.fr http://www.nosdonnees.fr

Georgia Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy, and Development

http://www.cipdd.org

Civil Society Institute

http://www.civilin.org/Eng/index.php

Transparency International Georgia

http://www.transparency.ge/en

Germany Abgeordnetenwatch.de

http://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de

Open Data Network

http://opendata-network.org

Politik-Digital.de

http://politik-digital.de/

Ghana Ghana Center for Democratic Development

http://www.cddghana.org

Guatemala Acción Ciudadana

http://www.accionciudadana.org.gt

Asociación de Investigación y Estudios Sociales

http://www.asies.org.gt

Appendix

Centro de Investigaciones Económicas Nacionales

http://www.cien.org.gt

Honduras Centro de Investigación y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos

http://www.ciprodeh.org.hn

Fundación Democracia sin Fronteras

http://www.fdsf.hn

Hong Kong SAR, China SynergyNet

http://www.synergynet.org.hk/en_index.php

India Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan

http://www.mkssindia.org

MumbaiVotes

http://www.mumbaivotes.com

Praja

http://www.praja.org

PRS Legislative Research

http://www.prsindia.org

Satark Nagrik Sangathan

http://www.snsindia.org

Indonesia Forum Masyarakat Peduli Parlemen Indonesia (FORMAPPI)

http://formappi.tripod.com

Indonesian Parliamentary Center

http://pusatparlemenindonesia.blogspot.com

Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies

http://www.pshk.or.id http://www.parlemen.net/site/index.php

Ireland KildareStreet.com

http://www.kildarestreet.com

Israel Open-Knesset

http://www.ohloh.net/p/open-knesset

Italy Openpolis Association

http://www.openpolis.it http://www.openparlamento.it

Relazioni Istituzionali e Comunicazione

http://www.es-comunicazione.it

Jordan Al-Hayat Center for Civil Society Development

http://www.hayatcenter.org

Al Quds Center for Political Studies

http://www.alqudscenter.org/english

Al Urdun Al Jadid Research Center

http://www.ujrc-jordan.net

Center for Strategic Studies

http://www.jcss.org/default.aspx

Kenya Mars Group Kenya “Mwalimu Mati”

http://www.marsgroupkenya.org http://blog.marsgroupkenya.org

Muslims for Human Rights

http://muhuri.org

35

36


Mzalendo

http://www.mzalendo.com

Sodnet

http://www.sodnet.org

The Institute for Social Accountability

http://www.tisa.or.ke

Kosovo Consortium for Strengthening Civil Soci- — ety Advocacy FOL Movement

http://levizjafol.org/ENGLISH/lastest

Kosova Democratic Institute

http://www.kdi-kosova.org/en/index.php http://www.votaime.org

Kuwait Kuwait Transparency Society

http://www.transparency-kuwait.org

Lebanon Lebanese Foundation for Permanent Civil Peace

http://www.kleudge.com/flpcp

Nahwa al-Muwatiniya

http://na-am.org/a http://www.lpmonitor.org

Liberia Liberia Democracy Watch

http://liberiademocracywatch.org

Liberia Democratic Institute

http://www.ldi-lbr.org

National Youth Movement for Transparent Elections

http://www.naymote.ushahidi.com

Youth Campaigners International

http://ycii.org

Lithuania Atviras Seimas

http://atviras-seimas.info

Mano Seimas

http://www.manoseimas.lt

Macedonia, FYR Citizens’ Association MOST

http://www.most.org.mk/index.php/en

Malaysia The Nut Graph

http://www.thenutgraph.com

Mexico 500 sobre 500

http://www.500sobre500.com

Consorcio para el Diálogo Parlamentario http://www.consorcio.org.mx y la Equidad Fundar: Centro de Análisis e Investigación

http://www.fundar.org.mx http://www.curul501.org

Hagamos Quórum

http://www.hagamosquorum.com

Sonora Ciudadana

http://www.sonoraciudadana.org.mx

Appendix

Moldova Centre for the Analysis and Prevention of Corruption

http://www.capc.md/en

Institute for Development and Social Initiatives

http://www.viitorul.org/index.php?l=en

Montenegro Centar za Demokratsku Tranziciju

http://www.cdtmn.org/index.php?lang=en

Network for Affirmation of the NGO Sector (MANS)

http://www.mans.co.me/en

Morocco Centre des Droits des Gens

http://www.centredesdroitsdesgens.org

Le Médiateur pour la Démocratie et les Droits Humains

http://www.mediateurddh.org.ma

Namibia Institute for Public Policy Research

http://www.ippr.org.na

Netherlands Institute for Public Policy (Stemmentracker)

http://www.stemmentracker.nl

Politix.nl

http://www.politix.nl

New Zealand CommoNZ Parliamentary Database

http://commonz.wotfun.com

Theyworkforyou.co.nz

http://theyworkforyou.co.nz

Nigeria Policy Analysis and Research Project

http://www.nassnig.org/parp/activities.php

Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre http://www.cislacnigeria.org Pakistan Aurat Foundation

http://www.af.org.pk/mainpage.htm

Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives

http://www.cpdi-pakistan.org

Free and Fair Election Network

http://www.fafen.org/site/v4

Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT)

http://www.pildat.org

Paraguay Centro de Información y Recursos para el Desarrollo

http://www.aquieneselegimos.org.py

Instituto de Derecho y Economía Ambiental

http://www.idea.org.py/english

Peru Asociación Civil Transparencia

http://www.transparencia.org.pe

37

38


Manos Limpias

http://www.manoslimpias.es

Reflexión Democrática

http://www.reflexiondemocratica.org.pe

Philippines Caucus of Development NGO Networks

http://code-ngo.org/home

Center for Legislative Development International

http://www.cld.org

Makati Business Club

http://www.mbc.com.ph/engine

Poland Stowarzyszenie 61

http://www.mamprawowiedziec.pl http://www.art61.pl

Stefan Batory Foundation

http://www.batory.org.pl

Regional African Legislatures Project

http://www.africanlegislaturesproject.org

Arab Center for the Development of the http://arabruleoflaw.org Rule of Law and Integrity KohoVolit.eu

http://KohoVolit.eu

Latin American Network for Legislative Transparency

http://www.transparencialegislativa.org

South Asians for Human Rights

http://www.southasianrights.org

Romania Advocacy Academy

—

Asociatia Pro Democratia

http://www.apd.ro

Ethnocultural Diversity Resource Center

http://www.edrc.ro/en/index.html

Institute for Public Policy

http://www.ipp.ro/eng/pagini/index.php

European Institute for Participatory Democracy (Qvorum Institute)

http://www.qvorum.ro/en

Russian Federation GOLOS Association

http://www.golos.org/?lang=en

The Information Science for Democracy Foundation

http://www.indem.ru/en/index.shtml

Serbia Center for Research, Transparency, and Accountability

http://www.crta.rs/wp/en http://www.istinomer.rs

Slovak Republic Fair-Play Alliance

http://www.fair-play.sk/index_en.php

South Africa Idasa

http://www.idasa.org.za

Parliamentary Monitoring Group

http://www.pmg.org.za

Appendix

Sweden Open Source Project: Citizen Intelligence http://cia.sourceforge.net Agency Switzerland Politools: Political Research Network

http://www.politools.net

Taiwan, China Citizen Congress Watch

http://www.ccw.org.tw/?cat=77

Tanzania Legal and Human Rights Centre

http://www.humanrights.or.tz

Policy Forum

http://www.policyforum-tz.org

Sikika

http://www.sikika.or.tz

Turkey TÜMIKOM (Association of Committees for Monitoring Parliamentarians and Elected Officials)

http://www.tumikom.org/english/index.php

Uganda Africa Leadership Institute

http://www.aflia.org

Uganda Debt Network

http://www.udn.or.ug

United Kingdom Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom

http://www.democraticaudit.com

Hansard Society

http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk

mySociety

http://www.theyworkforyou.com

Public Whip

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk

Revolts.co.uk

http://www.revolts.co.uk

United Nations UNDemocracy.com

http://www.undemocracy.com

United States Center for Responsive Politics

http://www.opensecrets.org

Civic Impulse

http://www.civicimpulse.com http://www.govtrack.us http://www.govtrackinsider.com

Congressional Management Foundation

http://www.cmfweb.org

Friends Committee on National Legislation

http://www.fcnl.org/index.htm

League of Women Voters

http://www.lwv.org

Legistorm

http://www.legistorm.com

MAPLight

http://maplight.org

39

40


National Institute on Money in State Politics

http://www.followthemoney.org

Progressive Punch

http://progressivepunch.org

Project Vote Smart

http://www.votesmart.org

Public Citizen: Congress Watch

http://www.citizen.org/congress

Sunlight Foundation

http://earmarkwatch.org http://www.capitolwords.org http://opencongress.org http://opensecrets.org

Taxpayers for Common Sense

http://www.taxpayer.net

Transparency Data

http://www.transparencydata.com

Voter Information Services

http://www.vis.org

WashingtonWatch.com

http://www.washingtonwatch.com

Venezuela, RB Movimiento Identidad Ciudadana

—

Yemen, Rep. Yemen Parliament Watch

http://www.ypwatch.org/index.php?lng=en

Zambia Caritas Zambia

http://www.caritaszambia.org.zm/index.php

Zimbabwe Veritas Trust Source: Author’s compilation. Note: — = not available.

—

Endnotes

For more information about NDI, see the organization’s website at http://www.ndi.org. 2 For more information about WBI, see the institute’s website at http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi. 3 For the purposes of this paper, parliament is a common term for a representative legislature and, except as otherwise indicated, includes national legislatures regardless of the type of governmental system. Similarly, member of parliament (or MP) is used as an all-inclusive term for legislator, deputy, representative, senator, assemblyperson, or other members of legislative bodies. 4 Two efforts to understand the effects of PMO activities are Banerjee and others (2010) and Humphreys and Weinstein (2010). 5 PMOs could participate through a questionnaire provided by e-mail or by filling out a questionnaire at http://www.surveymonkey.com between December 2009 and February 2010. More information about the survey, including a copy of the questionnaire, can be found in Mandelbaum (2011). 6 See the network’s website at http:// transparency.globalvoicesonline.org/. 7 For more information on tools, strategies, and techniques for civil society organizations conducting other forms of political process monitoring, see Pompi and Kohlmoos (2011). 8 The figure of 82 national parliaments does not include, for example, parliaments of such jurisdictions as Hong Kong SAR, China; Northern Ireland, United

Kingdom; Scotland, United Kingdom; Taiwan, China; and Wales, United Kingdom. 9 Because of the focus of the NDI and WBI on political institution strengthening in developing countries, the project concentrated its efforts on identifying PMOs in developing countries. However, because of the goal of sharing good practices in parliamentary monitoring, PMOs in consolidated democracies were also included, and those counted may be more illustrative than comprehensive. 10 These 63 PMOs monitor a total of 60 national parliaments and come from all regions of the world, although Asia is somewhat underrepresented in the survey data. Seven of the eight PMOs in Sub-Saharan Africa monitor six national parliaments. One PMO, the African Legislatures Project, monitors all 20 national parliaments in its region. 11 Eight percent of PMOs monitor regional or supranational legislative institutions (such as the European Parliament), with 1 percent doing so exclusively. 12 The OECD DAC’s website is at http://www. oecd.org/department/0,2688,en_2649_33721 _1_1_1_1_1,00.html. 13 These countries may also be referred to as developed countries, whereas countries that do not participate in the OECD DAC may be referred to as partner or developing countries. A list of OECD DAC members is available at http://www.oecd.org/document/38/ 0,3343,en_2649_34603_1893350_1_1_1_1,00. html. One PMO, called EPVote, which is based in

1

41

42


Luxembourg and monitors the European Parliament exclusively, was included among the PMOs in OECD DAC countries. 14 Differences reported between PMOs based on OECD DAC member country status and those using parliamentary informatics are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level unless otherwise specified. 15 Making freedom of information requests is significant at the 90 percent confidence level. 16 Parliamentary informatics is defined as the “application of information technology to the documentation of legislative activity” and also refers to the use of ICTs by parliaments themselves. The parliamentary informatics page on Wikipedia serves as a reference point for organizations and individuals participating in such activities to identify themselves. The Wikipedia entry is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Parliamentary_informatics. 17 This difference is significant at the 90 percent confidence level. 18 International community, in this context, refers to international organizations and institutions that fund and conduct activities to strengthen democratic governance or social accountability. They include development organizations, such as the World Bank Institute and the U.S. Agency for International Development; democracy assistance organizations, such as U.S. and European party foundations; and international parliamentary associations, such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. 19 Many of the standards frameworks for democratic parliaments can be found on Agora, a portal for parliamentary development: http://www.agora-parl. org/node/2705. 20 For information on the 2009 eDemocracy Summit, see http://berlininoctober.e-demokratie.org/ index.php?title=Main_Page. 21 For more information, see http://www.trans parencialegislativa.org. 22 For more information about Fundación Directorio Legislativo, see http://www.directorio legislativo.org/. For more information about Fundar, see http://fundar.org.mx/. 23 See the website of the Al Quds Center, http:// www.alqudscenter.org/english/, for more information. 24 Author interview by phone of Benjamin OogheTabanou, Regards Citoyens, January 26, 2010.

For more information, see http://www.directorio legislativo.org/publicaciones/. 26 Author interview by phone of Noel Alonso Murray, Fondación Directorio Legislativo, January 14, 2010. 27 For more information, see the organization’s website, http://www.snsindia.org/. 28 See the websites of these organizations for more information. The website of the Institute for Public Policy is http://www.ippr.org.na/. KDI’s website is http://www.kdi-kosova.org/en/. The website for Openpolis Association is http://www. openpolis.it/. See KDI (2009) for an example of one of its scorecards. An example of an Openpolis index is available at http://parlamento.openpolis.it/ parlamentari/camera/indice/desc. A discussion of the Openpolis activity index is available at http://guglielmo.posterous.com/the-new-index-ofparliamentary-activity-part-0. 29 For more information about these organizations, see their websites. NosDéputés.fr can be found at http://www.nosdeputes.fr/. Go to http://www.regardscitoyens.org/ for Regards Citoyens. 30 AFLI’s website is http://www.aflia.org/. 31 The Parliamentary Scorecard 2007–2008, the basis for this discussion, and the Parliamentary Scorecard 2008–2009 are available at http://aflia.org/ publications.php. 32 See the publications section of the AFLI website: http://www.aflia.org/publications.html. See also Pukol and Kaduuli (2008). 33 For information about Fundación Ciudadano Inteligente, visit the organization’s website at http:// votainteligente.cl/. The video can be viewed at http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=fovPgBS2FKM. 34 For more information about PRS, visit the organization’s website at http://www.prsindia.org/. 35 For more information about PMG, visit the organization’s website at http://www.pmg.org.za/. 36 The GovTrack.us website is http://www. govtrack.us/. For more information about Civic Impulse, go to http://www.civicimpulse.com/. 37 See PRS’s website at http://www.prsindia.org/ aboutus/products-services/. 38 An example of the tool is available at http:// www.nosdeputes.fr/loi/2760. 39 See the VoteWatch.eu website at http://www. votewatch.eu/. 25

Endnotes

For more information about the African Legislatures Project, visit its website at http://www.african legislaturesproject.org/. 41 For more information about PILDAT, visit its website at http://pildat.org/. 42 The IPU’s toolkit, as well as a range of other information on standards, is available through the Agora webpage on parliamentary standards, http://www. agora-parl.org/node/474. For more information about the toolkit, see http://www.ipu.org/splz-e/ asgp09/dscr-IPU.pdf. For more information about IPU, go to http://www.ipu.org/english/home.htm. 43 Author interview by phone of Aasiya Riaz, PILDAT. December 22, 2009. 44 More information about these organizations is available on their websites. For Participa, go to http:// www.participa.cl/. For Poder Ciudadano, visit http:// poderciudadano.org/. For Acción Ciudadana, go to http://www.accionciudadana.org.gt/. 45 For more information about the alliance’s activities, see its website, http://www.fair-play.sk/. 46 The website address is http://www.mysociety. org/. 47 Author interview with Gregor Hackmack, Abgeordnetenwatch.de. April 8, 2010. The website address is http://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/. 48 For more information, see Congreso Visible’s website at http://www.congresovisible.org/. 49 Author interview by phone with Tom Steinberg, mySociety, February 19, 2010. 50 Author interview by phone with Iftekhar Zaman, Transparency International Bangladesh, November 25, 2009. Transparency International Bangladesh’s website is at http://www.ti-bangladesh.org/. 40

Transparency International Georgia’s web address is http://transparency.ge/en/. 52 For more information, see http://www .directoriolegislativo.org/institucional/premio-a-lainnovacion-legislativa/. 53 Congreso Visible magazines are available at http://congresovisible.org/. 54 See, for example, http://www.pildat.org/ eventsdel.asp?detid=353. 55 The institute’s website is http://www.tisa.or.ke/. 56 For information on developing a strategic planning framework for parliamentary monitoring more broadly, see NDI’s Political-Process Monitoring: Activist Tools and Techniques (Pompi and Kohlmoos 2011). 57 See TheyWorkForYou.com at http://www.they workforyou.com/help/#numbers. 58 See, for example, KDI (2009). 59 See http://www.prsindia.org/parliamenttrack/ vital-stats/. 60 See http://prsindia.org/index.php?name= Sections&id=5&parent_category=&category=60&a ction=bill_details&bill_id=1011. 61 Author telephone interview with Noel Alonso Murray, January 14, 2010. 62 For more information about these organizations, see their websites. The website of the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie is http://apf. francophonie.org/; that of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is http://www.cpahq.org/; and that of the Southern African Development Community Parliamentary Forum is http://www.sadcpf.org/. 51

43

References

AFLI (Africa Leadership Institute). 2009. Parliamentary Scorecard 2007–2008: Assessing the Performance of Uganda’s Legislators. Kampala: AFLI. Banerjee, Abhijit V., Selvan Kumar, Rohini Pande, and Felix Su. 2010. “Do Informed Voters Make Better Choices? Experimental Evidence from Urban India.” Yale, New Haven, CT. http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/ develop/tdw11/pande-110912.pdf. Escher, Tobias. 2011. “TheyWorkForYou.com: Analysis of Users and Usage for U.K. Citizens Online Democracy.” U.K. Citizens Online Democracy, London. http:// w w w.mysociety.org/w p/w p-content/ uploads/2011/06/TheyWorkForYou_ research_report-2011-Tobias-Escher1.pdf. Fish, Steven M. 2006. “Stronger Legislatures, Stronger Democracies.” Journal of Democracy 17 (1): 5–20. Fundación Directorio Legislativo. 2011. Directorio Legislativo. Buenos Aires: Fundación Directorio Legislativo. http://www.directorio legislativo.org/publicaciones. Humphreys, Macarten, and Jeremy Weinstein. 2010. “Policing Citizens: Citizen Empowerment and Political Accountability in

Uganda.” Columbia University, New York. http://www.columbia.edu/~mh2245/ papers1/scorecard2010.pdf. IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union). 2009. “Guidelines for Parliamentary Websites.” IPU, Geneva. KDI (Kosova Democratic Institute). 2009. “Scorecard: Assembly of Kosovo, VII–XII 2009.” KDI, Pristina. http://www.kdi-kosova.org/ publications/Fletnotimit7-12-2009.pdf. Knock, Colin and Tahera Yasmin. No date. “Impact Assessment: Abridged Version of the Impact Assessment Report Conducted in November 2007.” Transparency International Bangladesh, Dhaka. Mandelbaum, Andrew G. 2011. Strengthening Parliamentary Accountability, Citizen Engagement, and Access to Information: A Global Survey of Parliamentary Monitoring Organizations. Washington, DC: National Democratic Institute and World Bank Institute. http:// www.ndi.org/files/governance-parliamentary-monitoring-organizations-survey-september-2011.pdf. Michener, Greg. 2012. “Parliamentary Power to the People: Analyzing Online and Offline Strategies in Latin America.” http:// 45

46


www.soros.org/initiatives/lap/articles_ publications/publications/parliamentary -power-20120308/parliamentary-power -20120308.pdf Parliamentary Centre Africa Programme. 2011. Africa Parliamentary Index (API). Accra: Parliamentary Centre Africa Programme. http://www.parlcent.org/en/ wp-content/uploads/2011/09/API-AfricanParliamentary-Index.pdf. Participa, Poder Ciudadano, and Acción Ciudadana. 2008. Regional Index of Parliamentary Transparency. Santiago: Participa. http:// w w w.bibliociv ica.org/images/d/d9/ R e g i o n a l _ I n d e x _ o f _ Pa r l i a m e n t _ Transparency.pdf. PILDAT (Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency). 2009a. Performance of the 13th National Assembly: The First Parliamentary Year, March 17, 2008–March 16, 2009. Islamabad: PILDAT. http:// www.pildat.org/Publications/publication/Democracy&LegStr/Performanceof the13thNationalA ssemblyof Pakistan the1stParliamentaryYear.pdf. ———. 2009b. Evaluation of Parliament 2008– 2009. Islamabad: PILDAT. http://www. pildat.org/Publications/publication/

Democracy&LegStr/evaluationof parliament2008-2009.pdf. Pompi, Kourtney, and Lacey Kohlmoos. 2011. Political-Process Monitoring: Activist Tools and Techniques. Washington, DC: National Democratic Institute. http://www.ndi.org/ node/17257. Pukol, David, and Stephen Kaduuli. 2008. “Strengthening the Uganda Parliamentary Scorecard.” Working paper, Africa Leadership Institute, Kampala. http:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=1280756. Tjirera, Ellison, and Graham Hopwood. 2009. “Not Speaking Out: Measuring National Assembly Performance.” IPPR Comment 4, Institute for Public Policy Research, Windhoek. http://www.ippr.org.na/sites/ default/files/Comment%20-%20National %20Assembly%20Performance.pdf. WBI (World Bank Institute) and UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2010. “Participants’ Statement.” Statement from the International Conference on Benchmarking and Self-Assessment for Democratic Parliaments, sponsored by WBI and UNDP, Paris, March 2–4.