PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRACY - Inter-Parliamentary Union

As regards the practicability and cogency of reforms, it should suffice to
make the obvious point once more, that so often there are competing considerations
which have to be traded off one against another, and that there are
usually downsides to any proposed reform, which are best anticipated in
advance. An example of this which most parliaments have experienced is how
to streamline procedures to deal with ever-expanding volumes of business,
without this limiting the expression of a diversity of views or the rights of individual
members. One can only admire the ingenuity required of the Indian Lok
Sabha to enable the expectations of its 38 parties to be met without business
completely grinding to a halt. One reform strategy which is now being used by
a number of parliaments is to pilot proposed changes for a limited period so
that their effects can be monitored before they are made permanent. In the case
of the problems identified by the Dutch Parliament (see above) this strategy
has proved helpful, and the quotation from their submission enables this brief
review to end on a positive note. ‘Experimenting with the proposed renewals
before implementing them definitively has turned out to be an effective
solution to the above-mentioned problems. Proposals that met with a lot of
resistance initially proved to lead to remarkably positive results in practice.’
Planning for the future
Facing the future I 193
For parliaments, ‘facing the future’ means many things. It means responding
to the pressures of a rapidly changing society and global system in ways
which retain what is distinctive about their country’s tradition. It means being
open to ongoing reform in their own procedures, so that these are equal to the
challenge of the times and to parliament’s own role as a guardian of democracy.
It can also mean engaging in long-term thinking about the country’s
future in a pro-active way, rather than simply reacting to initiatives placed
before it by the government. Three examples of such future planning are given
here. The first is provided by Latvia’s Subcommittee on the Future
Development of Latvia, which was established in 2003 and comprises 13 parliamentarians
from all Saeima groups. The submission from the Latvian
Parliament describes its tasks as follows:
■ to work on drafting a single document for Latvia’s future development,
including formulation of the vision of Latvia in 15-20 years,
which would facilitate Latvia’s sustainable development and would
improve the social welfare and safety of each member of society;
■ to develop cooperation with different public institutions, scientists,
youth and other members of society, and in a joint dialogue to