PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRACY - Inter-Parliamentary Union

96 I PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRACY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
effected from below, by the public itself, through a variety of mechanisms,
including elections, complaints procedures, legal redress, the activities of
civil society organisations, and so on. In the public sphere it is typically a
combination of the two dimensions, horizontal and vertical, that ensures
effective accountability. So, for example, minimising corruption among
public officials typically requires a combination of anti-corruption commissions
exercising independent legal and investigative powers, together with
active citizen bodies, watch-dog groups and investigative media. A similar
combination can be seen at work in relation to ensuring standards of conduct
by parliamentarians themselves. First, however, we should look at the more
specifically political aspect of parliamentary accountability, that of ‘giving an
account’ to their constituents.
Rendering account
Two important conditions for ‘account-giving’ by parliamentarians to their
electors have been addressed in previous chapters. These are the availability
of information about their activities, and the ability of constituents to question
their representatives in the light of this information. In this respect there seems
little that needs adding to the material on parliamentary openness and accessibility
from the previous two chapters. In addition to these, however, the idea
of accountability implies a more focused and systematic ‘account-giving’ after
the event, to which the public can respond. As we have already seen, constituents
are increasingly interested in learning how their representatives have
voted on key issues before parliament, and interrogating them about their
actions. For members to have their voting record published, and to be able to
give a reasoned defence of their record, is of the essence of political accountability.
The extension of the Internet makes this requirement much more
readily realisable, and it is now a standard feature in many parliaments.
Less common is the practice of parliamentarians issuing a regular report,
say on an annual or sessional basis, covering their activities across the whole
range of their parliamentary work. Where this is done, it mostly takes the form
of a collective report on its activities by parliament as a whole. So, to take a
few examples, the Romanian Parliament produces a report of its activities at
the end of each legislative session, which is published in the Romanian official
gazette. The Finnish Parliament publishes an annual report on-line, which
covers organisation, finance and accounts as well as legislative and international
activity. In France, an annual report is published on the parliamentary
budget and its implementation, covering both assemblies. In Luxembourg the
annual report of the Chamber of Deputies is circulated to every household in