|
Meeting Summary
1. Alan Hudson introduced the meetings
series by noting that governance was increasingly recognised as
vital for development, and suggested that parliaments could and
should play an important role in delivering governance.
2. He said that in DFID’s useful formulation there are three
elements to good governance:
i. State capability – formulate and execute policy
ii. Accountability – relationship between state and citizens
iii. Responsiveness – when state seeks to identify and meet
needs of citizens;
And that these correspond to the three primary parliamentary roles:
i. Legislation
ii. Oversight – including budget oversight
iii. Representation – aggregating and expressing views of
citizens.
3. Parliaments ought therefore to be playing an important role
in delivering good governance. But in practice, in many cases, parliaments
are weak and ineffective. This mismatch between theory and practice
suggests several high-level policy questions that this meeting series
will attempt to answer:
i. what might parliaments do in delivering good governance and poverty
reduction?
ii. why are parliaments marginalised?
iii. what can donors do to strengthen parliaments in developing
countries?
4. He stated that the series builds on a growing body of work at
ODI, including:
- ODI’s work on governance and the state e.g. last year’s
series of meetings
on the developmental state;
- Emerging research on parliaments at ODI, including work just done
for DFID;
- ODI’s long history of engagement with UK parliament, including
with the All Party
Group on Overseas Development (APGOOD) and various Select Committees
- And also the recent Africa APPG inquiry into parliamentary strengthening
in Africa.
5. He finished by outlining the questions which he had asked the
speakers to address:
- What role can parliaments play in delivering governance?
- How effective in practice are parliaments in developing countries?
- What shapes parliamentary performance?
- How does the World Bank engage with parliaments?
6. Niall Johnson opened by looking at parliaments
and PRSPs, noting that too often parliaments felt that PRSPs were
a donor imposition and left the process to the government. But where
parliaments are involved in institutionalising PRSPs, there is better
country ownership and the PRSP is more likely to have an impact.
There are two entry points for parliaments into PRSP – as
part of the budget cycle, and in departmental scrutiny after the
budget is agreed.
7. He said that poverty reduction should certainly be seen as related
to parliamentary strengthening. Organisations supporting parliaments
should not stop with workshops on procedural issues (e.g. how to
run a committee), but can stay engaged and support parliaments in
applying these basics to issues like poverty, HIV, etc.
8. In general parliamentary support needs to be related to the
wider governance situation and coordinated; he cited an example
of projects with parliament and judiciary in Nigeria which had directly
conflicting objectives.
9. As to whether parliaments were effectively working on PRSPs
in practice, he gave contrasting examples from the Solomon Islands,
where parliament was performing well in its scrutiny role, and Sierra
Leone, where an impressive PRSP committee existed on paper but had
never met. He felt ownership of the process was key.
10. He then asked, are parliaments effective as institutions, or
through individuals? While many parliamentarians get involved in
PRSP processes as individuals, it is much more effective for parliament
as an institution to have the PRSP formally referred to it for approval
in some form, and to carry out a monitoring & evaluation role.
However, some initiatives of individuals – e.g. the African
Parliaments Network Against Corruption (APNAC) have been very effective
at sharing experience and learning.
11. He discussed how to determine whether parliaments are effective.
He noted that the Bank, UNDP, and the Commonwealth Parliamentary
Association have recently produced a report setting out benchmarks
(available on CPA website). This is particularly interesting as
it is designed for parliamentary self-appraisal, rather than for
donors to use, which tends to be more productive.
12. Despite many rays of hope, he noted a number of impediments
to effective parliamentary strengthening:
- Donor funding to parliaments is limited.
- Donor coordination and proliferation – although e.g. in
Uganda, parliament and donors had worked to create a ‘donor
basket’ with joint donor and parliamentarian management.
- Unrealistic expectations, both too high and too low. Sometimes
the donor community expect funding to quickly produce developed
and experienced parliaments; but also sometimes expectations are
too low. Support can be inappropriate, e.g. bringing members of
a tiny parliament to Westminster.
- Political will i.e. the executive may try to block parliamentary
strengthening. Uganda was again an example where parliament had
resisted with some success, Trinidad and Tobago another.
- Lack of successor planning and dependency, with too much training
to a few individuals, and lack of planning for when project funding
ends. Technical assistance is also too often about running a workshop,
when follow up is vital – in developing parliaments, there
may be a lack of trained staff, finance, or cooperation from the
executive, all of which mean that sustained support is vital;
- Focus on individuals rather than institution – especially
where on members of parliaments at the expense of permanent administrative
staff, who may be there longer than members if democracy is working
well!
13. He ended by stating that despite this, things are getting better
and especially where donors work in partnership with parliaments.
14. Lisa von Trapp introduced the World Bank Institute’s
relatively new parliamentary
strengthening programme, which began in 1993 and got a big boost
in 1997 with the Bank’s increased focus on corruption and
governance. The programme also moved from awareness-raising to capacity-building,
and developed a training programme with workshops designed on models
of parliamentary procedure; so for example, a workshop on corruption
would call expert witnesses, debate findings and produce a report.
15. The Institute’s programme has several areas of focus:
- Anti-corruption
- Governance
- Gender budgeting
- Strengthening administration for building long-term institutional
capacity
- Promoting research on parliamentary capacity building
- Supporting parliamentary networks e.g. AFNAC, etc
16. Their modus operandi is to adopt a long-term country focus
(linked to the WBI focus countries) and work in partnership –
they almost never work alone. She cut short her presentation for
reasons of time, but further information can be found on their website.
17. In the discussion a wide range of points was
raised, including
- The calibre and motivation of many parliamentarians in African
countries, and the possibility for international institutions to
be involved in the education of parliamentary candidates and to
engage better with political parties. While World Bank rules do
not permit it to train political candidates, the UN was involved
in related programmes and speakers generally agreed that political
parties were important for strong parliaments, with some comments
that donor institutions should be more open to engaging with them.
Incentives were another issue, with one comment that government
was often seen as the domain of the ‘big boys’, with
a career in parliament viewed as second rate – sufficient
remuneration to attract good candidates and guard against corruption
was suggested, while MPs' pay will always be controversial;
- The importance of transparency and effective engagement between
parliamentarians and civil society; the speakers stressed that transparency
was vital for accountability, and gave examples where, with some
diplomacy on both sides, parliamentarians and civil society in developing
countries had bridged the divide between them and productively supported
each others’ work;
- Parliamentary scrutiny of budgets, where it was noted that scrutiny
by various organs of parliament was vital as public accounts committees
were often overwhelmed, and work by Paolo di Renzio of ODI and the
international budget project was highlighted;
- The lack of reliable data on donor funding for parliamentary support
was raised, with some discussion about DFID’s level of funding
in this area; it was suggested that this was an example of the limited
effort put into evaluating parliamentary support programmes and
learning about what works;
- The importance of parliaments securing sustainable funding domestically
rather than from donors, and cases of this in practice – although
some felt that donors had an important medium-term support role,
and others that general budget support might perhaps be conditional
on some funding for parliamentary development;
- Other points raised were: the problem of politicians not being
genuinely committed to multi-party systems and executive hostility
to parliament; that parliaments in Africa were generally very new,
even compared to African states; and that people working on parliamentary
strengthening should share their experiences and coordinate better,
with this meeting series hopefully providing such an opportunity.
Back
|
