Category: Blog

Categories
Blog

AI integration in lawmaking requires a parliamentary change process, not just a tech project

By Franklin De Vrieze.

Across democratic governance systems, parliaments are facing a paradox. Never before have there been so many technological tools promising to improve legislative scrutiny, evidence use, and public engagement. Yet never has the gap between the pace of technological change and the capacity of democratic institutions to respond felt so wide. This is not simply a story about adopting new software or experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI); it is about institutional transformation. The application of technology and AI in legislative scrutiny requires a fundamental change process in parliaments: one that reshapes data practices, organisational culture, and even how we conceptualise lawmaking itself.

The pacing problem: when governance moves slower than technology

The “pacing problem” captures the growing mismatch between rapid technological innovation and slower institutional adaptation and governance.

Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) and POPVOX Foundation distinguish three interlocking layers of this challenge with regards to parliaments. First, the external pacing problem: parliaments struggle to keep up with technologies already embedded in society. Secondly, the intra-government pacing problem: executives are often early adopters of AI for service delivery, policy design, or enforcement, while legislatures lag behind in their ability to scrutinise these tools effectively, reinforming existing patterns of executive dominance. Thirdly, the internal pacing problem: parliamentary ICT systems, data structures, and workflows frequently remain fragmented, paper-based, or incompatible with modern analytical tools.

The risks of inaction are not abstract. According to the IPU World e-Parliament Report 2024, over 70% of parliaments globally now publish legislative information online, but fewer than half report having interoperable legislative data systems capable of supporting advanced analysis. As AI adoption accelerates in the executive and private sectors, these internal weaknesses can translate into real power asymmetries, further weakening legislative oversight and checks and balances.

How parliaments are already using AI

Despite these challenges, parliaments are not starting from zero. A growing number are experimenting with AI across administrative, legislative, and participatory functions.

On the administrative side, AI is increasingly used to automate transcription, translation, document classification, and summarisation. The European Parliament, for example, deploys eTranslation, speech-to-text systems, and automated indexing to manage multilingual debates and documents at scale. Similar AI functions are noted in the Canadian House of Commons.

Legislatively, AI tools are being applied to amendment analysis, legal consistency checks, and information retrieval. Italy’s Parliament has piloted AI-supported compliance checking of amendments against constitutional and legal constraints. The National Assembly of France has created tools using open data to model fiscal and social impacts and to compare draft bills with existing legislation.

Perhaps the most comprehensive example is Brazil’s Ulysses Suite, an integrated parliamentary AI ecosystem supporting everything from bill analysis to citizen interaction. These cases reflect a broader trend: many parliaments are piloting AI for legislative research, amendment tracking, and committee support.

Yet experimentation alone does not equal transformation. Many pilots remain isolated, dependent on individual champions, or constrained by legacy systems and procurement rules.

Technology across the legislative cycle

The potential of AI becomes clearer when viewed across the full legislative cycle. As highlighted in the Course Manual for the Certified Course on Legislative Scrutiny and Technology, technology is already reshaping each phase of lawmaking.

  • During legislative drafting, AI-assisted tools can analyse vast corpora of statutes and case law, suggesting language aligned with existing norms and reducing ambiguity. This supports consistency without replacing human judgment.
  • In ex-ante impact assessment, predictive modelling and data analytics allow parliaments to interrogate the likely economic, social, or environmental consequences of proposed legislation. Such tools can surface unintended effects earlier in the process, strengthening evidence-based scrutiny.
  • Citizen engagement is also being transformed. Digital platforms enable large-scale consultations, while AI can help analyse submissions, identify patterns, and surface underrepresented perspectives. This is particularly valuable as consultation volumes increase beyond what manual analysis can reasonably handle. Some argue for a path of Augmented Deliberation regarding citizen-initiated mechanisms for democratic participation, including a governance roadmap of digital guardrails such as AI watermarking, public-interest AI platforms, and independent algorithmic audits.
  • Finally, in post-enactment analysis, data analytics can track implementation and outcomes, support post-legislative scrutiny and close feedback loops between lawmaking and lived experience.

These applications demonstrate that AI does not sit at the margins of parliamentary work. It intersects with core legislative functions.

The centrality of explainability

The opportunities are significant, but so are the risks. AI evolves faster than parliamentary cycles, creating persistent regulatory lag. Existing standing orders and parliamentary procedures rarely anticipate automated analysis or algorithmic support. Capacity gaps mean expertise is often concentrated in a handful of staff or external vendors, raising dependency risks.

There are also well-documented technical and ethical challenges: bias in training data, errors and “hallucinations” in generative AI, data protection concerns when handling sensitive parliamentary or constituency information, and the growing threat of AI-enabled disinformation through synthetic submissions, as analysed by OECD, among others.

Across all these risks, one principle stands out: explainability. As Bruce Schneier and Nathan Sanders have argued in their book “Rewiring Democracy”, democratic institutions cannot rely on systems they do not understand. If MPs and staff cannot interrogate how an AI tool reached a conclusion, its outputs cannot legitimately inform legislative scrutiny. Explainability is therefore not a technical luxury but a democratic requirement.

AI adoption is a change process, not a tech project

Too often, AI adoption is framed as a procurement or IT challenge. In reality, it is an institutional change process. Deploying tools without addressing underlying data quality, governance, skills, and culture will at best produce marginal gains, and at worst undermine trust.

Effective change requires attention to at least six interlinked elements: strategy, prioritisation, implementation, governance, training, and coordination. It involves iterative piloting rather than “big bang” rollouts; cross-parliamentary governance bodies rather than siloed initiatives; and continuous learning rather than one-off training.

Data governance is foundational. Without legislature-wide data maps, data management plans, and interoperable systems, AI outputs will be unreliable or biased. Treating data as a strategic asset is a precondition for any meaningful AI readiness.

Crucially, this change process also invites deeper reflection. Rethinking lawmaking in terms of “law as code”, exploring how digital tools reshape legislative design, and reimagining human oversight so that humans remain firmly “in the loop” are all parts of the transformation.

The theory of organizational change by sociologist Everett Rogers, called the Diffusion of Innovations, points at different categories how people adapt to proposed changes. In any organization, including in parliaments, some are innovators, early adapters, early majority, late majority and the laggards. The innovators are often in a minority, but their approach will determine if the majority adapts and accepts the proposed changes. Similar categories on people’s approach to change applies to parliaments when introducing AI in the parliamentary workspace.

Frameworks to guide the journey

Parliaments do not have to navigate this alone. The Guidelines for AI in Parliament, published by the WFD, provide a practical framework covering ethics, governance, capacity, and implementation. Complementing this, the IPU’s Maturity Framework for AI in Parliaments offers a self-assessment tool across six levels, from “initial” awareness to “leadership”, where parliaments act as global benchmarks. The UK Parliament has issued guidance to its Members on the use of generative AI tools.

Together, these frameworks suggest a pragmatic path forward: start with pilots, invest in data foundations, prioritise explainable systems, learn from peers, and embed AI within transparent, ethics-driven governance structures.

Bridging expertise: lawmaking, technology, and parliamentary strengthening

Finally, successful transformation depends on people as much as systems. One of the clearest lessons from comparative practice is the need to connect three communities that too often operate separately: lawmaking experts, technology specialists, and parliamentary strengthening practitioners.

This was the guiding logic behind the January 2026 Certified Course on Legislative Scrutiny and Technology, which deliberately brought these three perspectives together. Hence, it was co-organized by leaders in each of these three fields: Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS) of the University of London, Popvox Foundation and WFD. Legislative quality scholars, parliamentary officials, technology specialists, and democracy practitioners all contributed to a shared understanding: AI in parliament is not just about efficiency, but about safeguarding democratic legitimacy in an age of acceleration.

The rise of AI and legislative technology is not merely an administrative upgrade. It is a fundamental institutional challenge. If parliaments fail to adapt, the pacing problem will deepen, oversight will weaken, and democratic accountability will erode. If they succeed, AI can become a powerful ally in strengthening scrutiny, transparency, and public trust.

About the author

Franklin De Vrieze is the Head of Practice Accountability at the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

Categories
Blog

Remembering David Judge

By Cristina Leston-Bandeira.

How does one write about someone who you never thought would not be here? How do you put on paper how much that person meant to you? Contrary to David, I’m terrible at writing; he would know what I want to say, without me having to say it.

For no particular reason or design, David Judge became a sort of mentor to me – and this happened without either of us thinking about it, but simply because he was such an extraordinary person and such a pleasure to work with. He was a major intellectual force in parliamentary studies, having looked at pretty much every angle well before many others, just not making much of a fuss about it, whilst also being a wonderful and kind person.

Representation, the incongruities of democratic representation, and theory would become his preferred focus, but he addressed pretty much everything else in parliamentary studies. From his seminal study on petitions in 1978 and his PhD on backbench specialisation in the UK Parliament, to his landmark The Parliamentary State, his series of books on the European Parliament, and our recent co-edited book on Reimagining Parliament, David had an eye to spot what really mattered. Also, he understood intuitively why it mattered to study different legislatures.

And yet, talking to him, you’d never get a sense of the giant scholar he was. He was never one for self-promotion and as much of a self-deprecating academic as there ever was, as illustrated by his responses to the ‘Urgent Questions’ feature of the PSA Parliaments specialist group.

The first time I met David was in Manheim in 1999 at an ECPR Joint Workshop he had put together with Gabriella Ilonszki (Corvinus University of Budapest). I was a young PhD student, away from my 2-year-old son, doing the stuff that we need to do as academics, presenting work at conferences; and very unsure that I had anything to say, especially in a workshop full of big names such as David and Michael Rush (another lovely man and huge in parliamentary studies, now also sadly gone). David obviously put me totally at ease, in a very discreet way, simply because he was kind and he understood what it meant to be unsure and to be away from your young child. Something that not many male academics understood in the late 1990s.

A few years went by, and David was less present in academic circles because he became Head of Department at Strathclyde University’s School of Government. I never worked at Strathclyde, but I know how dedicated he was to the role and how it took him away from the research and writing he so loved. He had the good sense to take early retirement and regain time for thinking and writing.

He should have been just enjoying his very well deserved retirement of course, but he kept answering the call to do more. He enjoyed the challenge of new ideas, whilst making the most of being away from academia as such. It was thanks to this that I had the privilege to work with him and co-author a couple of articles and co-edit a book. He also kept a close eye on what was happening and every so often would email me with ideas of things that needed pursuing.

To talk of David without mentioning his Lorraine, and Ben and Hannah, though, is not to mention David at all. David was so proud of his family. Every opportunity was good enough to mention Lorraine and her hope of travel and time away from work; the immense pride in his children, the repairs in Hannah’s flat, Ben’s wedding. They were all always just next to David.

The last time David and I met in person was at the Political Studies Association annual conference hosted by Strathclyde University, in 2024. Towards the end of the conference, a panel didn’t sound too appealing and David and I just sat in the corridor chatting; chatting about this and that, past colleagues, academia, family (always family), and yet again I thought what an incredible man he was. A foremost scholar in parliamentary studies whilst incredibly caring and generous.

Whenever I needed advice, whenever things were difficult, I always knew I could count with David’s support. He’d understand, he’d know what to say. One of the last things he told me was to slow down and retire early. You never know what’s ahead and, as Lorraine always reminded him, there is so much more out there than work. And yet, it is thanks to work that David leaves such a huge scholarly legacy. I shall miss him deeply; his generosity, his openness to ideas, his wise perspective over things, his reminder that what really matters are people; wouldn’t academia be so much better if we were all a bit more liked David Judge? Except that he would have been horrified to know I’ve written this;).

About the author

Cristina is a Professor of Politics at the University of Leeds.

Categories
Blog

The Dispatch Box as Living Constitution : Lessons from Ghana and the Commonwealth

By Nimako Kuffour Anning.

If you think of a dispatch box as merely a piece of furniture in a parliamentary chamber, you would be missing a central thread in how modern legislatures order speech, accountability, and power. The paper at the heart of this discussion treats the dispatch box as more than a podium; it is a ceremonial technology that embodies authority, procedure, and an evolving political culture across Westminster-derived legislatures. In particular, it turns a Ghanaian episode from July 2025 into a lens for understanding how ritual space, Standing Orders, and partisan contestation shape the functioning of parliament. The argument is not that boxes are magical; it is that the way parliaments regulate who speaks from the box, when, and to whom, reveals the deepest commitments about accountability, representation, and the legitimacy of public debate.

WHY THE DISPATCH BOX MATTERS: HISTORY AS A GUIDE TO PRACTICE.

The author begins by insisting that the dispatch box is a recognisable symbol of Westminster-derived governance, a seat at the intersection of history, ritual, and policy. It matters because speeches from the box carry a weight beyond the immediate words spoken: they symbolise ministerial accountability and the public record’s gravity. The literature frames dispatch-box speeches as “a special weight of constitutional responsibility,” given that they articulate official government positions in a manner that is publicly auditable and (at least ideally) precise and accountable (Norton 2013; Waddle et al. 2019). This is not merely etiquette; it is the architecture of public accountability. Over time, the practice has come to represent clarity, accuracy, and integrity in governance, a point the author emphasises by tracing the origins of the box and its enduring status as a central instrument of parliamentary speech.

The historical arc is telling. The dispatch box began as a practical device—a fixed point from which important business could be presented and defended—and gradually became a formal architectural fixture of the chamber (Rush 2014; Kelso, Bennister & Larkin 2016). The etymology itself gravitates toward a functional shift: from boxes that carried messages and documents to a ceremonial platform where those messages are publicly voiced and defended (Sullivan 1994). By the nineteenth century, the dispatch box had become a standard feature in many legislatures patterned on Westminster, with colonial and postcolonial parliaments adopting and adapting the layout as a signal of legitimacy and procedural discipline (Mulgan 2003). The box thus sits at the confluence of utility and ceremony—a symbol of governance as a public, recorded act rather than a private exchange behind closed doors.

Taken together, the box is not just furniture; it’s a technology of governance. It choreographs speech, anchors accountability moments, and curates the public record. The author frames the dispatch box as a living instrument of constitutional culture—one that carries history into current debates and, in turn, helps shape how contemporary legislatures think about fairness, transparency, and legitimacy in public discourse (Rush 2014; Mansbridge 2014; Waddle et al. 2019).

GHANA IN FOCUS: CONTENTION, SPACE, AND THE POLITICS OF RITUAL

The Ghanaian Parliament provides a vivid case study of how a dispatch box operates in a contemporary, multilingual, multi-party democracy with a Westminster lineage. For decades, Ghanaian MPs and ministers have used the box as a site to answer questions, present ministerial statements, and address positions of caucuses—an arrangement familiar in many parliaments. Yet the box is also a contested space, where questions of access, privilege, and legitimacy collide with procedural rules.

The July 2025 Hansard extracts sharpen the point. One side—Majority Leader Hon Mahama Ayariga—argued that asking questions from the dispatch box was a privilege of his side, not open to the minority leader as an MP but as a caucus representative, insisting that the Minority Leader should not approach the box to pose questions he asks on behalf of his constituents (Ayariga, as quoted in the Hansard excerpt). The counterpoint from Hon Alexander Afenyo-Markin, the Minority Leader, was equally emphatic: the dispatch box belongs to the “leaders” on his side, and it may be used by any member granted leave by the Speaker. The exchange crystallises a perennial tension in Westminster-style legislatures: who has entitlement to use the box, and under what conditions?

Into this fray stepped the presiding officer, the First Deputy Speaker, Hon Bernard Ahiafor. His ruling anchored the resolution of the moment in standing orders and standard parliamentary practice: any Member acting in a representative capacity but not in the capacity of the caucus must rise at their own place to ask a Question; the Minority Leader would thus have to rise at his place to ask the question (Hansard, 2025). The ruling set a clear procedural boundary, even as it left space for contestation in the next session. It also underscored a broader point the paper makes: the dispatch box is a potent symbol, but its power is mediated through rules and rulings. Access to the box is not a matter of instinct or personality; it is a matter of procedure, precedent, and the interpretive authority of presiding officers.

Three core themes emerge from the Ghanaian episode. First, the dispatch box remains a contested site—especially in multiparty environments where the balance of power shifts with elections, coalitions, or leadership changes. Second, access to the box is governed by standing orders that codify when and by whom it may be used, and these rules can become the focus of political contestation. Third, ritualised practices around the box help transmit institutional culture, shaping expectations about leadership, accountability, and the relative power of caucuses versus individual MPs. The Ghana case makes explicit what the broader literature suggests: that the box’s authority is inseparable from the norms and rules that govern its use, and from the authority of the presiding officer who interprets those rules on the floor (Ayariga quotes; Ahiafor ruling; Standing Orders references in the Hansard).

METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE: A SCOPING-LENS APPROACH TO A CONTESTED ARTIFACT

To illuminate these dynamics, the paper adopts a qualitative, comparative approach. Recognising that literature on dispatch boxes is dispersed and uneven, the authors begin with a scoping literature review to map what is known about parliamentary symbolism, ceremonial tools, and related artefacts such as the mace. This scoping step serves as a foundation for deeper empirical inquiry, not a substitute for it. The study uses parliamentary archives—Standing Orders and Hansard—as primary sources, and it anticipates key informant interviews with clerks and seasoned legislators to triangulate the patterns observed in the archival material.

The comparative dimension spans several Commonwealth legislatures—primarily the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Nigeria—allowing the authors to identify where there is convergence in the core logic of speaking from the dispatch box and where there are important local adaptations. The goal is to illuminate a shared constitutional logic that underpins Westminster-style practice while recognising how different institutional cultures construe and apply the rules in Ghana and elsewhere.

The themes guiding the inquiry are explicit: what the dispatch box means across Commonwealth parliaments; the historical origins of the box; and how Ghana’s Parliament has adopted, adapted, or uniquely construed the practice. The paper thus seeks to connect a long historical arc to current procedural realities and to consider how ritual devices sustain or reform parliamentary etiquette and authority in changing political contexts.

WHAT THE GHANA CASE CAN TEACH ABOUT PARLIAMENTARY CULTURE

Across the Commonwealth, the dispatch box functions as both a practical space for ministerial discourse and a symbolic locus of governance values. It is a stage for formal statements, ministerial accountability, and the public scrutiny of policy. Yet the exact rules—who may use the box, when, and under what conditions—are not uniform, and this non-uniformity becomes revealing when politics becomes more competitive or fragmented.

The Ghana example underscores several lessons. First, rule clarity matters. Ambiguities about access to the box incentivise procedural disputes and raise questions about legitimacy. A transparent, well-communicated framework helps reduce ad hoc controversies and reinforces the legitimacy of parliamentary procedure. The case suggests that even long-standing traditions need codified grounding to withstand political contestation and the friction of daily debate.

Second, ritual matters as governance tools. Parliaments are not merely debating societies; they are institutions that use ritual devices to cultivate norms of accountability, transparency, and public engagement. The dispatch box reinforces the idea that statements delivered there carry a special weight because they are delivered in full view, in public and on the record. Ritualised practice—the posture of coming to the box, the sequence of questions, the presiding officer’s rulings—helps shape expectations about how debate should transpire and how leaders should behave when defending or challenging policy.

Third, the balance between inclusivity and order is delicate but essential. Expanding access to the box—through broader leadership or caucus representation—can make debates more representative, but it must be done in a way that preserves orderly procedure. The Ghana case invites reform debates about whether standing orders should accommodate more flexible, well-defined mechanisms for caucus representation or rotating access that respects the floor’s procedural rhythm.

Fourth, comparative insights can inform reform. By placing Ghana alongside the UK, Nigeria, and other commonwealth countries, the paper invites parliaments to consider what works best in different constitutional contexts. Some parliaments reserve the box for ministerial business; others permit broader use under strict conditions; some empower presiding officers with wider discretion. Such cross-jurisdictional reflection can inform Ghana’s standing orders or help a parliament reframe how the box is designed to reflect contemporary leadership and representation norms.

Fifth, documentation and accountability in public records matter. The dispatch box’s speeches are part of the Hansard—the public record—linking the ritual moment in the chamber to citizen access and historical memory. The authors emphasise that the reliability of dispatch-box declarations contributes to public accountability and to the integrity of the parliamentary archive. In this sense, the box is a storehouse of truth-telling in public life, not only a stage for partisan theatre.

PRACTICAL TAKEAWAYS FOR POLICYMAKERS, PRACTITIONERS, AND STUDENTS

If you’re a parliamentary administrator, a policy adviser, or a student of constitutional law, the paper offers a handful of actionable insights:

– Codify access to the dispatch box. Build clear, accessible standing orders that specify who may speak from the box, in what capacity, and under what conditions. Publicly communicating these rules reduces ambiguity and helps maintain legitimacy even when partisan battles intensify.

– Treat ritual as governance technology. Recognise that ritual practices—where MPs stand, how they approach the box, and how the presiding officer adjudicates—shape behaviour and expectations. Use these rituals deliberately to promote accountability, dignity, and accessibility in debate.

– Design inclusive yet orderly rules. Seek reforms that broaden leadership and caucus participation without destabilising the procedural rhythm of the chamber. Options might include designated deputy spokespeople, time-limited deputations, or rotation schemes that preserve fairness while ensuring full representation.

– Leverage comparative learning. Look beyond national borders to understand how different Commonwealth parliaments balance authority, access, and order. Borrow ideas about flexible use of the box, or about how presiding officers interpret standing orders in practice, while respecting local constitutional arrangements.

– Strengthen the public record. Preserve and enhance the reliability of Hansard or other official transcripts tied to dispatch-box statements. Public access to precise, timely, and verifiable records strengthens accountability and public trust.

A CLOSING REFLECTION: THE DISPATCH BOX AS A LIVING INSTRUMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL CULTURE

The dispatch box is not a fossil in a grand legislative hall. It is a living instrument that carries history into today’s chambers and helps shape tomorrow’s norms of debate, accountability, and legitimacy. The Ghanaian incident from July 2025—a vivid, high-stakes moment about who may use the box and under what conditions—offers a microcosm of how constitutional culture is negotiated in real time. The paper’s comparative lens reminds us that there is no single “correct” model for the dispatch box. Different jurisdictions reflect different balances between access and order, between tradition and reform, between symbolism and substance. Yet the common thread is clear: the way we speak from the box—the tone, the content, and the procedural etiquette—says as much about a parliament’s values as the words it records.

For scholars, the paper also demonstrates the value of a scoping, methodology-driven approach to topics that straddle ritual, law, and politics. By combining archival analysis (Standing Orders and Hansard), comparative perspectives, and interviews with practitioners, the author builds a layered, context-rich account of how a seemingly simple object can illuminate complex institutional dynamics. Historical literacy helps us understand why the box commands such authority and how that authority is continually negotiated through rules, rulings, and rituals.

The Ghana case adds a contemporary, real-world layer—showing how standing orders, presiding officers, and partisan strategy intersect in daily parliamentary life—while inviting further cross-jurisdictional study.

In short, the dispatch box is a central instrument of parliamentary culture: a stage, a rule-bound arena, and a record-keeping mechanism all at once. Its continued relevance in Commonwealth legislatures depends on how well parliaments can codify access, sustain respectful ritual, and adapt to evolving political realities without sacrificing the core commitments to accountability and public legitimacy. The Ghana example illustrates this dynamic in compelling terms, reminding us that a parliamentary chamber’s most enduring power lies not in the box’s wood or varnish but in what speakers do with it, how the rules guide them, and how their words endure in the public record for years to come.

About the author

Nimako Kuffour Anning works in the Ghanian Parliament.

Categories
Blog

The New Playbook

Eight Ways Parliaments Can Rebuild Trust Through Citizen Engagement

By Jessica Benton Cooney.

This post was originally published on Medium by Inter Pares (https://medium.com/@interpares/the-new-playbook-f9b72f919c7b)

Trust in democracy is declining worldwide, and parliaments — the essential link between citizens and state decision-making — are no exception. While citizen engagement is more critical than ever, practical, actionable guidance for how parliaments can effectively involve the public has been hard to find.

To meet this urgent challenge, International IDEA’s Inter Pares — Parliaments in Partnership project and the International Parliament Engagement Network (IPEN), with support from the European Union, co-created a series of eight interactive Guides on Citizen Engagement for Parliaments.

These guides are more than a resource; they are toolkits built on extensive global research, with the aim of shifting the focus from “citizens as spectators” to “citizens as active participants.” Recognizing that citizen engagement is core to democratic resilience, these guides offer a wide range of actionable, evidence-based frameworks for meaningful interaction, deliberation, and co-creation.

For members of parliament, parliamentary staff, civil-society and international development partners, and scholars, this suite provides a holistic roadmap for innovation, helping parliaments worldwide redefine their role in this challenging era. Read on to learn more about the guide series.

A Complete Toolkit for Citizen Engagement

Each of the eight guides tackles a vital dimension of engagement. Together, they form a comprehensive playbook for parliaments ready to reconnect with the people they serve.

  1. Principles of Parliamentary Public Engagement: This foundational guide establishes the core framework for all engagement. It identifies and explains eight key principles — including purpose, inclusion, and impact — that ensure programs move beyond box-ticking to become ethical, strategic, and genuinely integrated into the DNA of legislative work.

“At the heart of the lack of engagement with parliaments is a growing lack of understanding how they are important in a functioning democracy. I’m excited how these guides tackle rebuilding this trust and how they show us to think smart about the use of our resources.” — Caroline Wallis, Research lead/Kaiarahi Tira Rangahau, Parliament of New Zealand

2. Youth Engagement: Essential for democracy’s future, this guide focuses on creating two-way, meaningful partnerships. It reviews models from youth reference groups and specialized committees to youth parliaments, aiming to empower young citizens as “agents of change” who contribute to political life and debate now, not just as future voters.

“The guide is timely for the National Assembly of Zambia, reinforcing its commitment to deepen public participation and ensure that the voices of the youths are not only heard but truly shape the future of the nation.” — Bridget Kalaba, Deputy Director, Parliamentary Reforms Department, National Assembly of Zambia

3. Petitions and Citizens’ Initiatives: Learn how to transform formal citizen demands into constructive action. This guide provides practical steps for designing petitions and citizens’ initiatives systems that are accessible, transparent, and outcome-oriented, ensuring public concern can directly shape the legislative agenda and hold the institution accountable.

“The Citizen Engagement Guides offer fresh and practical insights that I can’t wait to share with my team at the Brazilian Senate. They’re a powerful tool to help us strengthen civic participation and rethink how we connect people to the legislative process.” — Alisson Bruno Dias de Queiroz, Coordinator of the e-Cidadania Program, Federal Senate of Brazil

4. Education Programmes: Moving beyond basic civics, this guide details how parliaments can develop high-quality, targeted programs to deepen public understanding of their work and relevance. Investing in these initiatives strengthens legitimacy and fosters a more informed citizenry equipped for participation.

“Supporting young people’s democratic participation is not just a right — it’s a smart investment in a sustainable democracy. The Education Programme Guide streamlines the organization of our 28-year long internship program for university students, helping us better engage youth and build a more resilient democratic society.” — Natália Švecová, Director of the Parliamentary Institute, Chancellery of The National Council of The Slovak Republic

5. Public Consultations: This resource is vital for ensuring decisions are informed by the needs of society. It presents four main consultation approaches — from online forums to discussion-based methods — and offers guidance for implementation, making consultations a strategic tool for improving the quality and legitimacy of legislation.

“Public consultations play an increasing role in contemporary parliaments. The Public Consultations Guide offers an invaluable toolkit for building positive and interactive relationships between citizens and parliamentary institutions. A lot of interesting and inspiring practices are showcased from several parliaments around the world. The Guide is an indispensable support for everybody committed to help parliaments to better represent and engage with citizens.” — Giovanni Rizzoni, the Head of Unit for Parliamentary Cooperation and Capacity Building at the Italian Chamber of Deputies.

6. Parliament as a Space and Place: This guide examines how the physical buildings and virtual platforms of parliament can be leveraged to foster connection. By making the institution more welcoming, accessible, and understandable through its spaces, within parliamentary estates and in communities, parliaments can build emotional attachment and a crucial sense of belonging among citizens.

“At the base of the German Bundestag (Parliament) Dome, the plenary chamber can be seen from above, so every visitor can watch into an ongoing plenary session… This symbolizes the awareness of and responsibility towards the population and the voters.” — Anna-Maria Pawliczek, Senior Officer, Division Int 4, International Exchange Programs, International Parliamentary Cooperation, German Bundestag

7. Deliberative Engagement: Focused on quality over quantity, this guide explores methods like citizen assemblies and juries. It provides a framework for designing processes that bring diverse groups together for intensive, informed discussion, incorporating nuanced, evidence-based public input into complex policy areas.

“I’m really excited about the citizen engagement guides, especially the Guide on Deliberative Engagement, which is packed with practical insights on embedding public deliberation into parliamentary work — this is exactly what I aim to do in my work here at the Scottish Parliament.” — Alistair Stoddart, Senior Participation Specialist, Scottish Parliament

8. Engaging Underrepresented Groups: This guide provides frameworks for proactive inclusion, focusing on strategies to identify and overcome barriers faced by marginalized and seldom-heard communities. This commitment to deep inclusion is critical for fulfilling parliament’s role as a representative body that reflects the entire society.

“Inclusion is the cornerstone of sustainable development. In the true spirit of leaving no one behind, it is critical to facilitate the engagement of the underrepresented. Their voices matter. The guide on Engaging Underrepresented Groups is a practical and vital resource that will facilitate this important process.” — Kagiso Molatlhwa, Programme Specialist, Youth and Gender, UNFPA Botswana. Former Executive Director, Botswana Council of NGOs (BOCONGO)

Turning Engagement into Effective Governance

These guides represent a timely, well-grounded, and pragmatic toolkit for legislative institutions globally. They address critical worldwide democratic challenges and offer a new playbook for all parliaments, regardless of their size or resources. They are founded on the principle that the health of democratic society depends on the strength of the relationship between its institutions and its people. Citizen engagement is, therefore, not an optional reform, but the essential work of democracy itself.

Through embracing this framework, legislative bodies can move beyond simply restoring trust to become stronger, more legitimate, and better equipped to govern in an increasingly complex world.

For both practitioners and scholars, the series offers a rich resource to reflect on how engagement can be effectively shaped, measured, and embedded in parliamentary culture.

*The guides were developed by Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Professor of Politics at the University of Leeds and Chair of IPEN, and Juliet Ollard, Senior Research and Engagement Officer, IPEN, in partnership with Inter Pares. The project team drew from extensive academic research and parliamentary practices from across the world — including many interviews with parliamentary officials and academics, and the expert advice of the International Advisory Group and the IPEN Executive Team.

About the author

Jessica Benton Cooney is the Senior Communications Consultant for Inter Pares, which is funded by the European Union and implemented by International IDEA. Previously, she was the Team Lead and Senior Strategic Communications Specialist for USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance.

Categories
Blog

Why democratic financial governance needs a systems revolution

By Franklin De Vrieze.

When was the last time you had a conversation about power, trust and accountability? For those of us who joined the Global Dialogue on Strengthening Fiscal Ecosystems, it was just a few short weeks ago.

The Global Dialogue was convened by the Trust, Accountability and Inclusion (TAI) Collaborative, with the support of the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), Gates Foundation and Ford Foundation, and joined by the World Bank, IMF, Westminster Foundation for Democracy, Accountability Lab, International Budget Partnership (IBP), INTOSAI, London School of Economics and others.

I joined colleagues from parliaments, governments, oversight bodies, civil society organisations, academia, and donor agencies to reflect on how we can make the systems that govern public money more equitable, accountable, and democratic.

This was not a technical workshop on budget classifications or fiscal rules. It was indeed a conversation about power and trust. It was about the ecosystem that shapes how public money is raised, allocated, and spent, and the role of parliaments in this system.

What is a fiscal ecosystem?

The idea of a fiscal ecosystem has emerged from more than a decade of work by different democracy organisations, responding to a paradox: despite major progress in fiscal transparency worldwide, accountability and equity often lag behind. Put simply, publishing more budget data or introducing new audit tools has not been enough to create sustainable positive change.

A fiscal ecosystem perspective starts with the recognition that no single actor, such as the Ministry of Finance, Parliament, the Auditor General, even civil society, can deliver accountable fiscal governance alone.

Instead, outcomes are shaped by the interplay of multiple actors: core state institutions such as finance ministries, legislatures, audit offices, and treasuries; other state institutions, including independent fiscal councils and constitutional courts; and non-state actors, ranging from civil society and media to investors and academics.

An ecosystems approach is valuable because it illuminates relationships and power, helps identify where reform coalitions can be built and where blockages and resistance are to be found. It shifts our gaze from isolated technical fixes to the deeper political dynamics that shape fiscal outcomes.

One participant summed it up vividly: “We’ve invested so much in auditing, transparency tools, and PFM (public financial management) systems, but none of that matters if we don’t address the political power behind the decisions. It’s not enough to have an open budget portal. We need to change the way decisions are made.”

Why this matters for democracy

Fiscal choices are political choices. They reflect whose voices are heard, whose interests are prioritised, and how trade-offs are managed. In an era of growing inequality and declining trust in democratic institutions, financial governance is at the heart of the democratic bargain.

If citizens see that public money is captured by elites, mismanaged through inefficiency, or siphoned away through corruption, their trust in democracy erodes. Whereas, if fiscal decisions are transparent, inclusive, and oriented toward equity, they can restore confidence in democratic institutions.

The fiscal ecosystem approach is therefore not just about improving budgets. It is about revitalising democracy itself.

Country case studies

We heard about case studies from Brazil, Indonesia, and South Africa, which offered both warnings and hope.

  • Brazil’s fiscal ecosystem feels stuck, with power struggles between executive and legislature paralysing budget governance.
  • Indonesia demonstrates how impressive legal frameworks can be undermined by clientelism, what one participant called “superficial transparency.”
  • South Africa shows both fragility and resilience: institutions including Parliament were corroded during “state capture” years, yet independent bodies have forced accountability back onto the agenda.

One of the most striking themes of the Global Dialogue was the oversight of public debt management. Debt sustainability is often framed narrowly as a technocratic issue, managed by finance ministries and assessed by rating agencies. But the Global Dialogue revealed how debt management itself is embedded in the fiscal ecosystem, and the anomalies emerging as a lack of oversight by parliaments, audit institutions and civil society.

In Brazil, congressional amendments and rigid spending rules complicate efforts to manage debt, while courts and media debates shape public perceptions of fiscal credibility.

In Indonesia, debt rules have kept borrowing low, but political capture and inequitable spending reveal that fiscal prudence does not guarantee fairness.

In South Africa, debt is not only a macroeconomic concern but also a political flashpoint: bailouts for SOEs, court challenges over rights-based spending, and parliamentary battles over tax reform all feed into the debt trajectory.

The Global Dialogue highlights how an ecosystems lens can “reveal relationships and power,” showing that debt is not just about numbers but about the balance of competing accountabilities:fiscal (stability), political (patronage), and developmental (equity).

I noticed that parliaments are largely an afterthought in the public financial management (PFM) system. For example, even though the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) framework recognizes parliamentary oversight as the final pillar of performance, parliaments are generally not understood by multilateral and bilateral donors. Also in PFM and public debt management legislation, parliament’s role is largely nominal.

While debt transparency has improved in many places, transparency alone is not enough. Strengthening public accountability is essential. Legislatures, supreme audit institutions, and CSOs need the tools, access, and authority to scrutinize borrowing decisions and ensure they serve the public interest. In the different countries where it has been rolled out, the Public Debt Management Assessment Tool (PDMAT) has proven to generate new insights about the structures, procedures, resources and access to information for parliaments in the debt debate.

What have we learned so far about the role of parliaments in debt oversight? While formal parliamentary oversight functions, such as loan ratification, review of the debt management strategy, or budget approval, are necessary, they are not sufficient. Parliaments must also exercise substantive oversight that scrutinises the policy rationale behind borrowing, the fiscal risks involved, and the developmental returns on debt-financed investments. Parliamentary oversight is integral to preventing unsustainable borrowing and to ensuring debt contributes to equitable development outcomes.

Applying an ecosystems approach to debt could therefore open new strategies: linking debt debates to rights and equity, mobilizing courts and civil society to demand transparent justifications for borrowing, and involving parliaments and media in shaping narratives about debt sustainability. In short, the debt ecosystem may be the next frontier for systemic reform.

Looking forward

Several insights particularly struck me:

  • Power and trust are central. Lack of trust between governments, parliaments and civil society creates major obstacles.
  • Reform is political, not just technical. Without shifts in political incentives and substantive involvement of parliaments, technical reforms remain “superficial transparency.”
  • Local innovation offers hope, with subnational governments and parliaments experimenting with participatory budgeting and litigation strategies.

The fiscal ecosystems approach gives us a lens to see the whole system, identify blockages, and think strategically about coalitions for change. It challenges us to move beyond transparency for its own sake, grapple with the politics of fiscal governance, and build trust across divides.

The Global Dialogue embodied the very ecosystem we were discussing as we were seeing actors who usually work in silos engage as interdependent partners. It reminded me that strengthening fiscal ecosystems is about rebalancing relationships among many institutions, ensuring that budgets serve the many, not the few.

About the author

Franklin De Vrieze is the Head of Practice Accountability at the Westminster Foundation for Democracy

Categories
Blog

Unfit for Hansard?

By Charlie Feldman.

“In the circumstances, both sedentary remarks will be removed from the permanent record.” – Mr. Speaker, Commons Chamber, 14 January 2008.

The official record of debates, Hansard, is relied upon as the authoritative record of what was said in Parliament. As Erskine May explains, citing a parliamentary committee’s report, “though not strictly verbatim, [it] is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument’.

While research demonstrates that remarks have been expunged from Hansard in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the UK story appears largely unexplored. This matter was recently raised in the Commons when a Member rose on a point of order suggesting she had been censored given a divergence between her remarks as recorded in Hansard and what is heard on the audiovisual recording,

Those who listen closely to a debate and read it later in Hansard will spot modifications, including the removal of words such as deleting ‘Mr. Speaker’ at the beginning of a contribution. There are numerous conventions around what will be included in the Official Record. In the recent case, the rule strictly applied related to omitting remarks continued after the Speaker calls a member’s speech to a close. Pure Hansard expungements at Westminster are few and far between.

The quote that began this post is from an incident in 2008 in which the sedentary interjection “absolute b******s” (without asterisks) was removed by decision of the Speaker after a point of order. The original Hansard attributed it to an MP who was reportedly incensed as it was another MP who made the remark. In the context of the remark being from a sedentary position and with an unclear (and possibly misattributed) interlocutor, the Speaker removed it. Of note, while considered a swear word, “b******s” in full does appear printed in other debates, including as far back as 1986. (In a contrasting incident, one Speaker is suggested to have edited out his own fleeting use of four-letter profanity from Hansard 1989; ITN bleeped the remark in its airing of proceedings).

If one goes far back, much is missing from Hansard. As explained in The History of Hansard, one of the critiques from the period before official Hansard began (prior to 1909) concerned “some parliamentarians’ speeches being shortened or even suppressed”. While those speeches were missing from the record deliberately, some later interventions in the official era are missing unintentionally. Luckily, technological evolution has helped insofar as one no longer sees Hansard stating that a member “made an observation which was not heard in the Reporters’ Gallery.” In one sitting in 1916, for example, inaudible observations are indicated on four occasions – one of which is attributed to the Prime Minister in responding to a question. Chamber acoustics have long been an issue – an 1849 article in The Spectator begins “If there is any one point settled in history, it is that the House of Lords is the worst place for hearing in the known world.”

Focusing on the official reporting era, press reports of removed Hansard content tell us that times of war saw significant expungement. In an article published in the Sunday Dispatch of 25 August 1946, Britain’s Chief Press Censor – George Pirie Thomson – tells of edits from speeches in the House during World War II for various security reasons. MPs, it seems, often crossed the line accidentally, including then PM Winston Churchill. The censorship went further, however, as Thomson revealed censoring a parliamentary question and even working with the Speaker to change the title of a bill!

Security concerns also prompted edits during World War I. Newspaper reports tell us that in a speech given by Sir William Alfred Gelder in August 1916, he accidentally named a town when speaking to what appears now in Hansard as concerns over anti-aircraft guns being “taken away from a certain city on the East Coast”. The debate in the Hansard that follows does not reflect what press reports suggest – that another MP rose on a point of order that the location information potentially helped the enemy. While Gelder wasn’t so sure, the Speaker suggested he speak to the Editor of Hansard. As no location appears in Gelder’s remarks, it may be safe to assume the expungement occurred; the press reports it outright as being removed.

Members have on occasion asked for something to be removed from Hansard. Sir William Darling rose in debate in 1951, recorded as follows: “[T]he right hon. Gentleman, in the debate the night before last, said that I was asleep, and as this statement by him is likely to cause dissatisfaction to my constituents, who probably look upon me as a watchful and wakeful Member, may I ask what steps I can take to have it expunged from the record?” The Speaker said he would consider the matter. It’s unclear if anything actually changed — the relevant debate portion reads “Members opposite are not enthusiastic about remaining throughout the night. Some of them are already going off to sleep—look at the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). [Interruption.]” 

Controversies have erupted over whether certain changes to the record crossed the line into changing the meaning of a speech or suppressing content. In 1998, for example, the Speaker found that words removed from the Hansard record of a speech from PM Tony Blair did not alter his meaning. No further action was taken. In another case, what was removed from Hansard was reinserted. In 1966, the Speaker reported that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s edit “was accepted by the reporters, but, after discussion with the Editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT, both he and I are satisfied that it ought not to have been accepted by the reporters; and the passage, in its original purity, will appear in its original form in the Bound Volume.” The Chancellor, who removed words that might be considered a slur upon farmers, later told the Commons: “I deeply regret that I struck those words out of HANSARD”.

Alas, not everything a MP may have wished to remove from Hansard disappears. In 1978, MP Andrew Faulds told the House “Unfortunately, I cannot expunge the offensive words, but I have already written to the right hon. Member for Knutsford apologising to him, and now I wish to extend my apology to you, Sir, and to the House for my regrettable lapse.” To this day his comments remain on the record, wherein he referred to another member as a “fat-arsed twit”.

These examples, while few in number, show that Hansard is not always the immutable record it is sometimes assumed to be. Whether due to acoustics, editorial discretion, wartime censorship, or parliamentary sensitivities, the official transcript has been shaped by forces beyond the spoken word. In exploring these moments of omission and revision, we are reminded that even the most authoritative records are, at times, curated ones.

About the author

Charlie Feldman is the former President of the Canadian Study of Parliament Group. His forthcoming book “Parliamentary” (University of Toronto Press, 2026) chronicles unexpected moments in Canadian parliamentary history.

Categories
Blog

The Hidden Engine of Stability and Growth: Strong Parliaments

By Franklin De Vrieze.

Democratic legislatures are on the frontline of both domestic and international challenges. From executive overreach to authoritarian influence and deepening public mistrust, parliamentary institutions around the globe are under immense strain. The strengthening of parliaments therefore is both a critical safeguard for democracy and a lever for economic development and national security.

Many countries have an imbalance in the distribution of power between the different branches of government: the executive branch dominates, with legislatures left under-resourced, side-lined, or compromised. This concentration of power undermines democratic accountability and weakens institutional checks and balances. People lose faith when they perceive their parliaments as ineffective or complicit, and public trust falls. As executive dominance expands, legislatures struggle to perform their essential roles: representing the electorate, scrutinising the government, and shaping inclusive legislation. Without timely intervention, this democratic erosion is difficult to halt.

Early and strategic support to parliaments is therefore essential for democratic resilience and institutional recovery.

For donor countries, supporting parliamentary strengthening abroad is not merely altruism. It serves strategic interests. Democratic, transparent, and accountable institutions form the backbone of stable governance. In doing so, they promote investment-friendly environments, reduce risks of conflict and the drivers of irregular migration, climate-driven or otherwise, and create socio-economic opportunities that deter brain drain.

Here’s an example of how targeted parliamentary support can have a tangible impact: Albania’s recent reform of its gambling legislation. Using Westminster Foundation for Democracy’s (WFD) corruption proofing of legislation methodology, Albanian legislators assessed legal loopholes and improved transparency in regulating a high-risk industry. This effort resulted in a tighter legal and regulatory framework which reduces the potential for corruption, and that in turn provides necessary reassurances for foreign investors to embark and invest.

The example shows how donor-supported technical interventions can reduce incentives for corruption and improve the legal and economic framework. Addressing legislative vulnerabilities in this way enhances institutional integrity, promotes economic stability, economic partnerships and investments, and reinforces the rule of law.

Similarly, WFD’s work on the cost of emigration in the Western Balkans has helped to galvanise cross-party action in national parliaments in the Balkans to address the causes of brain drain and address the negative economic impacts of youth emigration.

Strategies for parliamentary strengthening

Parliamentary strengthening programmes can only be effective when they are locally-led, responding to locally-defined problems and based on genuine, trusted partnerships. Building upon this basic fact, parliamentary strengthening is most effective when approached through a range of strategies.

  • Regional and multi-country programming can create synergies, such as those achieved through post-legislative scrutiny (PLS) efforts in Zambia, where laws on food security were assessed for their impact in the context of climate change.
  • Thematic approaches, like the drafting of public debt legislation in Kenya, help parliaments tackle critical policy areas with precision. Upscaling the role of parliaments in climate governance, essential to ensure that it is transparent, inclusive and informed by social justice principles and thus resilient in the face of unprecedented levels of climate disinformation, is currently the focus of WFD’s work with the Parliament in Indonesia, for instance.
  • Promoting inclusion and engagement, like fostering youth participation in North Macedonia, and enhancing citizens engagement in the Maldives further increase legitimacy and democratic depth.
  • Mutual learning also plays a transformative role in parliamentary strengthening. Peer-to-peer exchange between legislatures in the Global North and South allows for reciprocal knowledge transfer and innovation. These exchanges have already catalysed improvements in parliamentary procedures, transparency, and administration.
  • Moreover, many parliaments are embracing digital transformation, using technology to improve legislative tracking, citizen engagement, and policymaking, as seen in countries like Kenya and Morocco.

Strengthening parliaments is one of the most cost-effective and sustainable interventions to bolster democracy, foster inclusive economic development, and safeguard stability and security. It is time for a renewed commitment to a standards-based approach to parliamentary development, one that is principled, context-sensitive, and collaborative.

Delving deeper

If you are interested in delving deeper into parliamentary strengthening, WFD has been involved in producing a number of efforts and initiatives to inform and guide parliamentary strengthening efforts. I invite you to explore them:

The Global Community of Practice on Post-Legislative Scrutiny, the peer-to-peer network of the Inter Pares project, and the Agora parliamentary portal offer collaborative platforms for sharing experiences, best practices, and innovations as well as helping to build and sustain momentum. Through the network of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), Public Accounts Committees in Asia-Pacific aligned strategies and working methods at a regional workshop hosted by the Fiji Parliament. The AFRIPAL conference recently launched the African Association of Legislation. These networks help parliaments navigate complex challenges together, amplifying the impact of support and creating a shared commitment to democratic governance.

The Common Principles for Support to Parliaments, developed by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) in cooperation with WFD and others, emphasise that effective support must be guided by parliaments’ own needs, adapted to local contexts, and focused on long-term sustainability. Inclusive of all political orientations, grounded in international democratic norms, and attentive to gender equality and local expertise, these principles provide a shared roadmap for meaningful and ethical engagement.

The Indicators for Democratic Parliaments, were launched by the IPU with the support of WFD and other partner organizations. These 25 indicators, aligned with Sustainable Development Goals 16.6 and 16.7, enable parliaments to assess their own performance across effectiveness, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, inclusivity, participation, and representation. Each indicator includes detailed dimensions and criteria, offering a comprehensive yet practical self-assessment tool. In Pakistan, the use of these indicators served as a SWOT analysis of the Senate, while in Albania, the assessment culminated in a new Open Parliament Action Plan.

The WFD Guidelines for AI in Parliament have gained global traction in advising on an ethical and step-by-step approach to the use of AI in parliamentary proceedings.

About the authors

Franklin De Vrieze is the Head of Practice Accountability for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy

Categories
Blog

The benefits of bringing academics and practitioners together: Writing the second edition of Exploring Parliament

By Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Alexandra Meakin and Louise Thompson.

The following blog post is about Exploring Parliament, which was published by Oxford University Press in April 2025 and will be launched at the Institute for Government on 15 May 2025. You can sign up to watch online here.

Over the last three years we have been working with a fantastic team of 38 academics and 35 parliamentary practitioners to create the second edition of the Exploring Parliament textbook. Like its predecessor, the book has collaboration at its very heart. The chapter topics stem from a roundtable discussion between academics and officials at the PSA’s Annual Conference back in April 2022 and wherever possible academics were paired with practitioners in order to write each chapter. Our aim was to create a fresh perspective on a wide range of aspects of the UK Parliament, including its relationship with the devolved parliaments; one which was grounded in key academic concepts and research, but enriched with the real-life details that only those who walk the corridors of Westminster can provide.

In this blog post, we reflect on the process of creating this new edition. We asked a small group of our contributors how they found the experience of working on the book and the benefits for academics of working with practitioners, and vice versa.  

Putting a spotlight on less studied aspects of Parliament

Some of our authors were returning contributors who had previously written in the first edition of the textbook, while others were new to the process.  Although our academics tended to write on topics which they have researched for a long time, our practitioners appreciated the chance to explain how parliament works to a different type of audience and to include examples which students may not have heard about before. In particular, those writing on the devolved parliaments highlighted the utility of a book which appreciates that Westminster works alongside other devolved institutions:

 “it was an opportunity to explain Parliament’s work—particularly the House of Lords—using examples that students and other readers may not have come across before” (Rosanna Barry, House of Lords)

“So often books, reports and studies on parliament in the UK focus on the UK Parliament alone, forgetting that the UK has four legislatures… As someone working in a devolved legislature it can be a frustrating experience to read work that doesn’t reflect your own experience or makes recommendations and conclusions that aren’t relevant or practical in a devolved or sub-nation state context…The opportunity to write a chapter about the work of parliaments in the UK from a devolved perspective, albeit on a UK-wide issue wasn’t something we couldn’t pass up. Any chance to raise awareness of the work of the four different legislatures in the UK is really welcome” (Nia Moss, Senedd)

“At times, textbooks on British politics tend to be quite Westminster centric and I was actually very happy to see how a book and Westminster Parliament itself considers the wider context, which I think is very important” (Prof Diana Stirbu, London Metropolitan University)

Collaborations between academics and practitioners

Academics and practitioners work in roles with very different expectations around the research and writing process. Practitioners for instance tend to write in a more factual style, in a much faster paced environment with shorter deadlines. Academics on the other hand typically have a much longer writing process and are more used to explaining concepts to a student audience.  Bringing the two groups together was an enjoyable experience (for most!), adding a fresh dose of reality to the academics’ writing and allowing practitioners the chance to write for a very different type of audience:

“The combination of academics and Parliament practitioners is a great one, as it combines our political science with a sense of how things really are. My co-author was also a quants whizz with a great head for figures, so could help me on that, where I am (erm) not so expert.” (Ben Worthy, Birkbeck)

“It was a great experience: we brought different skills, perspectives and experiences to the process and that meant we worked really well together as we could complement each other’s way of thinking and working. I feel like I learnt a lot!” (UK Parliament official)

“Working on this chapter was a change of speed. Initially we had a long time to produce a first draft, followed by shorter more intensive bursts of effort during the editing process.” (Rosanna Barry, House of Lords)

 “Although I probably write tens of thousands of words a year in my role in the Senedd, none of these words are particularly ‘academic’. I think I used the phrase ‘I’m not an academic’ more times in conversations with the book’s editors, as a means of forewarning them, than they’ve ever heard before. … We work in a fact paced environment where you have moved on to probably the ten ‘next things’ you need to do before what you worked on last week was even published. We’re busy dealing with the next issue on our desk before we have had time to reflect on last week’s problem. Being forced to take a step back and really reflect on the issue, the work that’s been achieved and the challenges that remain was a privilege I don’t often get afforded and it’s what I enjoyed most” (Nia Moss, Senedd)

“I learned such a lot from [my co-author] about the procedures and protocols and about how the conventions work in practice.” (Ruth Dixon, University of Oxford)

“not being too precious about one’s own writing was helpful. We allowed each other to keep and toss content and re-draft, as this is where there seems to be a lot of difference in how academics and practitioners write” (Ekaterina Kolpinskaya, University of Exeter)

Writing in an accessible manner

Textbooks require a very different type of writing to standard academic journal articles or parliamentary briefings. Both groups of authors needed to think about how to condense what were often very broad topics into short, succinct chapters which provided enough description to explain how processes work, but also contained some analysis of why things happen and the impact they have:

“Bearing in mind that this is a textbook, it was a useful discipline to stick to explaining clearly the normal course of events, without quibbles or little-used variations or historical footnotes” (Liam Laurence-Smyth, House of Commons)

“It’s easy to get lost, especially with something like trust in politics, which is hugely complex and nuanced. My co-author was great at picking out the key drivers, nature of the problem and possible solutions. They helped keep me out of what my teacher at A-levels called the ‘waffle bog’, a place where I find myself far too often.” (Ben Worthy, Birkbeck)

What worked well was being able to reflect on our practical and ‘real world’ experience of how interparliamentary relations is working on the ground. It really helped to focus on what the key message/story of the chapter should be. It hopefully helped to ensure that those reading it will get a real sense of what the genuine issues from people working on the issue day in and day out are rather than just a theoretical perspective.” (Nia Moss, Senedd)

The ongoing relevance of the book in the 2024 Parliament

The book was written shortly before the 2024 General Election and as such the case studies used are from previous Parliaments. Nevertheless, it has quickly become apparent how relevant the book’s themes are in the current Parliament:

“In some senses, 2024 was the ultimate trust (or distrust) election, so the chapter speaks to how the government faces in huge challenge, in somehow winning back or convincing hugely distrustful and cynical voters, against some very strong anti-elite, anti-system head winds. Can a government win back trust (relatively quickly) by delivering on promises? And what happens if they don’t?” (Ben Worthy, Birkbeck)

“Private Member’s Bills became a hot topic at the end of 2024 when the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was introduced by backbencher Kim Leadbeater.  We had already completed our chapter by the time the bill was introduced, but I think that our explanation of the stages of a PMB will help anyone trying to understand the complex procedures.” (Ruth Dixon, University of Oxford) 

“Our chapter is relevant for the 2024 parliament as it sets the scene of multilevel presentation and parliamentary activity across the UK. It is important for all MPs and especially to new MPs to be aware of the broader parliamentary context across the UK, to understand the differences and similarities between the different systems” (Prof Diana Stirbu, London Metropolitan University)

“Our chapter also speaks strongly to the principles and core aspirations of the ongoing efforts to make Parliament more accessible – for politicians, other passholders and visitors – both as part of the R&R programme and through the efforts of the Modernisation Committee and the work of the Speaker’s Office” (Ekaterina Kolpinskaya, University of Exeter)

“One of the Modernisation Committee challenges in the 2024 Parliament is to improve accessibility by demystifying parliamentary language. My chapter, and Exploring Parliament as a whole, is committed to bringing clarity to the inevitable complexity of legislative activity.” (Liam Laurence-Smyth, House of Commons)

It has been a real privilege to edit the second edition of Exploring Parliament. We have had the opportunity to work with a fantastic set of authors who have demonstrated the real value in bringing academics and practitioners together. We echo the views of one of our contributors who told us that “it was genuinely one of the most enjoyable things I did last year”.

About the authors

Cristina Leston-Bandeira is Professor of Politics at the University of Leeds. Alexandra Meakin is Lecturer in British Politics, also at the University of Leeds. Louise Thompson is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Manchester.  Exploring Parliament was published by Oxford University Press in April 2025 and will be launched at the Institute for Government on 15 May 2025. You can sign up to watch online here.

Categories
Blog

A Snapshot of Gendered Membership Patterns in the Scottish Parliament’s Committee System

[i]

By Stephen Holden Bates.

The Scottish Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee (SPPA) is currently running an inquiry on committee effectiveness with a number of usual (and sometimes unusual) suspects appearing to give evidence. One theme of the inquiry is the structure of committees with SPPA already agreeing that “as a minimum, there should be no single sex committees”. Below I offer a snapshot view of the gendered membership patterns found in the Scottish committee system[ii]. Female MSPS are underrepresented, although sometimes only by a relatively small amount, across the system as a whole in all positions except those which are most junior, where they are overrepresented. Female MSPs are also unevenly spread across the committees. This unevenness, I argue, is problematic and unlikely to be solved unless more radical reforms than currently proposed by SPPA are implemented, such as those recommended in the Scottish Parliament’s 2023 Gender Sensitive Audit (GSA) Report.

Female MSPs in the Committee System

In April 2025, the proportion of committee convenors (chairs) who were female was 37.5% and the proportion of Deputy Convenors was 33.3%, while 42.7% of non-government MSPs were female. Compared to the data published in May 2024 by the Scottish Parliament as part of its commitment to ensuring equal representation and participation, the April 2025 figures show a decrease in female Convenors (from 53%) and an increase in female Deputy Convenors (from 21%).

With regard to members and substitute members (MSPs who cover for committee members of the same party when they are unavailable), the proportion of committee places and substitute positions across the whole system filled by female MSPs was 40.2% and 50.9% respectively.

Given the number of committees and committee positions and the relatively small size of the Scottish Parliament, many MSPs have to sit on more than one committee. When substitute positions are excluded, the average male and female MSP sits on 1.35 and 1.29 committees respectively, suggesting that male MSPs have the (slightly) heavier committee workload. However, when substitute positions are included, a different picture emerges with the average male and female MSP sitting on 1.78 and 1.85 committees respectively.

Overall, then, while recognising that committee turnover is high and membership patterns can change relatively quickly, it remains the case that female MSPs are currently underrepresented in the more senior positions of the committee system compared to their presence in the Scottish Parliament, even if sometimes only by a relatively small amount. As the GSA shows, this has not always been the case, especially in the first two parliaments, but it does appear to be a feature of the sixth. Female MSPs are also overrepresented in what can be considered the least glamourous position, where they both presumably often have to change their work schedule at short notice and have less opportunity to specialise in particular policy areas. These findings suggest that gendered vertical divisions of labour persist in the Scottish committee system.

Female MSPs across the Committee System

If we look at which committees female MSPs tend to be members of, then another gendered pattern emerges, one related to horizontal divisions of labour – the policy areas in which male and female parliamentarians tend to work. Tables 1 and 2 below show the gender of the Convenor for each committee and the proportion of female members. Those committee shaded light blue and light orange cover what can be considered stereotypically masculine and feminine policy areas respectively (with no shading indicating a neutral policy area)[iii].

As can be seen, the spread of female and male convenors and members across committees mostly conforms to what might be expected. There are a couple of exceptions – the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture committee is convened by a female MSP (although she is the only member) and the Education, Children and Young People committee has both a male convenor and a majority male membership – but, in the main, female MSPs are overrepresented in convenorships and committees covering policy areas which are stereotypically viewed as feminine (and perhaps less prestigious) and underrepresented in convenorships and committees covering policy areas which are stereotypically viewed as masculine (and perhaps more prestigious). Again, as shown by the GSA, some of these patterns are long-standing with, for example, male MSPs tending to be over-represented on finance-related committees and female MSPs on equalities- and on health-related committees (especially when the latter are not associated with sport).

Table 1: Gender of Convenor by Committee

Table 2: Proportion of female members by Committee (excluding substitutes)

If we believe that diversity within committees is important and not just within the committee system, then this is a problematic state of affairs. Moreover, the uneven spread of female and male MSPs across committees covering different policy areas (and with differing levels of prestige) is unlikely to be addressed by introducing a reform that stipulates that there must be at least one female and one male MSP on each committee. It is for this reason that my preference is for Big Bang reforms, such as those already recommended by the GSA Board which proposed that there should be a minimum of 40% women for committee convenorships,  that every committee should broadly mirror the gender balance in the Parliament as a whole, and that, where parties either elect or appoint more than one member to a committee, the party’s membership must be mixed.

[i] An earlier version of this blog was published in which I did not give enough prominence to ongoing work within the Scottish Parliament regarding equality, representation and participation and, in particular, the work of Fiona McKay in producing the Scottish Gender-Sensitive Parliament Audit. I apologise to those involved in this work for this omission which should not have happened.

[ii] This snapshot is taken from data provided in the SPICe Fact Sheet “Scottish Parliament committees: current committees, remits and membership” published on 30th April 2025.

[iii] These categorisations are adapted from Goodwin et al. (2021) who in turn adapted them from Krook and O’Brien (2012). The categorisations here are not perfectly fitted because of the often large and disparate policy areas that committees cover. For example, using the Krook and O’Brien typology, the Europe and external affairs parts of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture committee can be viewed as masculine, whereas the constitution and culture parts can be considered neutral. In such circumstances, I have categorised the committee in relation to what I assume is the most prominent focus of the committee.

About the author

Dr Stephen Holden Bates is a Senior Lecturer in Political Science at the University of Birmingham

Categories
Blog

Does beauty matter? Physical appearance in candidate selection for German parliamentary elections

By Calixte Bloquet and Danny Schindler.

After the collapse of the “traffic light” coalition and the dissolution of the Bundestag, Germany is gearing up for new elections on February 23rd, 2025. Happening in an incredibly fragile international and national context, the German elections are likely to be of vital importance. Yet, as with every election, the outcome is uncertain, as many topics collide in the campaign, and many voters are still undecided. One of the criteria for their choices will be who the candidates are: what they offer in terms of policies, which party they come from, whether they provide leadership skills and trustworthiness … And, to a lesser extent, how attractive they are.

Physical appearance does not usually top the list of criteria when picking a political representative, yet it can be particularly relevant in the case of parliamentary elections, where many little-known candidates are discovered for the first time on election posters. In the current German campaign, it is occasionally mentioned, with Green chancellor candidate Robert Habeck being described in medias as “probably the most attractive candidate for chancellor”. We take this opportunity to look into the role of attractiveness in candidate selection in German parties, how important it is, and for whom.

When and how to measure attractiveness?

The literature has already shown that attractiveness (slightly) improves the chances of being elected, in general but also in Germany specifically, be it in regional, national or European elections. But if it seems to be established that it matters to voters, little is known about how important it is for selectors inside parties, i.e., when it comes to deciding who can run for election in the first place: do selectors anticipate physical characteristics to be of importance, or do they take their decisions based on exclusively political criteria?

To answer this question, we draw on a party survey on candidate selection for the 19th Bundestag (2017-2021). More specifically, we asked more than 9000 party selectors in randomly selected nomination meetings at both district and state level (party lists), representing each party in the Bundestag, to judge which of a list of criteria were important or unimportant when nominating a candidate. Among the list, two items can be related to physical appearance: “attractiveness” (“Attraktivität”) on the one hand, and “well-groomed appearance” (“gepflegtes Erscheinungsbilds”) on the other.

Ultimately, our survey question does not measure the actual influence of physical appearance, but rather how willing selectors are to say these characteristics matter. This implies that respondents are likely under-reporting, either because they are unwilling to disclose what could be regarded as a “superficial” concern compared to political orientation, or because they might not be aware of its full influence on them.

What role does appearance play in the candidate selection process?

So does beauty matter? According to our data, both attractiveness and well-groomed appearance are relevant for the nomination of Bundestag candidates, to varying degrees: a third of respondents say attractiveness is important or very important (32,6%), and four fifths that a well-groomed appearance is (79,8%). Those results seem unrelated to the amount of political experience, for example the time spent weekly on party work or whether or not one holds a leadership position: committed members rated attractiveness and appearance as just as important or unimportant as less active ones.

What seems to matter most are social characteristics and political orientation – and through them, likely moral values. Indeed, our results seem to indicate that the older, less educated and more conservative party selectors are, the more likely they are to declare that either attractiveness or a well-groomed appearance matter. All those effects remain true in a multivariate model. On the other hand, younger, more educated and more progressive party selectors are less likely to admit the same, either because it influences them less, or because it is less appropriate of a thing to admit in those contexts. In ideological terms, party members of the conservative CDU and CSU attach more than twice as often importance to attractiveness than their counterparts among the Left Party or the Greens. As far as gender goes, if a well-groomed appearance is rated as similarly important by men and women, men attribute slightly more importance to attractiveness than women (Figure 1 and 2).

It is not to say that rational considerations do not also play their part: regardless of those other factors, selectors report that physical appearance matters less when nominating multiple candidates for lists rather than one individual candidate for a district. This is hardly surprising, when lists are composed of several dozens of candidates, most of them placed way too low to ever have a chance to be elected anyway. But this does not mitigate the importance of the other factors in any way.

***

To be sure, the importance of physical appearance in candidate selection should not be overestimated: other selection criteria carry greater weight. In our survey for example, more than 94% of respondents considered it important that the nominees demonstrate expertise in certain policy areas and are approachable. However, physical appearance does also come into play, not only in competition between parties, but also in internal party selection processes. In a context where personalization of politics, even in Germany, keeps rising, candidates might be able to find here some competitive advantage.

About the authors

Dr Calixte Bloquet is a Research Associate at the Institute for Parliamentary Research, where Dr Danny Schindler is the director.