Rethinking institutions to promote progress in Democracy

Villa La Angostura, a small tourist town located on the wonderful Lake Nahuel Huapí in Patagonia, Argentina, received more than one hundred Argentinian and foreign illustrious visitors at its convention center, built with alpine-style wood, like the rest of the local architecture.

Surrounded by forests, lakes, rivers, hills, and magnificent fauna and flora, especially gardens and flowerbeds full of colorful roses combined with yellow, red, wood, and green tones painted by the leaves, trunks, and branches of a vast variety of trees, scholars, and parliamentarians discussed the role of parliaments and representative entities in the face of the challenges of the 21st century.

The closest ones had to travel distances of between 1,500 and 2,000 km from cities in the interior of the country, such as Córdoba and Buenos Aires, or cities of neighboring countries such as Montevideo; others, with intermediate distances, traveled between 4,000 and 7,000 km from cities in countries in the region such as Brasilia, Guatemala, Kingston, Philipsburg or Washington, DC. Still, the biggest prize goes to the effort of those who crossed the Atlantic and traveled from 10,000 to 15,000 km away from cities like Lisbon, Athens, or Tbilisi.

Many others decided to participate remotely, a resource decidedly consolidated due to the pandemic, avoiding the effort of traveling from cities as distant as Berlin, Budapest, Geneva, Kabul, London, Madrid, Ottawa, Paris, Rome, Sidney, or Tampere; and even from cities in countries in the region that are a bit closer, such as Bogotá, Caracas, Georgetown, Quito, Mexico, Panama or Valparaíso.

Why so much effort? Everyone recognizes that we live in a deeply convulsed world and that the origin of the crisis responds to different factors; that is to say, it is multi-causal in nature. At the center of all eyes are the new digital technologies that, although they constitute a strategic and fundamental asset when it comes to providing solutions, also produce serious threats to privacy, security, and equality between people.

In the same vein, unstoppable scientific and technological advances associated with ever faster and more dynamic innovation processes put institutions to the test: crewless vehicles; robotics and hyper-automation; the metaverse; artificial intelligence; cloning; synthetic biology; predictive analysis, and the increasing use of algorithms for the design and implementation of public policies, among many others.

In terms of global challenges, in addition to peace and security, including nuclear disarmament and limiting the production and use of all kinds of lethal weapons; the defense of democracy; the protection of human rights; the construction of international justice and law; and the promotion of economic and social progress, the United Nations (UN) works with its member countries to end poverty; gain access to drinking water; food security; child protection; gender equality and the empowerment of women and youth; the situation of migrants and refugees; the phenomenon of aging; the fight against climate change, disarmament and remnant colonization; the use of clean energies and the regulation of atomic energy; the care of the oceans and seas; infectious diseases and prevention of pandemics; the right of access to universal health coverage; and many others.

Scholars and parliamentarians?from thirty different countries and regions of the world?seemed to speak the same language. The threats, weaknesses, and difficulties in general, as well as the strengths and opportunities, not only present the nature of familiar traits to all, at least superficially but also, in many cases, recognize common actors and factors, such as the COVID-19?pandemic; ecological disasters; mass migrations; organized crime; populism; corruption; poverty and inequalities; the digital gap; discrimination and intolerance; nationalisms and political radicalization; the weakening of democratic values; a retreat from multilateralism; the difficulties in guaranteeing governability; terrorism, wars and armed confrontations, such as the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine, which was a recurring theme during the workshop; to name a few.

At the center of the debate are the institutions, and within that?framework, the Parliaments, whatever their name or political and government system.

Beyond the similarities and differences between the 193 member states of the UN and other territories not recognized as such and between the different regions around the world, practically all of them have a kind of "legislative power." It is supposed, in principle, that it is the only power that fully represents, as a whole, as a body, the citizens, the 7,800 people who live on the planet.

There are more than 46,000 national legislators globally, plus parliamentarians from both regional representative institutions and legislators from subnational representative entities.??The European Parliament alone has 705 MEPs who represent the citizens of its 27 member countries (almost 450 million people).

The meeting was addressed to that community in dialogue with civil society, the private sector, and scientific and academic faculty, all under the same status.

In general terms, the debates acquired different profiles:

? Some addressed strategic perspectives on the future of democracy and the role of parliaments; for example, Luis Almagro, Secretary-General of the OAS; Duarte Pacheco and Martín Chungong, president and general secretary respectively of the Interparliamentary Union (IPU); Silvia Giacoppo and Elías Castillo, president, and executive secretary of the Latin American and Caribbean Parliament (Parlatino); David Donat Cattin, secretary-general of Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA); Federico Pinedo, former president pro-tempore of the Argentine Senate; and José Octavio Bordón, president of the Argentine Council for International Relations (CARI).

? Others analyzed structural aspects of political and government systems, the crisis of representation, and the relationship between the legislative power and the judiciary, such as George Khelasvili (Georgia), Pedro Rivas Palá (Spain), Zsolft Szabó (Hungary), and Alfonso Santiago, Alberto Bianchi and Margarita Stolbizer (Argentina).

? Although it was a recurring theme, a specific panel analyzed the role of parliaments in the design, implementation, and control of public policies, with the participation of politicians such as Diego Bossio and Fernando Straface and academics like Celina Cantú and Ignacio Boulin.

? There were panels dedicated to democracies in crisis and the violation of human rights, with the participation of leaders and scholars such as Armando Armas (Venezuela), Melissa Verpile (USA), Alfredo Vítolo (Argentina), Francesco Agnello (Italy), and Farzana Kochai (Afghanistan).

? An important group of debates was oriented to the institutional improvement of the legislative power, in particular to the law-making process and their level of “rationality,” with the participation of first-level professors such as Rodolfo Vigo and Estela Sacristán (Argentina) and Manuel Atienza (Spain). In strict terms of parliamentary law, procedure, and technique, as well as the processing and analysis of parliamentary information, the key panelists were Piedad García-Escudero Marquéz (Spain), Sergio Díaz Ricci, Guillermo Schinelli and Eduardo Menem (Argentina), Orlando Solano Bárcenas (Colombia) and Fotis Fitsilis (Greece).

? Other leaders discussed the Parliaments of the Future, including Tapio Raunio, from the University of Tampere (Finland); and Ernesto Calvo from the University of Maryland (USA).

? Linked to the multilevel management of parliaments, specialists, authorities, and political leaders from regional and local legislatures and deliberative councils, such as Orlando Pulvirenti and Ornela Vanzillota, participated.

? On the training and profile of parliamentarians and their teams, Frederick Stapenhurst from McGill University (Canada), Alejandra Svetaz, and Miriam Ivanega from Universidad Austral (Argentina), as well as authorities from regional organizations such as Carlos Staff and Osvaldo de la Guardia Boyd (Panama).

? The most innovative issues in terms of parliamentary modernization can be grouped into the following groups:

a)?????digital transformation, with the participation of Jonathan Ruckert (Australia), Luis Kimaid (Brazil), Brian Baird and Brad Fitch (USA), Dalmacio Mera and Juan Manuel Cheppi (Argentina);

b)?????the need to implement a model of legislation informed by scientific evidence provided through robust information and research services, with the participation of Christine Weidenslaufer and Raimundo Roberts Molina (Chile), Carlos Abeledo (INGSA), Wouter Schallier (CEPAL) and Guillermo Anlló (UNESCO),

c)?????the introduction of mechanisms to guarantee the effectiveness of laws, such as the PLS for its acronym in English (post-legislative scrutiny), developed by Maria Mousmouti of the University of London (United Kingdom);

d)?????the budget and the projection and impact of the laws in economic-financial terms, with Marcos Makón (Argentina) and Alfredo Jiménez Barros (Colombia);

e)?????the professionalization of parliamentary diplomacy and the involvement of parliaments in global affairs, with Alessandro Motter (IPU), Anne Marie Goetz of New York University, Jim Moran (USA), Fernando Iglesias and Jorge Gentile (Argentina), Mariano Ferrero (Chile) and Oscar Piquinella from Uruguay (GRULAC, UIP);

f)??????the revitalization of inter-state and inter-parliamentary cooperation, with Marcelo Scaglione (Argentina) and Diane Fromage (France); and Jennifer Schreider (USA), Beatriz de Anta (Panama) and Miguel Hernández (Ecuador) respectively;

g)?????Open Parliament, citizen participation, transparency, and integrity, with specialists such as María Barón, Marcelo Bermolén and Ana Pichon Rivere (Argentina) and Lorna Seitz (USA);

h)?????the revision of the delegation and emergency regimes in the face of the advance of the executive power over the competencies of the legislative power, an issue addressed by Santiago Castro Videla, Pablo Luis Manili, and Lucila Crexell from Argentina;

i)??????the reference in different panels to the need to review and improve the mechanisms and tools necessary to provide effective parliamentary control over the other powers was also recurrent; and

j) the relationship between Parliaments, media y social networks, in the hands of three journalists, Ignacio Zuleta, Jazmín Bullorini, and David Cayón.

? Finally, many substantive issues were discussed, such as, for example:

? Cybersecurity, by Moisés Benamor (OAS), Ramiro Gutiérrez and Juan Battaleme (Argentina) and Kenneth Pugh Olavarría (Chile);

? Education, by Fernando Rodal MacLean (CEA), Joseph Nhan-O′Reilly (IPNEd), and Angelique J.G. Romou (Sint Maarten);

? International trade and investments, with Manzoor Nadir (Guyana, and co-chair of the PCWTO/IPU) and Said El Hachimi (WTO); and Parliaments and the Private Sector with Rodolfo Alejandro Díaz and Daniel Funes de Rioja (Argentina);

? Gender and women's empowerment, with Beatriz Paredes (Mexico), Rhoda Crawford (Jamaica), and Patricia Biermayr-Jenzano from Georgetown University (USA);

? Health and prevention of pandemics and infectious diseases, with Ricardo Baptista Leite (Portugal), éctor Jaime Ramírez Barba (Mexico), Laura Chinchilla (Costa Rica), Gisela Scaglia (Argentina) and Miguel Pedrola from the University of Miami (USA);

? Climate Change, with Senators Rosa Gálvez (Canada) and Gladys González (Argentina);

? Agenda 2030, with Claudio Tomasi (UNDP), Gabriela Agosto from UTN, and Ambassador Martín García Moritán (Argentina); and

? Sovereignty and Peace with Guillermo Carmona (Argentina), Arístides Royo Sánchez (Panama), Grisha S. Heyliger-Marten (Sint Maarten) and Ariel González Levaggi from the Argentine Catholic University (UCA).

In a general conclusion, all seem to give centrality to parliaments despite acknowledging, in many cases, a reduction in their powers, resulting in both a dangerous weakening and a reckless impoverishment of their actions and low levels of trust and credibility.

Ultimately, this seems to affect the democratic values of citizens, who increasingly seek to obtain concrete solutions to their unsatisfied demands in record time and in a context in which expectations are increasing.

The concept of Democracy in the abstract seems to be insufficient. Although often dissociated, social claims seem to be aimed at political institutions solving complex problems efficiently and effectively, producing concrete results that translate into macroeconomic stability; genuine conditions of equality of opportunity and treatment; decent jobs; access to quality health and education; housing and a safe, healthy and sustainable environment; efficient transport and infrastructure: culture, entertainment and sports; impartial justice; and the enjoyment of all freedoms, including entrepreneurship and private initiative; in short, to live with a reasonable quality of life and progress.

The debates contrast different experiences and results and show that the inherent characteristics of each country or society; their government institutions; the behavior of the people, their idiosyncrasies are what allow them to be characterized as “full democracies” or “defective,” or as “developed,” “developing,” or “underdeveloped” countries. Not everything is the same.

“Quality” political institutions; “Quality” public policies imply “Quality” education, work, health, justice, and security.

The latest IPU World Parliamentary Report, from 2022, points out that "parliaments play a vital role in addressing the challenges posed by today's rapidly changing world, enabling citizens to come into contact with the processes of drafting and participate, in-laws, policymaking, and oversight that impact your present and future lives.”

The report adds: “In a world imbued with rapid transformation, parliaments need to be responsive, adapting and revitalizing their processes and practices to meet current and future challenges. Moving with the times is the only way parliaments can continue to be relevant to the communities they represent.”

The main UIP recommendations are:

- embed a culture of engagement that makes a united and concerted effort toward broader and better public participation in parliament.

- make inclusion a priority so that parliament is accessible to all members of the community.

- encourage people to participate in setting the agenda through opportunities to influence the issues dealt with by parliament.

- lead with bold and creative approaches that engage and inspire the community to engage with parliament now and in the future, and

- focus on meeting public expectations, listening to community feedback, and continually improving.

The IPU also recommends that parliaments look to the future and be their main goal. That's what prospective services are for.

The key seems to be in the details, which allow us to see more clearly the holes through which the water that floods the ships enters. If not fixed, the most feasible is that they sink. There are no magic formulas or the possibility of successfully transferring good practices from other latitudes. Every society has the future in its hands.

There were many appeals to ethical values; to the development of full democracy; to the culture of dialogue and consensus; to the quality of management and results (“res non verba,” “deeds, not words”); to professionalism, even though parliament is a "political" house; to individual and collective responsibility; to the need to “modernize”; to the big questions posed by the future.

The biggest coincidence of the meeting: institutions must be rethought to promote progress in democracy

Juan de Dios Cincunegui