As a representative body, the parliament plays key role in the functioning of democracy. However, the presence of elected body doesn't secure the existence of democratic system in the country. The democracy requires at least two conditions for its functioning. First – is holding of free and fair Parliamentary elections. Second – is adherence to democratic principles and standards in parliamentary activities.
Free and fair elections doesn't secure efficient representation of citizen interests in the legislative body
We can't say that democratic values are fully practiced if only one condition is fulfilled. As long as free and fair elections doesn't secure efficient representation of citizen interests in the legislative body. Genuine democracy requires conditions which will allow elected representatives of the people perform their constitutional duties. According to the regulations of the Universal Declaration on Democracy (1997) "democracy requires the existence of representative institutions at all levels and, in particular, a Parliament in which all components of society are represented and which has the requisite powers and means to express the will of the people by legislating and overseeing government action."[1]. Participants of the Warsaw Declaration (2000), and Ukraine among them, have agreed that "the legislature be duly elected and transparent and accountable to the people"[2]. It means that the parliament should not only be fairly and transparently elected, but also to perform its representative function by following generally accepted standards and principles.
While common agreement on the basic electoral standards is practiced internationally for a long time, the consensus in proper organization of parliamentary activities was reached during the last decade. Key principles of democratic parliaments were coordinated by the following reputable international organizations: World Bank Institute[3], United Nations Development Programme[4], European Commission[5], the Inter-Parliamentary Union[6], Commonwealth Parliamentary Association[7], National Democratic Institute for International Affairs[8], the Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie[9].
Therefore, the fundamental standards (principles) of democratic parliament for today are: representativeness, institutional independence, transparency, openness, and accountability.[10]
Representativeness: the elected parliament shall be socially and politically representative, and provide equal opportunities for its members to execute their powers.
In practice, it means the presence of: free and fair elections (regarding the election system itself and its application); special procedures which secure representation of various gender, regional, and marginalized citizen groups[11]; open, independent, and democratic party structures for representation of citizen interests; tools which secure the rights of political opposition and other political groups, as well as free, free from interference or pressure, execution of powers by members of parliament; freedom of speech and association; guarantees for parliamentary rights and immunity[12]; equal procedural and political opportunities for MPs; non-discriminatory working conditions for employees of the Parliament.
Institutional independence: parliamentary activities are organized in accordance with democratic norms and principles.
In practice, it means that: there are tools and resources which secure independence and autonomy of the parliament, including the control over the budget, personnel resources, and infrastructure; the parliament participates in the budget process at all stages, including further audit of budget costs[13]; executive bodies are regularly reporting to the parliament[14]; the parliament is able to solve topical for the society issues; the parliament forms state institutions which serve interest of the whole population; professional staff employees are attracted to the work in parliament[15]; there is a procedure for effective planning of parliamentary activities; there are systems for monitoring and assessment of parliamentary activities; the public opinion on parliamentary activities is regularly researched.
Transparency: the parliament is open to citizens and conducts transparent activities.
In practice, it means that: the public has open access to parliamentary documentation[16]; parliamentary procedures can be easily accessed by the media; the parliament should draw public attention to its activities; there are easy-to-use instruments for receiving information (in particular, the use of modern information and communications technologies), and different means of spreading information are used[17].
Openness: citizen engagement in parliamentary work, including civil society organizations and the other civic movements.
In practice, it means that: the voters, regardless their party affiliation, have the chance to directly inform deputies about their anticipations and problems; there are procedures which allow citizens (individually or jointly) appeal to parliamentary bodies (committees, investigating commissions); there are different mechanisms for citizen direct participation in law-making process (referendum, petitions etc.) and public consultations.
Accountability: responsibility of parliamentary members to electorate for results of their activities and behavior.
In practice, it provides: functioning of efficient procedures for MPs' reporting back to the voters; eligible codes of conduct and their observance by MPs[18]; transparent and reliable procedures which protect from conflict of financial and other interests in parliamentary activities[19]; efficient mechanism to control financing of parties and candidates[20], which will guarantee MPs' independence when performing their duties; transparent and comprehensible system of remuneration for MPs; declaration (registration) extraparliamentary interests which represent MPs, and their external sources of income.
The biggest part of forms listed above are formally enshrined in laws (on the Status of National Deputies, and on the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine). However, only their proper application may prove that activities of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine meet international standards of democratic parliaments. Therefore, the main function of the corresponding civil society organizations is monitoring and assessment of Ukrainian parliament from the perspective of international standards of democratic parliaments.
Civil Network OPORA is sharing the international approach to identification of major democratic parliamentary standards, which importance is not dependent on national barriers or political context.
Thus, guided by the Participants' Statement of the International Conference on Benchmarking and Self-Assessment for Democratic Parliaments[21], we are convinced that the parliament may be considered democratic, if it represents political will and social diversity of the population, and efficiently realizes legislative, controlling, and representative function on regional, national, and worldwide levels. Besides that and it is highly important, the democratic parliament is transparent, open, and accountable to the citizens which it represents.
[1] Paragraph 11 of the Universal Declaration on Democracy. Adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary Council at its 161st session. Cairo, September 16, 1997.
[2] Final Warsaw Declaration: Toward a Community of Democracies. Warsaw, Poland, June 27, 2000
[3] World Bank Institute (WBI)
[4] United Nation Development Programme (UNDP)
[5] European Commission (EU)
[6] Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)
[7] Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA)
[8] National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI)
[9] Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF)
[10] detailed information: Self-Assessment Toolkit for Parliaments (IPU, 2008); Toward the Development of International Standards for Democratic Legislatures (NDI, 2006); Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures (CPA, 2006); La réalité démocratique des Parlements : Quels critères d’évaluation (APF, 2009); Participants’ Statement prepared for the International Conference on Benchmarking and Self-Assessment for Democratic Parliaments (WBI, UNDP, 2010); Commonwealth Principles on the Accountability of and the Relationship between the Three Branches of Government (CPA, 2003); Parliament and Democracy in the Twenty-first Century: A guide to Good Practice (IPU, 2006).
[11] § 1.2.2Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures (CPA, 2006)
[12] § 1.4.1-1.4.4 Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures (CPA, 2006)
[13] Secured by the Article 9 (2) of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (ratified by Ukraine 10/18/2006); § 7.2.3 Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures (CPA, 2006)
[14] § 7.1.1 Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures (CPA, 2006)
[15] § 5.3.1 Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures (CPA, 2006)
[16] Article 13 (1) of the United Nations Convention against Corruption
[17] § 9.2.1, 9.1.1, 9.1.4 Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures (CPA, 2006)
[18] Article 8 (2) of the United Nations Convention against Corruption; § § 10.1.2 Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures (CPA, 2006)
[19] Article 7 (4) of the United Nations Convention against Corruption; § 10.1.3 Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures (CPA, 2006); Part.V article.2 Commonwealth Principles on the Accountability of and the Relationship between the Three Branches of Government («Latimer House Guidelines for the Commonwealth»); Article 4 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption.
[20] Article 7 (3) of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
[21] See: International Conference on Benchmarking and Self-Assessment for Democratic Parliaments: Participants' Statement. World Bank Institute, United Nation Development Programme. Paris, March 2-4, 2010.