Parliament and Civil Society

International Best Practices

Presented By

Marvi Sirmed
National Project Manager, SDPD (UNDP)

September 24, 2008

Legislature and Civil
Society
Same working sphere:
Independent of the State
Elevate the public or collective good over private /
individual gain
Advocate of the change
Oversight of the government’s / executive’s actions
Watching formulation and implementation of public policy
Limits and controls the power of the state
Play an important role in mediating and helping to resolve
conflict
So there is an immense potential and need for
both of them to work together!
 Commonwealth Principles on
Parliament and Civil Society
The Latimer House Principles

“The parliaments and governments should

recognize the role that civil society plays in the
implementation of the Commonwealth’s
fundamental values and should strive for a
constructive relationship with civil society to
ensure that there is broader opportunity for
meaningful participation in the democratic
process.”
Public Scrutiny of
Legislature
“Public scrutiny of the legislature is enabled
by the ability of media and civil society groups
to closely observe legislative activities.
Without the involvement of media and civil
society groups, the functions of the legislature
can not be deemed to be transparent.”

Source: NDI. Toward the Development of International Standards for Democratic

Legislatures: A Discussion Document for Review by Interested Legislatures, Donors and
International Organizations (Washington DC: January 2007, NDI) p.61
International Best Practices
Benchmarks agreed by CPA, IPU, OECD include
Openness and accessibility of legislature to citizens
Transparency in Committees’ proceedings including
Public Accounts Committees
Openness and wider citizens’ engagement in legislative
process through public hearings etc
 Involving Civil Society in the
Work of Parliaments
I- Referendums and Initiatives
Referendums and initiatives are used to test
public opinion on specific issues, in 3 forms:
Direct Citizens’

1.Instigated by legislature to approve changes in

Participation

constitutional arrangements
2.Initiated by legislature to confirm changes in public
policy
3.Citizens initiated measures to change either the
constitution or public policy
II- Consensus Conferences
These are means of incorporating the
perspectives of lay members of civil society
within the assessment of new scientific and
technological developments
A forum of lay people questions experts
about a controversial scientific or
technological subject, assesses the experts'
responses, reaches a consensus & reports its
conclusions at a press conference
 Consensus Conferences – Some Case
Studies
Denmark – Topics
• 1987 Genetic technology in industry and agriculture
• 1989 Food irradiation
• 1989 Human genome mapping
• 1990 Air pollution
• 1991 Educational technology
• 1992 Transgenic animals
• 1993 The future of private transport Infertility
• 1994 Electronic identity cards Information technology in
transport Integrated production in agriculture
• 1995 Chemicals in foodstuffs and the environment Gene
therapy
 Consensus Conferences – Some Case
Studies

Netherlands – Topics
• 1993 Genetic modification of animals
• 1995 Human genetics research

United Kingdom – Topics

• 1994 Plant biotechnology in food and
agriculture
 III- Citizens’ Juries
Pioneered in the 1970s in the United States and
Germany; German model in use in Spain, The
Netherlands and Palestine. Also been run in the UK
since the mid 1990s
Group of randomly chosen citizens deliberates on a
particular issue, setting of a policy agenda / choice
of particular policy options
participants are exposed to information about an
issue, hear views from witnesses selected on the
basis of their expertise / represent affected
interests
Citizens’ Juries – Some Case Studies
United States of America - Topics:
• 1984 Impacts of agriculture on water
quality in Minnesota
• 1989 At risk children in Greater New
Haven
• 1992 Candidate ratings for the senate
• 1993 National healthcare reform
• 1995 Hog farming in Rice county
• 1995 Congestion pricing for Minnesota
Citizens’ Juries – Some Case Studies
Germany  - Topics
• 1980 Cologne town hall project
• 1985 Energy supply for Johchen Nord
• 1990 Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN)
in the private and professional environment
• 1991 Road sifting for the centre of Revelsberg
• 1996 Development of residential site in Solingen-
Aufderhohe
• 1996 Review of public transport system in
Hanover
Citizens’ Juries – Some Case Studies
United Kingdom - Topics
• 1996 Drugs and community safety, Lewisham
• 1996 Services for the dying for Walsall Health
Authority
• 1996 The future of waste management in
Hertfordshfre
• 1997 Improvement of the Swiss Cottage site,
Camden
• 1997 Taste and decency on television
• 1997 Genetic testing and the insurance industry
• 1997 Graffiti and vandalism, South Lanarkshire
• 1997 Creating employment opportunities in
Levenmouth
IV- Deliberative Opinion
Polling
A national random sample of between 250-600
citizens is brought together to discuss and debate a
particular issue
Carefully balanced briefing material is provided,
opportunity is given to question competing experts
and politicians
At the end of the process and after much small-group
discussions, the citizens are polled in detail
Resulting survey offers a representation of the
considered judgments of the wider population
Deliberative opinion polls do not aim at the production
of consensus. They are therefore a good means of
measuring the diversity of public opinion
Deliberative Opinion Polling – Case Studies
United Kingdom -  Topics
• 1994 'Rising Crime: What can we do about it?‘
• 1995 The UK's future in Europe
• 1996 The future of the monarchy
• 1997 Voting intentions for the British General
Election    
United States of America -  Topics
1996 National Issues Convention for
Presidential candidate selection
1996 Polls conducted by three public utilities in
Texas
Citizens’ Panels
• Two kinds of citizens' panels: standing panels and research panels

• Research panels use a large sample of a local population as a

sounding board to tracks changes in opinion over time

• Standing citizen's panels consist of a stable sample of citizens

statistically representative of an area's population, weighted for
gender, age, ethnic background & occupation.

• Panel meets regularly to assess local services and develop views

about future needs and goals

• Standing panels can be used to test specific policy options or

proposals or to scrutinize policy implementation

• The membership of the panel is periodically changed

 Public Hearings
• Civil Society Organizations specializing on
various subjects can participate in the
committee proceedings and provide their
specialized input to the public hearings.

• Rules of Procedure and Conduct of

Business of National Assembly of
Pakistan (2007) do not bar conducting
Public Hearings by the Committees
Other Mechanisms for Direct Participation
of Non-Members
• Submission to a Parliamentary Committee Inquiry
• Appearing as a Witness before a Parliamentary
Committee
• Roundtables of subject specialists with parliamentary
committees (initiated in most countries by the civil
society, in the case of USA, it is mostly done by the
Committees using their allocated budget)
• Issue based civil society networks corresponding with
the parliamentary committees / caucuses
• Public Petitions
 CS Participation in Budget Process
Negative myths that constrain independent budget
work of civil society, legislatures and the media
•Budgets must be formulated in secret or they may upset
financial markets

•Non-government intervention can destroy the integrity of

the budget envelope

•Legislators and civil society have a greater interest in

advancing the interests of their constituents as opposed to
the interests of the country as a whole

•It is the government’s mandate to produce the budget

internally in a closed process; and it’s prerogative for it to be
rubber-stamped by the legislature
 CS Participation in Budget Process – Some Ideas
• Simplification of the budget and deepening debate;
• Collating, synthesizing and disseminating budget information;
• Independent critical analysis
• Bringing new information to budget decision-making:
• Develop budget training expertise that is directed at augmenting the
analytical and advocacy capacity of other civil society organizations,
legislatures and the media resulting in stronger interventions and oversight
• Through analysis and dissemination activities, CSOs can assist the
legislature to reinforce channels of accountability (possible through active
engagement with PAC and pursue the findings of AG
• Parliament may make key budgetary information open to citizens including
findings of AG and PAC
• Parliament may organize a (or series of) pre-budget seminars
 Some Recommendations for Civil
Society and Parliament in Pakistan
a) Development of new forms of interactions with civil society:

• More effective use of information technologies to enhance transparency

and to ease relations with civil society.

• Use of internet and other communication technologies in maintaining

relations.

• Strengthen the relation of parliament and civil society by developing

more programmes, by enhancing the use of information technologies

• Establish more and more direct relations between the Members of the
Parliaments and citizens: e-Parliament
Some Recommendations for Civil Society and
Parliament in Pakistan
b) Expansion and differentiation of existing relations
• A wider involvement of CSOs in legislative preparation and in
expert assistance in the legislative procedure

• Establishing closer relation, new forms in the relations with civil

society

• Improvement of dialogue

• At an early stage of legislation communication of opinion and

comments of civil society towards the parliament and committees

• Wider involvement of CSOs in legislative preparation

• Involvement of civil society in monitoring and assessment of

legislation.
Some Recommendations for Civil Society and
Parliament in Pakistan
c) Quality improvement and legislation of interactions

• The actors of civil society and legislation should consider each

other as partners, not as opposite sides

• Establishment of mutually beneficial relation

• Development of channeled relations, encouragement of civil

society to concretely articulate its opinions, to make
comprehensive proposals instead of just reacting to single events

• Stimulation of citizens’ initiatives

• ·Support to people’s initiatives

 More Specifically
• Pilot and replicate parliamentary committee processes that
engage civil society groups and citizens in innovative and
meaningful ways

• Establish a centre for public engagement within parliament

• Support individual parliamentarians to play a more active

role in engaging with their constituents (greater CS
engagement with constituency offices)

• Create Party Institutes / Foundations to strengthen political

parties’ policy roles
We can create a virtuous rather than a vicious
circle in which civil society and parliament
interact with each other and with citizens to
create stronger democracies and civil society
Thank you for your time and
attention
 For further information, Please contact:

Strengthening Democracy through Parliamentary

Development in Pakistan (SDPD

7 & 8, Ground Floor, Block B & D, Parliament Lodges, Islamabad (Pakistan)

Ph: +92-51-920 5430 / 1
Fax: +92-51-8255963
Email: info@sdpd.org.pk
URL: www.sdpd.org.pk