Can we carry on as before? – This is the central question that parliaments and parliamentary research face in the “post-covid-era”, considering what it means to keep a legislative assembly working under conditions of war and violence, and in a time of authoritarian backsliding and ever more refined instruments for running hybrid regimes.
When we look back at the formative phase of modern parliamentarism it was all there – pandemics, state institutions denying the role of parliaments, armed uprisings, and wars. But today, parliaments and their administrations have little institutional memory of these events. Even if a constitution provides rules for emergency or war situations, they shall only be used as means of last resort. “Carry on to fulfil the assigned roles” is the guiding principle of parliamentary practice. In contrast, academic debates in constitutional law, political theory, and political science are much more concerned with extraordinary circumstances and the state of emergency. But it remains unclear whether both sides are able to find common ground for exchange. Rather, research – and parliamentary research in particular – focuses on exemplary models and experiences from Europe and the U.S. This becomes evident when we encounter the claim that the health-crisis and wartime represent new challenges for parliaments. Such a view overlooks the experiences of dozens of parliaments in the global South. Also, research remains focused on classic themes. It considers parliaments’ relations with other state institutions and with the public (not necessarily the electorate) only gradually. However, both strands of relations are of crucial importance in the face of emerging or sudden challenges.
This issue of the International Journal of Parliamentary Studies can help us to broaden our perspective. After two years under the shadow of covid-19, our contributors take stock of what has happened in parliaments across the globe. They ask what changes might last and whether it is possible to return to ‘normal ways’ as parliamentarians and policy-makers would like to see. Olajide Akanji shares a report about legislating under pandemic conditions in Nigeria’s Federal Legislature and Saru Arafin looks at the situation in Indonesia. Their reports are complemented by two perspectives from parliamentary practice. Maria Diaz Crego presents insights and new data on the practice of the European Parliament between March 2020 and the summer of 2022. Luca Bartolucci and Luigi Gianniti describe the relationship between the Italian Parliament and Government in pandemic times and ask whether EU recovery programs could also help to improve legislative practice and parliamentary procedures.
Four full-length-articles discuss parliaments in relation to other state institutions. Each of them takes a different stance, but all bring new perspectives to the roles of parliaments under difficult circumstances. Enrico Albanesi asks if it is possible to define the right degree of constitutional justice vis-à-vis parliamentary autonomy. Kristen Alicia Heim discusses the factors that contribute to southern African parliaments taking budgeting processes more seriously than before. Her contribution is complemented by that of Julien Navarro who analyses the motivations of Members of the European Parliament do initiate parliamentary scrutiny of the European Central Bank. Finally, Tilman Hoppe asks what role parliamentary committees of inquiry can play in fighting and preventing corruption at state-level.
Another article from parliamentary practice deals with the public’s reaction to the various tasks and activities of parliaments also covered/discussed in other articles in this issue. Barbara Blümel reports on the Enquiry Service or Information Team of the Austrian Parliament. Here, anyone can contact the parliament by telephone or in writing, asking questions or making complaints. This form of communication with parliaments has received little attention in research so far.
The volume is complemented by reports on four major scholarly and practitionary events. Two global conferences, both held for the first, but definitely not he last time, aimed at enhancing a discussion on bridging parliamentary cultures and parliamentary dialogue: the International Workshop of Academics and Parliamentarians was held in Villa Angostura, Argentina, and the Global Conference on Parliamentary Studies (which was organized in cooperation with this journal) in Budapest, Hungary. The topic of another important forum in the European Parliament was the enhanced infrastructure of parliamentary archives for better transparency and legislative research. Lastly, the organizers of the annual Workshop of Parliamentary Scholars and Parliamentarians in Wroxton, United Kingdom convened again an inspiring exchange of ideas in various parliamentary issues.
Things are not fine – neither in a health-crisis, nor in times of war. But careful analysis and new perspectives, such as those presented in this volume, can help us to deepen our understanding of the role of democratic institutions in general and parliaments in particular. Of course, it might be more comfortable to carry on playing “games within the rules” and see institutions become more efficient and resilient. But we can equally well argue that such an approach denies the legitimate views and expectations of the wider public or parliaments and societies under threat. For them, in order to carry on we need to teak a fresh look and dive deeper if we are to move forward.
