Author: psaparliaments

Categories
News

May 2024 Newsletter

Hello, everyone! We are two days late from our usual schedule, but we hope you all enjoyed the first May Bank holiday! We have plenty of updates for you this month!

  1. PSA (Parliaments) News
  2. Urgent Questions with Sean Haughey
  3. Undergraduate Essay Competition
  4. Opportunities
  5. Special Issue: Call for Articles
  6. Recent Publications
  7. Recently on the Blog
  8. Overview of Parliaments Map

If you have any notices/messages you would like us to circulate to our group, please let us know.

Best wishes,

Caroline, Diana, Ruxandra, Jack and Lauren

1. PSA (Parliaments) News

Welcome to Lauren Martin

We are delighted that Lauren Martin is joining our team as our new Treasurer and Membership Officer. Lauren is a PhD student at the University of Sheffield. Her research focuses on the use of the House of Commons e-petition system as a way for citizens to engage with Parliament and explores how they are featured in both individuals’ and organisations’ campaigning activities.

Call for and to Members 

If you have colleagues who are interested in parliaments, consider recommending them to join our specialist group! We are open to members who study legislatures from anywhere around the world, with any theoretical or methodological approaches, from an academic or from a practitioner perspective. Even if parliaments are just a small part of your broader research agenda (for example you are using parliamentary debates to try out a new text analysis technique), we want to hear from you and learn more about your work!

If you supervise or work with PhD students or Early Career Researchers, please forward our details to them, and we’ll be happy to chat if they have any questions. We hold regular events where they can get feedback on papers, like the ECR workshop we held at the LSE in November 2023, and we are keen to plan more ECR events (such as workshops and methods training) in the future.

If you are not a member of the Political Studies Association, consider joining in order to benefit from the full range of PSA events.

Worrying developments at the University of Lincoln and other universities

We are all aware that the UK higher education sector has come under significant financial pressure. More than 50 universities have already opened voluntary severance schemes or announced compulsory redundancies. (The UCU branch at Queen Mary University of London has compiled an overview here.) We also know that the social sciences, arts and humanities tend to be particularly vulnerable to budget cuts.

The PSA, BISA and UACES have recently issued a joint letter regarding the redundancies faced by the Department of Politics & International Relations at Goldsmiths. The University of Huddersfield just announced that around 12% of staff are at risk and at least 12 courses (including sociology) will be axed. Unfortunately, these are just some of the examples highlighting the precarious state of many universities.

As representatives of the community of academics in the subfield of parliamentary studies, we are also very concerned about the news we hear from the University of Lincoln, where one in ten academic staff is facing redundancy. The university is known for excellent parliamentary research and teaching (see e.g. the Lincoln Parliamentary Research Centre), and we stand in solidarity with our colleagues who are affected.

Help Shape the PSA 2025+ Strategy

The PSA’s Trustees want to devise a new strategy to ensure the PSA is clear on its direction and role, and is sustainably resourced, from 2025 to best serve our community in the future. More information can be found here. You can share your thoughts HERE! For further questions please email: strategy@psa.ac.uk

2. Urgent Questions with Sean Haughey

Our outgoing Co-Convenor Sean left us a special present and answered our Urgent Questions. Whether you want to read about an Irishman in Seoul, join in the dream of being a farmer with dogs (many dogs) or need a restaurant recommendation for Wales, you should read Sean’s answers here.

3. Undergraduate Essay Competition

It is that time of the year again! The call for our 2024 undergraduate essay competition has officially opened.

If you are teaching undergraduates in the UK, we are asking you to nominate a student for their excellent written piece on parliaments and legislatures. It is a fantastic opportunity for them to get recognition for their work and even win prize money. More details can be found here.

4. Opportunities

Full-Time and Permanent Job Opportunity at University of Edinburgh 

The School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh is looking for a Lecturer in (British) Politics. Applicants with expertise in any area of Scottish, British or UK politics (i.e., research on political behaviour and elections/parties; parliaments and other political institutions; and representation and participation) are welcome. This post is open ended, available from September 2024. You can find the job advert here. The deadline for applications is 14 May 2024.

Lectureship in Politics and Gender at Queen Mary University

Queen Mary University of London is seeking a permanent Lecturer in Politics and Gender at the School of Politics and International Relations. The closing date for applications is 26th May 2024. Find more information here.

Commons Library website

The House of Commons Library provides politically impartial research, analysis, statistics and information to help MPs to scrutinise legislation, prepare for debates, develop policies and support their constituents. They want to hear more about how you use the Library website and would be very interested to have a 30-40 minute call with you to discuss your views. Please contact Ed Knight (knightec@parliament.uk) if you would like to participate and we will organise a call.

5. Special Issue: Call for Articles

Please note the following Call for Articles for a special issue of the International Journal of Parliamentary Studies, “Political impartiality in a parliamentary context” (to be published in 2025) edited by Ben Yong (Durham) and Christoph Konrath (Austrian Parliament).

There is a growing interest in the administration of parliaments, and the work of parliamentary officials. This special issue aims to examine a core aspect of parliamentary administration: political impartiality. 

We invite applications with titles, abstracts (maximum 300 words) and short CVs, which should be sent by 31 August 2024 to benjamin.y.yong@durham.ac.uk. Selected candidates will then have to send their articles by 31 March 2025. More details can be found here.

6. Recent Publications

If you would like your published research to be featured in this section, please email Caroline with details.

7. Recently on the Blog

If you have an idea for a blog on some aspect of parliamentary study, please get in touch with our new communications officer, Jack.

8. Overview of Parliaments Map

We have one new contribution to our Overview of Parliaments Map:

For anybody who wishes to cover any of the countries not yet covered in our map, contact our communications officer Jack.

Categories
Urgent Questions

Dr Sean Haughey

SEAN HAUGHEY

Sean Haughey is a Senior Lecturer in Politics and Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool. He is the author of The Northern Ireland Assembly: Reputations and Realities (2023, Routledge). He is the outgoing Co-Convenor of PSA Parliaments.

Please tell us a little bit about how you entered academia and your academic career

After working as an ESL Teacher in South Korea for a few years, I somehow managed to land a gig at a university in Busan, teaching politics and public speaking. The only requirement for the job was an MA in Politics and some teaching experience, so I was in. I enjoyed the teaching but I enjoyed the perks even more – two months off in winter and three months off in summer, on full pay, with no research obligations, no administration duties or leadership roles, nothing. And, on account of my basic Korean language skills, I was also spared a lot of university bureaucracy. What’s not to love? So, I thought ‘what do I need to do to land a gig like this back home?’. That led me to apply for ESRC funding to do a PhD at the University of Liverpool (where I studied as an undergrad) under the supervision of Professor Jon Tonge (who taught me there). I secured the funding, started the PhD in 2015, and quickly learned that real-life academia is a far cry from my halcyon days in Busan. But by this stage I was in my mid-late 20s and needed to make a go of something. And, to be fair, I did enjoy doing research (then on legislative behaviour in the Northern Ireland Assembly, where I’d worked as an intern as part of my MA in Legislative Studies and Practice from QUB). 

I’ve been at Liverpool ever since. Post-PhD, I was employed on a god-awful temporary contract for six months before securing a permanent Lectureship at the Institute of Irish Studies in 2019. I was promoted to Senior Lecturer earlier this year. It’s not a bad gig, even if the perks are fewer than I anticipated circa 2014.

Which five books/articles (written by someone else) have been most important to you in your academic career?

Hanna Pitkin’s The Concept of Representation (1967) – the first academic text I read, cover to cover, of my own volition. Imagine being able to write like that.

Consociational Theory: McGarry and O’Leary and the Northern Ireland conflict (edited by R. Taylor, 2009) – still the best text on consociational power-sharing in Northern Ireland, bringing together advocates, critics, and agnostics.

Rick Wilford’s 2010 article in Parliamentary Affairs, ‘Northern Ireland: The Politics of Constraint’. Sparked my interest in the NI Assembly. 

Rick Wilford’s 2015 article in Parliamentary Affairs, ‘Two Cheers for Consociational Democracy? Reforming the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive’. Sparked my interest in institutional reform.

Representing the People: A Survey Among Members of Statewide and Substate Parliaments edited by Kris Deschouwer and Sam Depauw (2014). Methodologically useful for my PhD and genuinely an interesting read.

Which people have been most influential and important to you in your academic career?

The late, great Professor Rick Wilford of QUB. He had an incredibly sharp intellect and a brilliant, dry wit. His enthusiasm for legislative studies got me interested in parliaments and played a large part in my choice of PhD proposal. When I graduated from Queen’s, Rick advised me to think about applying for a PhD but I was Korea-bound and didn’t take the idea seriously. But his vote of confidence meant a lot to me and clearly, at some level, the notion stuck in the back of my mind.

Professor Jon Tonge, who taught me during my undergrad at Liverpool, supervised my PhD, and is an antidote to a lot of the cynicism in contemporary academia (and I say that as one getting increasingly cynical). Lots of sage Tonge advice over the years, including: to remember that whilst research is important, we wouldn’t be here without the students; don’t write an email in anger/haste; and don’t Tweet drunk.

Which of your own pieces of research are you most proud of?

I’m not sure I would say proud per se but I was delighted to finish and part ways with my monograph, The Northern Ireland Assembly: Reputations and Realities. The Assembly is up and down like a fiddler’s elbow, so it can be quite a stressful subject to write about.

What has been your greatest achievement in academia?

I think ‘making it’ in academia – i.e. securing a permanent post – is a pretty big deal in itself because the job market is so competitive. It was also pretty cool to appear before a House of Commons Select Committee – that was a real ‘am I actually here?’ moment.

What has been your greatest disappointment in academia?

The rapid pace of neoliberalisation across the sector. It’s increasingly about the money, the managers, the metrics, and ‘the business’. I live in hope that the pendulum will swing back in the other direction eventually but that could be wishful thinking.

What is the first or most important thing you tell your students about parliaments?

Re the NI Assembly, that its poor reputation is not fully deserved. Re parliaments in general, that they are much more interesting than governments (and, of course, that they are not the same thing as governments).

Where were you born, where did you grow up, and where do you live now?

I was born in Belfast and lived there until I left for university at Liverpool. I had a brief stint back in Belfast for my MA, then five years in South Korea, before returning to Liverpool, where I currently reside.

What was your first job?

A kitchen porter/pot scrubber in a restaurant.

What was the toughest job you ever had?

A three-way toss-up. Either a supervisor at a summer camp in California (a lot of fun but pretty much on the clock 24/7; sleepless nights with homesick, ill, bed-wetting kids etc.), a labourer on a construction site (in the rain, there is not a more miserable job), or a precariously employed academic (thankfully I only had a short stint of this but I was grossly overworked and seriously underpaid).

What would your ideal job be, if not an academic?

If I won the lottery, I’d buy a farm and learn how to herd sheep with border collies.

What are your hobbies?

Not to perpetuate Irish stereotypes, but one of my favourite things to do is to sit in a good pub with friends talking about everything and nothing. To keep off the beer belly (ish), I run three to four times a week, which is a great stress-buster. I’m fascinated by the American Supreme Court and listen to oral arguments (or audiobooks about the court) quite a lot. Love Korean food but have yet to master the art of cooking it.

What are your favourite books?

Dahl’s Danny, the Champion of the World – first book I borrowed from a library, and probably the first novel I read without being asked to by a teacher. Became a regular library-goer after that, so I probably owe a lot to that book.

Recent favourites include Do Not Say We Have Nothing by Madeleine Thien and Young Mungo by Douglas Stuart.

What is your favourite piece of music?

My university anthem was/is ‘Not Nineteen Forever’ by The Courteeners. Brings me right back to Friday nights at Le Bateau on Duke Street.

What is your favourite artwork?

This.

What is your favourite film?

My all-time favourite is The Goonies. Such a classic and still makes me laugh, especially when Chunk gets locked in the freezer with the stiff.

What is your favourite building?

I don’t think I have one. I enjoyed visiting the temples in Kyoto, Japan – but they clearly didn’t impress me that much otherwise I’d remember their names.

What is your favourite TV show?

Schitt’s Creek is a masterpiece and remains my go-to for background comedy when I’m cooking or tidying up. Moira Rose is a hero. I find Alan Carr hilarious, so I’ll watch anything with him in it.

What is your favourite holiday destination?

Kilkenny, Ireland (a long street of picturesque Irish pubs); Seoul, South Korea (fun nightlife and amazing cuisine); Boracay, The Philippines (outstandingly beautiful and the most relaxing place I’ve ever visited)

What is your favourite sport?

Does pub golf count?

What is your favourite restaurant?

My new favourite restaurant is The White Eagle in Anglesey. Exquisite sea food and stunning views of the Welsh countryside.

Hybrid proceedings in Parliament: yes please or no thanks?

Yes please.

Appointed or elected upper chamber?

Perhaps a mix of both, with election gradually replacing appointment.

Restoration or Renewal?

Both.

Cat or Dog?

Dogs. All the dogs.

Trains, planes or automobiles?

Trains when they’re on time, planes when the destination is sunny.

Fish and chips or Curry?

Fish, chips & curry sauce on the side, surely?!

Scones: Cornish or Devonshire method?

As an Irishman, this means nothing to me. Having googled it, surely it is easier to put jam on cream rather than vice-versa?

And, finally, a question asked by 6-year old Viveka: What is your favourite school memory?

Any time a dog got into the playground. Joy. Mayhem.

Categories
News

April 2024 Newsletter

Hello, everyone! We hope you all enjoyed the Annual PSA Conference in Glasgow! Here are some highlights for April 2024!

  1. PSA Parliaments at #PSA24 Highlights
  2. Upcoming Parliamentary Studies Conferences and Workshops
  3. Opportunities to Get Involved
  4. Funding Opportunities
  5. Recent Publications
  6. Recently on the Blog
  7. Overview of Parliaments Map

If you have any notices/messages you would like us to circulate to our group, please let us know.

Best wishes,

Seán, Caroline, Diana, Ruxandra, and Jack.

1. PSA Parliaments at #PSA24 Highlights

We were happy to see so many of you attending our panels at the 74th Annual Conference of the Political Studies Association, which took place at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow from 25-27 March 2024. A big thumbs up for the local organisers and big thank you for those attending our panels and AGM. Here are some of the highlights from the conference.

Knowledge and specialisation in parliaments

We had one panel on the first day of the conference. This was focused on knowledge and specialisation in parliaments. The first paper, by Stephen Bates (Birmingham), Caroline Bhattacharya (Helsinki), and Stephen McKay (Lincoln) looked at patterns of MPs taking specialist or generalist career pathways in the UK House of Commons between 2001-2019. The second presentation outlined results from research done by Marc Geddes (Edinburgh) and Jack Liddall (Cambridge) on how Select Committees in the UK House of Commons gather evidence, and from whom. The third paper, by Vicky Ward (St Andrews) and Mark Monaghan (Loughborough niversity), unpacked how parliamentary officials understand and practice ‘impartiality’ in parliamentary research services. Concluding the panel, Cherry Miller (Helsinki) explored how parliamentary diplomacy is interpreted and practiced by the UK and EU member states.

Speech and Presence in Parliaments

We kicked off day two of the conference with a panel on speech and presence in parliaments. Kiwi Ting (Reading) began by presenting his latest research on House of Commons debates during the Covid-19 pandemic, comparing whether virtual speeches are more or less ‘influential’ than speeches made in person. This led to some excellent questions about what actually constitutes ‘influence’ in a speech, and the different ways in which parliamentary scholars could measure this. Next up we had Coree Brown Swan (Stirling) who used maiden speeches to analyse how Scottish National Party MPs rhetorically construct and define their (outsider) role in the House of Commons. For linguists this was an especially fascinating paper, but unfortunately Corree could not be persuaded into donning her best Scottish accent when discussing an array of Scottish colloquialisms! Paul Lam (National Tsinghua University) presented a very timely paper, which used social network analysis to explore the role of clientelism and brokerage in Hong Kong’s ‘reformed’ electoral system. Paul’s paper received lots of questions, particularly about the potential for comparison between Hong Kong and other regimes experiencing democratic backsliding. The panel ended with a paper from Sebastian Ludwicki-Ziegler (Sterling), who compared the role of Parliamentary Assistants (PAs) in the Scottish and Finnish parliaments, and left us in no doubt that PAs do a lot for their MPs – in person and via WhatsApp(!) – and, by extension, make a crucial contribution to wider parliamentary systems.

Exploring Participation and Public Engagement

Our third panel focused on participation and public engagement in parliaments. We had two great methodological contributions, one from Prof. Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Dr. Blagovesta Tacheva (Leeds) providing extremely useful insights on how to engage seldom-heard groups in political research, and  the other one from Dr. Alex Prior and Dr. Samuel Johnson-Schlee (London Southbank)  and Dr. Ryan Swift (IPPR) exploring go-along research in the UK Parliament.  The other two papers explored parliamentary public engagement in Latin America, by Dr. Khemvirg Puente from the National Autonomous University of Mexico), and the added value of citizen engagement in the EU, by Mr. Paul Kindermann from the London School of Economics.

Accountability and Scrutiny

Our final panel of the conference included research on accountability and scrutiny. Kento Ohara (Oxford) presented the theoretical framework of his PhD research, looking at how parliamentary reform referring to executive accountability could be measured. Next, Nathaniel Sablan and Matthew Flinders (Sheffield) outlined the main themes of a new research project investigating the work of Select Committees in the UK House of Lords. The final paper, by Steven Barnett (Westminster) and Judith Townsend (Sussex), explored patterns of legacy publisher influence on UK media policy.

AGM

We also held our AGM on the second day and we were delighted with the excellent turnout and the useful discussions and feedback. We said farewell to Seán, who stepped back from his co-convenor role, and we welcomed Ruxandra as co-covenor, who stepped up from her Treasurer and Membership Officer role. We wished Seán all the best in his new research endeavors and called out for any interest in the treasurer and membership officer role.

There is a lot we took away from our discussions and feedback. As a team we will consider and further deliberate on some of the issues raised (future of our Annual Conference, social events at the PSA Conference etc) and we will let everyone know what decisions we come at.

2. Upcoming Parliamentary Studies Conferences and Workshops

Women in Legislative Studies Conference

The 2024 Women in Legislative Studies Annual Conference will be held 20-21 September 2024 at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in Madison, WI. All women and non-binary scholars studying legislative politics or legislative-adjacent topics are welcome.

The application deadline is 30 April. You can apply to attend, present, chair and/or act as a discussant here.

Westminster Foundation for Democracy: Post-legislative scrutiny (PLS) clinic on public consultation and participation

On the 19th of April (9:00 – 10:15am UK time) the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is organising an online event on the topic of public consultation and participation in the context of post-legislative scrutiny in parliaments.  

You can find all info on the content, speakers and the registration link here.

3. Opportunities to Get Involved

Call for written submissions for the Welsh Parliament / Senedd Reform Bill Committee

The Reform Bill Committee would like to hear diverse views on the Senedd Cymru (Electoral Candidate Lists) Bill. If passed, the Bill will introduce an integrated statutory gender quota to the Closed List Proportional Representation electoral system expected to be introduced by the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill.

Further information, including the terms of reference for our work and how you can share your views, can be found on the consultation webpage. The closing date for written evidence is Friday 12 April 2024.

Scottish Parliament Fellowship Scheme

This Academic Fellowship Scheme, which is managed and hosted by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe), enables academics to work on projects with the Parliament in support of this purpose. They are  are now inviting bids via this application form for the following topics: 

There is also an Open Call whereby requests for fellowship proposals are considered from academics on any topic relevant to parliamentary business, in particular original, analytical or primary research. Applicants for the open call  should email a one-page document outlining their proposed project, and also send a cv to academia@parliament.scot. 

Deadlines:

  • Topic Areas (see above): Friday 3 May 2024 at 5.00pm.
  • Open Call: Friday 26 April 2024 at 5.00pm.

For further information including eligibility requirements, application process and answers to some frequently asked questions see:

Guide to the Scottish Parliament Academic Fellowship Scheme

4. Funding Opportunities

UKICE small grant fund: Apply now

UK in a Changing Europe (UKICE) is offering support for small-scale projects (max. 6 months) that explore the topics of political behaviour and public opinion in the context of party politics (e.g. voter responses to campaigns, Brexit and electoral choice, immigration and vote choice, polling methods and accuracy). ESRC will fund 80% of the full economic cost, which should not exceed £30,000. The deadline for application is 30 April. You can find out the eligibility criteria and details of the call here.

5. Recent Publications

If you would like your published research to be featured in this section, please email Caroline with details.

6. Recently on the Blog

If you have an idea for a blog on some aspect of parliamentary study, please get in touch with our new communications officer, Jack. We will be posting more blogs from those who presented at our Annual Conference last November, so watch this space!

7. Overview of Parliaments Map

We have one new contribution to our Overview of Parliaments Map:

  • Ecuador by Pablo Valdivieso Carrillo – PhD candidate at University of Oxford has written on the Ecuadorian Parliament

For anybody who wishes to cover any of the countries not yet covered in our map, contact our communications officer Jack.

Categories
Blog

Refinement Is All You Need: Shaping the Future of Parliaments with AI

By Alberto Mencarelli.

In the landmark paper “Attention Is All You Need” (Vaswani et al., 2017), the concept of transformers fundamentally changed the landscape of AI, particularly in how machines understand and generate human language through mechanisms like Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT) and Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG). These breakthroughs not only represent significant technological strides but also strikingly parallel the intricate processes in parliaments. Just as transformers learn and adapt by absorbing and synthesizing vast amounts of information, so do parliamentary systems refine legislative measures by assimilating diverse data and viewpoints, underscoring a shared theme of progressive enhancement and complex data integration in both realms.

The essence of this analogy lies in the conceptual similarity between the AI ‘attention’ mechanism and the parliamentary ‘refinement’ process, where both prioritize and contextualize information to produce nuanced outcomes. The refinement process in parliaments evolves through stages: from committee to plenary, and across chambers in bicameral systems – each procedural step meticulously crafted to enhance output. In parliamentary terms, refinement involves a multifaceted iterative process that ensures broad deliberative bases, adversarial but inclusive consideration of diverse views, and the  scrutiny of legislative provisions based on data-driven assessments. The similarity between AI systems and parliamentary processes shows that both share a fundamental approach:  just as AI uses attention and retrieval mechanisms to process information, parliaments use iterative, knowledge-based methods to develop legislation. Thus, the dynamics of generative AI not only mirror, but also offer new perspectives on traditional methodologies of parliamentary activity, suggesting a unique intersection between technology and governance.

In the digital age, turning data into meaningful action is the cornerstone of progress. Generative AI, with its sophisticated attention mechanism, offers a new lens through which to examine the complexities of parliamentary discussions, identifying connections, trends, and implications that may elude human analysis. This does not mean replacing the human process, but rather enriching it, providing political actors with advanced tools to address contemporary challenges with a deeper understanding.

Linguistic Foundations: Bridging Parliaments and Large Language Models

At the core of both parliamentary procedure and Large Language Models (LLMs) lies a deep appreciation for the nuance and power of language, serving as the foundation for creating, disseminating, and negotiating knowledge.

The parallels between the linguistic dynamics of parliaments and those of LLMs are striking and suggest a natural synergy. Both domains achieve their goals through the meticulous refinement of language, optimizing their outputs to meet pre-defined objectives. This common linguistic underpinning presents a compelling case for the integration of LLMs into parliamentary processes. Such a union promises to enhance the clarity, precision, and accessibility of communication – a cornerstone upon which effective governance is built.

Leveraging AI can streamline legislative workflows and inspire explorations at the intersection of technology and parliamentary practices. By integrating technology and linguistics, we unlock innovative opportunities that could dramatically transform how parliaments and legislatures operate.

Ensuring Diversity, Inclusivity and Depth in AI-Augmented Parliamentary Processes

In recent years, pioneering experiments in some parliamentary settings have laid the groundwork for a more integrated approach to the use of AI tools (see this Popvox Foundation report for an updated overview of current international experiences). Real-time captioning of parliamentary proceedings, automated classification and transcription of policy documents, and the early stages of conversational document search are at the forefront of this integration. The leading parliaments include the U.S. Congress, whose House Subcommittee on Modernization issues regular flash reports on AI strategy and implementation (most recently in December 2023), the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies, which has developed the Ulysses artificial intelligence suite, and the Estonian Parliament. But other parliaments have launched or plan to launch pilots in the coming months, as in the case of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, which recently adopted a report.

Parliaments are on the cusp of a transformative journey, blending deep-rooted traditions with cutting-edge AI technology. While still early days, a promising path is unfolding. As AI rapidly evolves, it’s crucial for parliaments worldwide to share best practices and develop common approaches. This collaboration is key to tackling the challenges of this significant shift.

AI’s advanced language models can revolutionize how laws are made. These models are not only adept at producing well-crafted text but also at ensuring laws reflect a broader range of societal objectives and values. Such tools could make legislation more inclusive, weaving minority perspectives into the legislative narrative. By enhancing the drafting phase, AI could lead to laws that represent a more diverse range of opinions, softening the impact of decisions made by slim majorities.

The implications of generative AI in parliamentary contexts are profound, offering numerous possibilities for its application, such as:

  • Predictive Analysis: AI can forecast voting outcomes based on historical data, aiding in strategic negotiation planning.
  • Deliberative Refinement: Through quantitative analysis of debate intensities and MP motivations, AI can foster a more inclusive deliberative process. Projects like Inclusive.AI and the latest research highlights AI’s role in enriching democratic deliberation by capturing a broad range of opinions and value preferences. In an effective parliamentary AI system, the technology should not just simplify the aggregation of viewpoints but also ensure that the depth and variation of these viewpoints are preserved.
  • Moderation and Persuasion: AI moderation tools can enhance the quality and inclusiveness of debates, especially in committees or remote settings. According to empirical evidence, LLMs have the potential to enhance conversational persuasiveness and provide real-time, evidence-based recommendations that can improve participants’ perception of feeling understood in conversations. This, in turn, has the potential to improve the quality of conversations and reduce political divisiveness, without altering the content of the conversation (Argyle et al., 2023).
  • Data Analysis and Policy Simulation: Generative AI has the capability to analyze vast amounts of data from diverse sources and formats to identify pertinent variables, causal relationships, trends, and anomalies. This capability can be utilized to simulate alternative policy scenarios and predict the potential effects of public policies, while considering various factors and uncertainties.
  • Participatory Democracy: AI can gauge public opinion on legislative proposals, capturing not just the majority view but the intensity of support or opposition.
  • Hybrid Proceedings Facilitation: With the shift towards hybrid parliamentary models, AI offers tools for virtual participation, document sharing, real-time translation, and even emotional tone recognition, enhancing session efficiency and accessibility of hybrid sittings by addressing the challenges of virtual engagement.

Integrating AI into parliamentary processes could mark a major shift towards more efficient and inclusive governance.. By leveraging AI’s capabilities, parliaments can navigate the complexities of modern governance, ensuring that legislative processes are both reflective of and responsive to a broader range of societal needs and perspectives.


AI in Parliaments: Opportunities, Risks, and the Democratic Balance

As we contemplate the integration of AI into parliamentary processes, it becomes apparent that this endeavor is both promising and fraught with complexities. The ethical and the procedural implications of these tools for parliaments can shape entirely new functions and attributes. The potential of AI to enhance efficiency and decision-making is counterbalanced by significant ethical and operational challenges. Concerns regarding privacy, data protection, and the transparency of AI-driven decisions highlight the need for rigorous scrutiny. Furthermore, the importance of maintaining accountability in the face of AI’s potential errors or biases cannot be overstated. The task of customizing AI to complement political processes, while ensuring that its decisions remain accessible and understandable to the general public, underscores the critical balance between innovation and the foundational values of democracy. A notable challenge is the risk of AI being manipulated or misused, particularly in an age characterized by advanced cyber threats. In this regard, it seems crucial that parliaments strive to ensure that the introduction of AI tools in their processes is accompanied by maintaining full control over the AI technologies deployed in order to establish sufficient levels of technological sovereignty.

Parliaments are thus confronted with a pivotal challenge: to adopt AI through the development of stringent policies, the conduct of ethical testing, and the provision of comprehensive training. The stakes are significant, as failure to effectively integrate AI could result in falling behind in the ongoing technological revolution, potentially compromising the resilience and adaptability of parliamentary ecosystems.

Embracing AI in parliaments thoughtfully yet boldly requires striking a balance between innovation and democratic integrity, safeguarding the core values of these vital institutions.

About the author

Dr Alberto Mencarelli is a parliamentary official in the Italian Chamber of Deputies. He gained his PhD in constitutional law from Sapienza University of Rome.

Categories
Blog

Evidence on Stage? Comparing committee hearings in the UK House of Commons and German Bundestag

By Marc Geddes.

Parliamentary and legislative committees perform a range of roles, such as the scrutiny of legislation or accountability of government. Increasingly, committees are holding public hearings, which can be really important for MPs to gather relevant knowledge and evidence to support their work and fulfil committee tasks. In recent research, I spent time in the UK House of Commons and German Bundestag and interviewed MPs and staff to get a better understanding of whether committee hearings are important information-gathering tools. Given that these are often official and formal routes for parliaments to listen to stakeholders, these are prestigious and important and can be seen as ‘evidence on stage’.

In the House of Commons, the parliament has two committee systems. For scrutinising legislation, temporary bill committees are made up of 30 or so members, appointed by parliamentary parties, to go through proposed laws via public meetings with an optional evidence-gathering stage. For scrutinising policy and holding government to account, permanent select committees exist to shadow government departments. Made up of small groups of MPs – usually around 11 members – and elected by the party colleagues, they are often independent-minded spaces. Select committees conduct policy scrutiny through inquiries that include open calls for written evidence and public hearings with a variety of witnesses (e.g. scientists, business or trade union leaders, interest groups, etc.). Committee members deliberate in private to identify key conclusions and recommendations, to which government must respond (but is not forced to accept). Analysis has shown that around 40 percent of recommendations are accepted.

In the German parliament, permanent committees mirror government departments (plus some cross-cutting ones, such as a Petitions Committee). Committees are tasked with both examining legislation and with scrutinising policy. Committee size varies depending on the topic, but they are in general much larger than UK committees. For example, the Committee on Work and Social Affairs has 49 members. Members are appointed by parliamentary parties and take on the role of rapporteur, i.e. they are allocated specific portfolios within the committee’s wider remit. For example, in the Committee on Work and Social Affairs, one MP from each party will have responsibility for migration issues, another for pensions, etc. In general, Bundestag committee meetings are private but, especially since the 1980s, they have increasingly made use of public hearings. These can be used to invite experts to give evidence as part of scrutiny of legislative or policy proposals.

At first glance, both parliaments seem reasonably similar. But this masks considerable differences. In the UK, committees are supported by a secretariat of procedural and policy specialists, who write briefing papers for all members, suggest witnesses and analyse written evidence. Witnesses are usually identified on the basis of suggestions from members and especially the committee’s chair, in consultation with the advice from parliamentary officials (including the secretariat but also the House of Commons Library and the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology). Bundestag committees, meanwhile, are also served by a secretariat, but their role is to offer procedural advice only. Witnesses are instead nominated by parliamentary parties, often via group leaders and rapporteurs, who’s own staff will undertake research and identify experts. The number of witnesses depends on the size of the parliamentary party. Witness lists are published, inclusive of the party that nominated them, so it is fully transparent who invited whom.

The two approaches by the House of Commons and the Bundestag push evidence-gathering in different directions. In the former case, hearings are usually organised in a non-partisan way, especially for select committees. In the latter, given the inbuilt party political considerations, the process sharpens political divisions. These differences are reinforced through other practices. Briefing packs in the House of Commons are produced by the parliamentary administration and shared with all members; these often serve as agendas and give suggestions for issues to probe. Witnesses are often given oral briefing by the inquiry manager so that the witness can adequately prepare. In the Bundestag, briefings are handled by the rapporteur within each parliamentary party, often in close collaboration with the party leadership teams. Witnesses are usually briefed by the relevant party, too, in terms of the kinds of points and questions the party wants to get across.

These dynamics mean that committee hearings in both parliaments operate differently. Questioning in the House of Commons can be very political, but it is rarely directly partisan. Indeed, many hearings – especially with experts – tend to be thematic and open-ended, which may be directed a the panel in general or at specific witnesses, and without time limits (though the chair may play an active role in directing questioning). Committee hearings in this context can allow for robust questioning of political and policy positions, and allow MPs to gather information and expert opinion on a range of issues. In the Bundestag, meanwhile, questioning dynamics are very different. MPs usually focus their questions only on witnesses that they have invited, and usually have a set amount of time to both pose a question and receive an answer (in committees I’ve observed, this was often three to five minutes). Consequently, hearings do not develop thematically or where responses can build on one another; there is no dialogue. The end result is that hearings are often used by MPs to confirm existing knowledge, legitimise pre-existing political positions, or criticise the government.

Given the often assumed centrality of committees, and the growing prevalence of hearings, understanding how these function and work on a daily basis is critically important. What does this mean for committee hearings as evidence on stage? In both settings, it is clear that expertise is used, but used differently. Borrowing from the work of Christina Boswell, it seems that committee hearings in the UK case are used more ‘instrumentally’, i.e., for their problem-solving functions, while in the German case to ‘substantiate’ and ‘legitimise’ policy positions.

What I have found so far is notably different to what we might expect. Given the UK’s wider adversarial political culture, replicated in many dynamics in the House of Commons (not least prime minister’s questions), and Germany’s consensus-seeking political system characterised by coalition governments and bargaining, we would have perhaps expected committee work to echo such cultural differences. And yet, they operate in opposing ways. We can explain this at least in part due to their parliamentary structures, whereby the German Bundestag is organised with reference to its parliamentary party groups and the UK House of Commons gives primacy to the individually elected representative.

However, there are deeper underlying issues at play. First, with respect to the parliamentary administration, for example, MPs in the UK are a lot more positive about the service provided by officials who are seen as trusted and impartial. In my interviews, German MPs were a lot more sceptical of the idea of neutrality, with many questioning whether anybody can ever be neutral. Second, MPs view their roles in the institutions differently. In the House of Commons, MPs are either part of the frontbench or backbench; and if the latter, they see themselves as independent-minded and with the freedom to focus on anything they want. In the Bundestag, MPs are allocated policy portfolios on behalf of their parliamentary parties, and so see themselves as becoming specialists and advocate for their party in respective debates and committees. This suggests a more general point of difference between the two parliaments, which have developed within different parliamentary traditions and therefore have developed different structures and organisational methods to achieve those results.

About the author

Dr Marc Geddes is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, and Visiting Fellow, Institute for Parliamentary Research (IParl). His past area of research expertise focuses on parliamentary committees in the UK House of Commons. Since 2024, he has begun a new research project to compare how parliaments across Europe gather, analyse and make use of different types of knowledge to fulfil their democratic functions.

Categories
News

PSA Parliaments at #PSA24

We are excited to present you four panels at the 74th Annual Conference of the Political Studies Association , which will be held at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow from 25-27 March 2024 (more information here).

Our first panel on Knowledge and Specialisation in Parliaments (chaired by Ruxandra Serban) is scheduled for the afternoon session on the first day, Monday 25th March.

On Tuesday, the 26th March, we are convening three more panels, so you can stay with us the entire day. Firstly, we will have presentations on the theme of Speech and Presence in Parliaments (chaired by Sean Haughey) in the morning.

We will also hold an Annual General Meeting at 11am to make a few announcements and gather input from our members. Please join us in the same room (Conference Room 1) as our panels.

After lunch, we continue with a panel on Exploring Participation and Public Engagement (chaired by Diana Stirbu).

Our final panel features work on Accountability and Scrutiny (chaired by Ruxandra Serban) from parliaments across the globe.

We would be very delighted if you could join us for these panels and engage in the discussions on the latest research in parliamentary studies.

Follow our Twitter/X account for the latest updates closer to the conference and on the days of the panels.

See you in Glasgow!

Categories
Blog

Where MPs sit in social networks matters

By Grace Cooper.

Most office workers tend to do much of their day-to-day socialising with colleagues. They meet over coffee, talk in corridors on the way to meetings, or grab a drink together at the end of a long day. These shared activities can have a significant impact on people’s behaviour and preferences. MPs are no different – Parliament is their workplace, and other MPs make up most of their social network. Their social interactions shape their preferences and behaviour, just like it would any other workplace. But the details matter for understanding how influential MPs can be, given their roles within their social networks.

How Parliament’s institutions affect MPs behaviour

MPs spend the majority of their time in Westminster in meeting rooms for select committee hearings, in the chamber, in the division lobby or in All-Party Parliamentary Group meetings (APPGs). APPGs are less formal meetings where MPs and Lords meet to discuss certain topics, such as refugees, climate change or gender equality.  An MP’s primary social network is formed of other MPs they socialise with through being on a select committee or an APPG together.

My previous research has shown that these parliamentary institutions shape the degree to which MPs are engaged in different topics. For example, if an MP is a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee or Refugee APPG, they are more likely to raise questions about refugees in Parliament above and beyond their committee obligations.

Perhaps it’s no surprise that MPs who end up having several meetings on specific issues tend to then promote those very issues in Parliament.  What’s more interesting though is that what particular role an MP ends up playing within these networks goes on to impact their behaviour, such as the number of written questions they submit about a particular policy.

As part of my research, I looked at four types of MPs who had an important role in the network and tested to see how their relationships to other MPs affected their parliamentary behaviour.

The middleman

This is the broker, the go-between. They have a structural advantage in the network and as a result an increased engagement with representative activities, such as submitting written parliamentary questions. This MP has a structural social advantage as they are the easiest person to access information from the select committees and APPGs and therefore captures this knowledge. They bridge the gaps of disconnected or uninformed MPs in parliament and connect the social network with the knowledge that they have as a key player in the network. This type of MP was found to submit more questions than their respective colleges in the same select committees or APPGs, indicating higher engagement with the issue.

The popular one 

This very important MP sits at the heart of the network. They have closer social access to other MPs in the network, highlighting connectivity and being at the centre of the flow of information. This centrality gives them easier access to the flow of information and as a result this social network influences their behaviour by being linked to a higher rate of raising questions within parliament. Some MPs worth noting are Kate Green, Tim Farron and Olivia Blake who were identified as key actors and as ‘Popular’ MPs. These MPs had the shortest pathways to other MPs in the network and therefore had a higher rate of written question submission.

The busy one 

This MP is in a lot of social groups, they are in select committees and multiple APPGs meaning they know a lot of MPs. Their social network is larger than those of other MPs in their network. In the refugee policy network, Afzal Khan was the busiest MP. However, surprisingly, there was no evidence that this gave them structural advantage. The assumption that knowing more MPs and having a larger network would mean MPs knew more, had access to more information and contacts, and therefore would encourage them to be more engaged in a specific policy area turned out not to be true. Someone like Afzal Khan was no more likely than his colleagues to submit written questions about refugees. Simply knowing more MPs or being involved in more parliamentary groups doesn’t mean an MP ends up doing more.

The social climber 

This MP is well connected to other well-connected MPs, demonstrating that they are part of the ‘popular’ groups in the parliamentary system. Initially it was assumed that as this type of MP came into contact with other well-connected MPs, it would give them a structural social advantage, leading to more engagement in the policy world they were socialising in. In other words, the thought was that their more connected and involved network would lead to an increase in their engagement. This has not been proven to be the case, however, no matter what the size of an MP’s network. Simply being an MP of a party with a larger representation, like the Conservative party, and therefore having a larger network than the MPs of smaller parties, does not increase their activity.

Where you sit in the social network matters

While being a member of a social network matters, it is the MP’s specific social, or structural position within this network that has the greatest impact on how they perform in their role. Simply having a bigger social network and joining more groups doesn’t seem to have a great effect on an MP’s levels of engagement compared to their colleagues. However, occupying the right kind of structural position, such as being the middleman or popular MP can end up having a noticeable impact on how an MP conducts themselves within parliament and how they advocate for particular groups.

It’s not enough for an MP to be in a select committee or APPG if they want to have an impact – MPs have to position themselves carefully within these networks. Parliamentary researchers should continue to look into social network analysis if they want to better understand how the social world of MPs affects and shapes their influence.

This post was first published on the LSE British Politics and Policy blog.

About the author

Grace Cooper is a PhD candidate in parliamentary studies at the University of York. Her research interests include social network analysis and the representation of refugees in Parliament.

Categories
Blog

Parliament’s Role in the Downfall of the Republic in Afghanistan (2001-2021)

By Narges Mohammadi.

1.      Introduction

The Afghan parliament, crucial for shaping core policies, played a pivotal role in the republic’s destiny. Emerging from the Taliban’s fall in 2001, the 2004 constitution established a powerful bicameral parliament with essential monitoring mechanisms. Despite its structural advancements, the parliament faced challenges leading to the republic’s failure and the inefficiency of the political system. Corruption, inefficiency, ethnic divisions, and outdated laws plagued Afghanistan’s legislative body. Corruption prioritised personal gain over national interests, and ethnic tensions escalated disharmony. Outdated laws failed to uphold civil rights and international standards. Analysing content and interviews with experts in the study of Afghanistan’s legislation deepened the understanding of problems, revealing a parliament that failed to oversee government decisions and adhere to republican principles. The culmination of a dysfunctional parliament, marked by corruption, inefficiency, ethnic divisions, and outdated laws, significantly contributed to political instability, a dysfunctional government system, and eventually to the downfall of the Afghan Republic and the assumption of power by the Taliban on August 15, 2021.

2.      Political System of Afghanistan

Afghanistan has undergone various political structures, transitioning from the Monarchy to the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA), the Taliban Emirate (I), and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’s creation after the Bonn conference 2001. Presently, the country is under the de facto rule of the Taliban Emirate (II). The political system established after 2001 was presidential, encompassing executive, judiciary, and legislative branches with checks and balances. The president served as both head of state and commander-in-chief, supported by two vice presidents. The National Assembly (NA) or Parliament, comprising the House of Elders (Meshrano Jirga (MJ)) and the House of People (Wolesi Jirga (WJ)), served as the highest legislative body. While WJ members were directly elected, MJ included elected and appointed members. The independent judiciary consisted of the Supreme Court (SC), Primary Courts, and the Courts of Appeal (CA), with SC members appointed by the President with WJ approval.

2.1.  Duties and Powers of the Parliament

The 2004 Afghan constitution gave the parliament more power than previous constitutions. The Afghan parliament’s duties represented the nation, making and ratifying laws and reviewing, controlling and supervising the performance of the executive power. In particular, WJ and MJ had the power to approve, modify or abrogate laws and executive decrees. The power and duties of WJ included endorsing social, cultural, and economic development programs, approving state budgets, making, modifying, or abrogating administrative units, and ratifying international treaties and agreements. In addition, the constitution enabled both houses to interrogate and impeach ministers on specific issues and approve or reject high-level appointees.

3.     Factors Contributed to the Parliament’s Role in the Downfall of Democracy in Afghanistan

I was thrilled to present this research during the PSA Parliaments Annual Conference 2023. In this blogpost, in examining the parliament’s role in the collapse of Afghanistan’s democratic government, I explore how the Afghan parliament’s dysfunctionality contributed to the republic government’s downfall. The subsequent factors shed light on my investigation, which reveals ethnic divisions and governmental inefficiency rooted in corruption.

3.1. Corruption

Widespread corruption severely impacted the Afghan government, notably hindering the parliament’s ability to combat corruption effectively. The ministerial impeachment process, designed for accountability, became susceptible to personal biases and alliances within the parliament, undermining stability goals. This corruption permeated the monitoring institution, impeding its crucial role in ensuring good governance and emphasising the urgent need for systemic reforms in Afghanistan’s parliamentary system. Political analyst Hadi Joya highlighted corrupt practices in the Afghan Parliament, labelling it a “trading/commissioning” entity engaged in transactions and bribes, losing its genuine connection with the people and government. An Anti-Corruption Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (MEC) reported widespread corruption, legislative negligence, and budget misappropriation. Furthermore, media reports exposed the misuse of 45,900,000 Afghani funds in former Speaker Abdul Raouf Ebrahimi’s budget, prompting his commitment to return 5.3 million Afghanis to the WJ’s budget.

A police officer witness claimed that corruption among parliamentarians played a significant role in the republic’s downfall, stating, “Getting ministers’ votes of confidence from the Afghan parliament was a mistake, as ministers had to comply with MPs to secure confidence votes.” The officer criticised the Ministry of Interior (MI), pointing out the appointment of “uneducated, unprofessional, and corrupt security officials through MPs’ influence.” Instances were noted where MPs supported the Taliban in areas under their control to secure votes. Moreover, recently, the US imposed sanctions on Mir Rahman Rahmani, the former Speaker of the Afghan parliament, and his son Ajmal Rahmani, citing “massive financial corruption.” Mir Rahman allegedly bribed parliament members for the Speaker role, while Ajmal paid $1.6 million to Election Commission members for parliamentary entry. Despite corruption, a few dedicated MPs in the WJ were acknowledged for their hard work in ratifying and implementing laws prioritising people’s interests, as highlighted by former MP Nisar Ahmad Ghoryani. However, these efforts were insufficient and required additional improvement.

3.2 Ethnic Division

Ethnic divisions pervaded Afghanistan’s government, including Parliament, where democracy was rooted in ethnicity. The selection of the interim government head prioritised ethnicity over political considerations, resulting in Hamid Karzai’s appointment as a Dorani Pashtun. The ethnic basis extended to parliamentary decisions, with MPs’ votes for ministerial candidates reflecting considerations of ethnicity, language, and discrimination instead of meritocracy and experience.

The ethnic division in Afghanistan’s parliament was exacerbated by the Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV) system, which emphasised non-partisanship and discouraged the formation of trans-ethnic political parties. The absence of partisan politics in parliament allowed ethnic tendencies to dominate decision-making, leading to prolonged involvement in ethnic issues. For example, debates over the higher education law highlighted linguistic divisions, with disagreements on mentioning Pashto and Persian-Dari words. Additionally, conflicts over key positions in the parliament further underscored ethnocentrism, causing prolonged disputes and hindering effective governance. However, Ghulam Farooq Majrooh, former MP, noted exceptions to ethnic differences, citing instances where individuals from various ethnic groups, such as Turkmen, Uzbeks, and Hazaras, were appointed to ministerial positions or the Supreme Court. This suggests that, amid challenges, there were efforts to address ethnic diversity and promote inclusivity in key roles, but these efforts fell short and required further enhancement. Therefore, ethnic divisions significantly weakened parliamentary performance as love and hatred were influenced by ethnic affiliations. Rather than representing national interests and promoting nation-building, ethnic divisions fueled tribal conflicts, undermining the parliament’s effectiveness in serving the Afghan people.

3.3. Inefficiency

The inefficiency of the parliament, despite its pivotal role in shaping the republican system and upholding supposed freedoms, became evident as the three powers within the system clashed, compromising democratic principles and neglecting citizens’ rights. Ineffective supervision allowed corruption and legislative weaknesses to persist, with meritocracy often sidelined, impeding parliamentary efficiency. The parliament struggled with lawlessness, lacking the capacity for supervision and prioritising ethnic-based entries over specialisation and commitment. Many MPs, entering through ethnic relations and indirect quotas, were unfamiliar with supervision, turning it into a tool for pursuing individual and group interests rather than upholding democratic values.

The parliament struggled to assert its political authority amid ongoing tension between the executive and legislative branches. As revealed in the MEC report, executive interference manifested in enforcing several laws through presidential decrees without parliamentary approval, indicating failure in ratifying laws, weaknesses, MPs absenteeism, and the influence of external elements. Despite constitutional provisions for legislative decrees during parliamentary recess, the government often avoided submitting decrees for fear of rejection. Parliamentary shutdowns became an opportunity for the executive to pass legislation likely to be rejected by parliament. These challenges and inefficiencies in law-making, where the parliament produced only five laws in 16 years, showcased obstacles within the legislative body and external branches hindering its effective performance.

3.4 Outdated Laws

The practical implementation of approved laws and the prevention of corruption and bribery could mitigate public distrust and prevent further decline in Afghanistan. However, despite the existence of parliament, specific laws needed to be updated in a timely manner. For instance, over the sixteen years of the WJ, crucial laws related to governing constitutional formations were outdated, and some civil matters remained unchanged, reflecting similarities with the 1964 constitution. This failure to adapt these laws to contemporary needs highlights missed opportunities for necessary amendments in response to evolving societal dynamics. Additionally, in a rigid gender context where males dominate, any legislative proposal, government oversight measure, and budget modifications or amendments required the endorsement of the majority of male MPs. Success was particularly contingent on gaining approval from influential and leading legislators.

4. Conclusion

This research explains how the weaknesses inherent in the democratically inclined republican system set up in 2001 led to its downfall in 2021. The republic’s failure in Afghanistan stemmed from various factors. The note focuses on the significant role played by the parliament in the re-emergence of the Taliban. Despite its pivotal function, the Afghan parliament faced challenges such as corruption, ethnic divisions, inefficiency, and outdated laws, leading to a decline in public trust in the system. The parliament’s inability to effectively supervise and ratify laws allowed unchecked governance by a select few, further destabilized democracy. The fraudulent electoral system and MPs’ lack of expertise in key areas rendered the parliament weak and hindered decision-making. This weakness contributed to the republic’s collapse. The writer acknowledges that other factors like legislative and judicial powers, political disagreements, foreign intervention, and public unfamiliarity with democratic processes also played a role.

In the future, if it becomes possible, reforms should include a stronger parliament established to revitalise Afghanistan and its institutions, accompanied by comprehensive political, social, and economic measures. Strengthening anti-corruption laws, fostering inter-ethnic relations, and prioritising citizens’ participation in decision-making are essential for Afghanistan’s progress. Additionally, cultivating political culture, education, public awareness, positive engagement with international communities, and upholding human rights are crucial elements for a positive transformation in Afghanistan’s future.

I hope such possibilities will arise in the future and hope that by establishing how things went wrong in the past, the research may eventually contribute to a better future for the people of Afghanistan.

About the author

Narges Mohammadi is a PhD Student in the School of International Relations and Diplomacy at Beijing Foreign Studies University.

Categories
Blog

Changes in UK executive-legislative relations: A Congressionalising House of Commons, 1997-2015

By Kento Ohara.

Literature on the changing nature of the UK constitution in recent years abounds. Although there is a widespread perception that the UK constitution has been undergoing some significant change recently, there is little consensus to date on how to conceptualise this change. In addressing this challenge and placing the UK’s recent constitutional developments in a comparative context, my project focuses on executive-legislative relations in the UK as the underlying dimension in the country’s recent constitutional evolution. This focus flows from the fact that the sovereignty of crown-in-parliament has been widely identified as the core of the UK constitution. To repeat the well-rehearsed phrase of the late English constitutional thinker Walter Bagehot, it is the ‘close union, the nearly complete fusion of the executive and legislative powers’ that is the ‘efficient secret’ of the (English) constitution (2009, p. 11). Notable recent developments within the UK’s sovereign parliament (especially the House of Commons) and its relationship with the executive branch include: major shake-ups in the Commons’ select committee system (Fisher 2015; Russell 2011), increasing number of rebellions within parliamentary parties (Cowley & Stuart 2012; 2014) and new legislation on the prime minister’s dissolution power (Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011; Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022). The role perception of MPs and their career patterns, amid the rise of ‘career politicians’ in UK politics, have also been said to be going through some transformation, influencing attitudinal changes on part of these politicians to a certain extent (Fisher 2015; Heuwieser 2018).

How then can we conceptualise these changes in UK executive-legislative relations, and how can we measure such changes empirically? My project seeks to address these questions by turning to the classic works of Polsby (1975, ch. 4) and Wilson (1885) on Anglo-American comparison of legislatures. Drawing on these influential studies on comparative legislatures, my project proposes the concept of ‘Congressionalisation’ of the UK House of Commons. It is argued that both institutionally and behaviourally, UK executive-legislative relations are incrementally becoming more similar to those observed between the US executive and congress.

Traditionally, the UK’s executive-dominated parliamentary system has been contrasted with the US presidential system, where Congress dominates the legislative process. Whereas in the UK the parliamentary majority, controlled by the executive, is vested with extensive agenda control and legislative power in its fusion-of-power model of government, under the US’s division-of-power constitution, the executive and legislative branches retain a much more significant degree of power to constrain each other in the legislative process (not to mention the heftier role of the judicial branch) (Bagehot 2009; Lijphart 1992; Wilson 1885).[i] This arrangement has created what the US political scientist Richard E Neustadt called a system where ‘separated institutions shar[e] power’ (1960, p. 39). This Anglo-American difference has long been noted by American and British constitutional thinkers, perhaps most notably by the future American president Woodrow Wilson, who decried the American system as a ‘congressional government’ (1885).

It was Polsby who picked up on these earlier observations on the different levels of policy-making influence legislatures have in Western democracies, and conceptualised the Westminster parliament as the ideal-type of an ‘arena’ legislature, in contrast to the ‘transformative’ Congress in the US (1975, pp. 278ff). In short, an arena legislature exercises very limited policy-making powers, whereas a transformative legislature enjoys a vital role in shaping policies. Following Wilson’s and other earlier observations, Polsby attributed this difference in policy-making influence of the UK and US legislatures primarily to the strength of their committees. Whilst the UK featured ad hoc standing committees to scrutinise bills, congressional committees yielded significant and effective policy influence. Indeed, some ‘mega-seat’ committees, such as the House Rules Committee, have acted as gateways for bills thereby exercising considerable agenda control, a power that is usually reserved for government ministers in the UK.

Polsby also proposed some preliminary hypotheses as to why some legislatures enjoyed larger policy-making influence than others. According to Polsby, it was the ‘character of parliamentary parties’ (emphasis added) that was related to the extent to which a legislature was ‘arena’ or ‘transformative’: the more coalitional, decentralised and flexible the parties, the more transformative the legislature.[ii] Among these characteristics, the first dimension (the extent to which parties are coalitional) related to the electoral parties, and the third dimension (flexibility) to the legislative parties, whilst the second dimension (the extent to which parties are decentralised) concerned both electoral and legislative parties. Hence, with respect to the internal working of legislatures, Polsby’s argument on the difference between the UK parliament and the US congress can be summarised into the following three key aspects:

  1. Committee strength: the US congress features stronger committees in terms of policy influence than the UK parliament.
  2. Agenda control: the US congress features a more decentralised, coalitional agenda control over its business than the UK parliament.
  3. Legislative parties: the US congress features parties that are more decentralised in terms of the distribution of legislative posts and more flexible (less party-disciplined) in terms of intra-legislative voting than the UK parliament.

My project argues that the UK parliament is indeed incrementally growing similar to this classic understanding of the US congress on these three dimensions, and seeks to corroborate the Congressionalisation argument by empirically measuring recent changes in these three aspects.

Existing studies do point to some recent developments in Westminster with regard to these three aspects. For example, studies have shown that with reforms to both public bill committees (legislative committees, formerly known as standing committees) and select committees (executive oversight committees), parliament is in a better position to scrutinise the government effectively (Levy 2009; Benton & Russell 2013). Especially in the case of select committees, these institutional innovations seem to have strengthened Parliament’s policy-making influence (Russell & Benton 2011; Lynch & Whitaker 2019). Although the UK government still retains unrivalled agenda control (a pledge made by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition to establish a House Business Committee in the House of Commons went unfulfilled), there now exists the Backbench Business Committee, which determines the topics to be debated during backbench business, giving parliamentarians more control over their own time (Matthews 2015). Distribution of legislative posts, such as select committee chairs and membership, has also become more decentralised, taking patronage away from the party whips (Fisher 2015; Russell 2011).

It is also important to note the behavioural changes on part of both MPs and the executive as well. Party cohesion in the House of Commons has waned in recent years with rebellions and government defeats becoming increasingly more common (Cowley & Stuart 2012; 2014). The preventive, as opposed to reactive, influence of Parliament has also manifested in the government’s approach to the legislative process, with the government’s Guide to making legislation explicitly advising ministers to anticipate potential dissent in Parliament (Cabinet Office 2022, pp. 159-160; see also Russell & Cowley 2016; Russell et al 2016). This is more akin to what we are used to see in the US context, where the executive branch is required to anticipate and bargain with congressional actors to achieve policy goals (e.g. Mayhew 1974, p. 107).

My project seeks to further this comparison of the British and American legislatures, especially on the flexibility dimension of legislative parties. I am devising new measures on divisions, i.e. intra-legislative voting, and on parliamentary speeches, that will allow me to trace behavioural changes of parliamentarians over time, especially in relation to Anthony King’s ‘modes’ of executive-legislative relations (1976). This will make a novel contribution to the literature on UK parliamentary reform and cross-national comparison of legislatures, as well as documenting the logic of Westminster’s evolution over recent years.

[i] Takayasu’s recent contribution highlights the changing roles of the judiciary and the House of Lords in the UK constitution as well, which he denotes as ‘Madisonianisation’(2018, in Japanese). My project focuses on the UK’s narrower executive-legislative relations.

[ii] Later studies have also confirmed that in parliamentary systems, having a coalition government is correlated with stronger parliamentary power to scrutinise the executive (Martin & Vanberg 2011; André et al 2016).

About the author

Kento Ohara is an MPhil student reading Politics (Comparative Government) at the University of Oxford. He is primarily interested in legislatures in parliamentary democracies, mainly in the UK, Germany and Japan, and how their internal procedures change over time.

Categories
Blog

Petition platforms must reach beyond the usual suspects

By Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Blagovesta Tacheva.

Petitions are a popular avenue for participating in politics, with a recent study finding that signing a petition is the dominant form of political engagement. Thanks to new parliamentary processes introduced in recent years, petitioning parliament has also become an effective way for the public to raise issues of concern to policymakers.

However, as illustrated in the figure below, current petitioners are overwhelmingly from already politically engaged groups, typically an older white public with high socio-economic status – the so-called “usual suspects”. Rather than expanding opportunities for democratic engagement, there is a risk that petitions to parliament are simply amplifying the voices of those who “already shout the loudest”.

Source: Research Retold

This problem is compounded by a lack of research on how people from disengaged groups perceive engagement and petitioning. In a new study, we addressed this issue by asking people from seldom-heard groups, such as those from a low socio-economic or ethnic minority background, for their perceptions about petitioning. Our aim was to identify the barriers and enablers to engagement faced by groups beyond the usual suspects.

To do so, we organised focus groups with petitioners and non-petitioners, including people from seldom-heard groups. This was supplemented by interviews with parliamentary officials and representatives from community organisations. This research allowed us to identify six core findings.

1. Deep mistrust

Unsurprisingly, our research unveiled deep mistrust of politics – as illustrated in the figure below, which shows participants’ views when asked what politics would be if it were an animal.

Source: Nifty Fox

There was a particularly acute disconnect from the political system among seldom-heard groups. Although everyone who took part in the research identified core issues they felt strongly about, they did not see these issues as being related to politics.

Participants held such negative perceptions that positive experiences with politicians did not alter these perceptions. This affected participants’ willingness to engage in politics and petitioning. As a result, they did not view politics as a route for addressing core issues affecting them. Participants felt politics was not for them, despite expressing interest in it.

Our research showed that engagement with politics or political processes, such as petitioning, needs to be communicated through issues (examples, case studies, stories) as much as possible. This is what enables a connection between politics and citizens. We also found evidence that the deep well of distrust keeps people away from opportunities such as petitions.

2. A lack of awareness

Seldom-heard groups had limited knowledge or awareness of petitioning in general, including through platforms such as change.org. Very few were aware that they can petition their parliament. Those participants aware of petitioning were usually those who reported higher levels of political engagement overall. However, even the politically engaged non-petitioners were mostly unaware of petitions to their parliament, only knowing of websites such as change.org.

3. Obstacles to engagement

Seldom-heard groups are often affected by intersecting inequalities. These inequalities can exacerbate each other, making it extremely difficult for people within these groups to engage in politics. As illustrated in the figure below, seldom-heard groups can be affected by illiteracy, language barriers, low IT literacy, a lack of IT equipment, disability, poverty and isolation. These barriers can preclude them from engaging in formal politics.

Our research also identified specific barriers to political engagement and petitioning, such as limited knowledge about politics. This was a recurring theme throughout our research, with participants lacking basic knowledge about politics and the UK political system, such as an understanding of what parliament does and how it differs from the government

.Source: Research Retold

This was combined with a lack of key campaigning skills, as well as a lack of confidence, which can make the process of petitioning feel intimidating. These findings show why parliaments need to be more proactive in the way they disseminate and explain their petition systems if they wish to reach beyond the usual suspects.

4. Community organisations as mediators

Our research also showed the importance of community organisations working with seldom-heard groups as mediators when it comes to facilitating access. Community organisations have often built long-term relationships with these communities, they have direct access to them, they have a good understanding of their circumstances and challenges, and they have gained their trust. They could therefore play a role in helping to raise awareness of petitioning among these groups and even help them to start a petition, just as they help people access other services.

However, these types of organisations would not necessarily think of facilitating engagement with petitions, as they may themselves be unaware or unconvinced of their value. This was apparent in our interviews. Facilitating further involvement from these groups would also be challenging for community organisations due to a lack of capacity and resources.

Still, interviewees suggested that a buddy system in which engagement “champions” are identified could make this role easier. Following the “train the trainer” principle, these champions could be based in community organisations and trained to have a better understanding of petitioning and their potential role in supporting service users.

5. Managing expectations and guiding participation

Managing expectations was a recurring theme in our research. This is closely linked to the way parliaments’ e-petitions systems are communicated to the public. The language used to communicate with petitioners and explain the petitions process was often seen as unclear, with many asking for more plain language to be used.

Although petitioners were happy overall with their experience, a few found the process disjointed and unclear. These concerns were well summarised by one petitioner, who highlighted that clarity around the process and the language used to describe it is key for managing petitioners’ expectations: “You’ve got to have that clarity, otherwise people’s expectations go up here and they’re just going to be massively deflated by the end of it.”

The language used across all communication channels is essential to making the process more accessible beyond the usual suspects. This should be accompanied by the development of resources aimed at wider audiences, such as infographics, audiovisual material and “Easy Read” guides.

6. Collaboration with citizen-centred services

Finally, our research showed that petitioning processes cannot be considered solely through the actions of the officials directly involved. Other citizen-centred services, such as education, communication, outreach and participation services, play a key role.

However, links between these services and the staff responsible for petitions are not always well established. Petitions to parliament are considered to be parliamentary business, but they are also led by citizens. Supporting the petitions process therefore requires closer collaboration between those services that focus on enhancing the public’s understanding of parliament.

The need to be proactive

Overall, we found people have considerable interest in political issues and petitions, including those within seldom-heard groups. However, there is also deep mistrust within these groups, often coupled with a lack of knowledge, skills and confidence to engage with participatory tools such as petitions.

To expand the reach of petitions beyond the usual suspects, parliaments need to be proactive in reaching out to a wider audience. The mere fact a participatory tool exists does not mean it will be used by everyone. Our research underlines the importance of education and clear communication for enhancing the value of participatory tools.

This post was first published on the LSE British Politics and Policy blog.

About the authors

Cristina Leston-Bandeira is a Professor of Politics in the School of Politics and International Studies at the University of Leeds.

Blagovesta Tacheva is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the School of Politics and International Studies at the University of Leeds.