Parliaments, Legislatures or Congresses have been constitutionally described in the vast majority of countries as the "expression of popular sovereignty".

In liberal democratic set-ups, Parliaments today are elected through universal suffrage so the elected members, albeit in varying ways, are to some extant the chosen representatives of the people. Parliaments, in this context, are therefore an essential part of democracy as they provide the most important factors that a democracy entails; voter sovereignty, an elected opposition, a forum for debate, and accountability.

The controversy about Parliaments today is centred around whether or not they live up to their constitutionally given positions (of top decision-making bodies or at least equal to the executive). The proposition that Parliaments have declined is not a new one. Bryce had argued in 1921 that Legislatures were weak and legislators incompetent. The statement that Parliaments are largely defunct today is a voicing of this view, which, depending on various circumstances, may or may not be correct.

To assess the strength and role of Parliaments today is a complex job, as there are varying factors in different countries which influence their functioning and position vis-à-vis other governmental institutions. These factors include inter alia, electoral systems, political climate, political culture, the actual power of the executive versus the legislative, and multi-party versus two party systems. In some countries like France of the Fifth Republic, the Legislature officially plays second fiddle to the Executive which is chosen by the elected President, whilst in the UK, Parliament gives the government of the day its lease of life, and ultimately decides to give or withhold its support. Nonetheless some would argue that with the strengthening of the party system within parliament, it is the political parties which actually have the last say and not parliament itself even when this looks strong. When a party has a strong enough majority it may transform Parliament into a rubber-stamping mechanism rather than a debating forum for the making of decisions. Where a single party does not have a majority there is the problem of a possible unstable coalition and thus a parliament (and a government in a non-presidential system) which may operate in fits and starts.

This essay shall briefly examine the types, powers and the role of Parliaments. It will be hoping to show that they are neither defunct nor overtly powerful, but are in fact still evolving institutions which in reality reflect and enable the practise per se of liberal democracy.

States can be governed by either of 2 systems, the Parliamentary (also sometimes called Cabinet) system or the Presidential system. In the Parliamentary system the executive is dependent in most cases on Parliament for approval and governments are organised according to the principle of fusion of powers. The head of state and the head of government are two roles which are combined in the same person in Presidential systems, while the former is usually only a role symbolising the unity of the nation as a whole in parliamentary systems and there is a separate person as head of government. The president in a parliamentary system is therefore a figure who is supposed to rise above and stay aloof from the most controversial issues of partisan politics.

Presidential systems are different mostly due to the principle of separation of powers, with the division of government power among coequal legislative, executive and judicial branches. In the USA the framers of the constitution insisted on these separation of powers as they considered that any concentration of powers in a single branch is tyrannical, and that only true separation of powers protects the liberties of the people against the aggressions of government.

Of course advocates of the Parliamentary system might beg to differ. One argument states that if the executive’s officials are also part of the legislature they can more easily co-ordinate, be questioned about, and receive immediate feedback on, the activities of the government. This is mainly due to the requirement in most of the constitutions that ministers or sub-ministers MUST be members of parliament. Thus the top levels of the executive (Cabinet) are in effect committees of the parliament that preside over the executive agencies. This, it is claimed, makes the system more efficient. If it is less democratic or not is of course another matter. Having the executive not directly elected is the major argument that is brought against it by supporters of the presidential system.

Parliaments can be either unicameral or bicameral. There are in turn 3 kinds of bicameral systems, in all of which the lower house is popularly elected and is usually the source of government in a parliamentary system. Where the upper house is not popularly elected, its powers are somewhat curtailed and normally represents interest groups, such as hereditary peers in the UK, and acts as a restraining and conservative force on the lower chamber. In Italy both chambers are popularly elected and have equal powers while their assent in the legislative proposals of the government is necessary. In a Federal system the upper house consists of the direct representatives of the states which may be elected, semi-elected, or even appointed, and has considerable powers although not normally in financial affairs.

The political system of the UK is often regarded as a model for liberal-democratic government. This model recognises neither a division of power between public bodies nor any constitutional limits to the power of parliament. In other words parliament is the top sovereign decision making body. Germany’s Bundestag is similarly powerful, although it is combined with a federal system and a presidency. The Chancellor, like the UK Prime Minister, nominates the ministers, identifies the main policy outlines and sets the tone in foreign policy.

In liberal countries, Parliaments are allowed to debate major issues and representatives to voice criticisms. However the policy making process is rarely adversely affected due to party discipline and the whip system. Thus some claim that it is the party or bloc, having the majority which has the real power. The effective influence of Parliaments is so reduced that they can hardly be said to exercise the powers which are constitutionally theirs. On the other hand where there have been cases of overt Parliamentary control over the executive such as during the Fourth Republic in France, the government kept being undermined and not allowed to function. This implies too much power to parliament given by the constitution. Thus the powers of Parliament can vary from one system to another. Although some of the Parliamentary functions can be considered to be universal, there exist within them various degrees of "theoretical" vis-à-vis "actual" capabilities. The question of strength and weakness has to therefore be tackled by primarily examining the functions of Parliament.

The major function of Parliaments or Legislatures is to legislate or as Ranney puts it "Statute Making". This has however often been over-rated. One argument states that these institutions have now been left behind in the expertise needed for today’s legislation needs. In the past Parliaments were mostly concerned with the passing of legislation that effected personal affairs such as family, property and crime. In other words to protect and systemize the life of the citizen. The scenario today is different, and legislation has to take into consideration both micro and macro economics, finance, public education, public health, a welfare state and a myriad of other technical and wealth consuming objectives. Thus much of the preparation of legislation has had to be passed over to the government rather than the legislature which is ill equipped to deal with the necessary intricacies. Today legislatures are mostly presented with a fait accompli, which they normally approve unless the government totally loses the support of the majority of the house for whatever reason, including the unpopularity of the bill itself. On a cynical note one can also say that if the government wants to appear to do something but in fact it wants to wash its hands of the whole affair, the best policy would be to present Parliament with a proposition and a promise to take all ideas into consideration. It is almost guaranteed that no agreement will be reached.

Another argument however states that parliaments can best fulfil their roles by debating rather than actually formulating laws. In many Parliamentary systems, bills go through 2 or more readings and may include also a committee stage. Amendments can be made and the bill itself can be analysed. Some argue that this is more than enough power for the representative assembly which is elected by popular appeal rather than by expertise. In fact a major complaint levied against Parliaments is that most of the legislation hardly arouses any debate at all unless there is a political issue at hand. Also a near election date sometimes causes the parties and the MPs to raise issues where there is no justification, and the process of a bill which normally would not raise any discussion can become a major tug of war in order to achieve some personal popularity kudos.

One of the functions that is most often in the public gaze is that of Voting the Budget or as some call it "the power of the purse". In theory Parliament, in many political systems, can bring the government to a halt by simply not approving the budget. In truth budgetary powers are often restricted, often by not having the right to increase expenditure or reduce income. In France this restriction is a result of the constitution while in Britain it is due to the standing orders of the Commons.

Parliaments in some democratic systems often have certain powers to establish and amend their national constitutions. Many constitutions are originally drawn up by legislatures, and every legislature is authorised to play some role in making formal amendments. In countries like Britain, Parliament is the only institution by which "amendments" can be made (to the unwritten constitution in this case). In others like Switzerland, France and Australia the legislature normally proposes amendments and then a plebiscite by means of a referendum decides.

Most parliamentary systems assign the role of selecting some or all of the top executives to Parliament itself or as Ranney puts it "the indirect elections of Prime Ministers by the Legislatures of the Parliamentary democracies. Those legislatures do not always directly cast ballots for various candidates for this office.....yet every time a legislature votes on a motion of no confidence it is, in effect, re-electing or defeating the incumbent Prime Minister". This is the whole notion of parliamentary systems, such as the one in Britain and other similar systems, and gives Parliament direct control over the executive, as the latter owns its existence to the former. But as mentioned before in a 2 party/bloc system this means that the majority party is in effect an oligarchy albeit within a democratic set-up.

An interesting Parliamentary function (where it exists) is that of a judicial or quasi-judicial role. This is demonstrated strongly in Britain where the upper chamber (the House of Lords), although having lost most of its previous powers, still continues to function as the highest court of law, similarly to the US supreme court or Court of Final Appeal in other countries. In France the national Assembly can indict the President of the Republic and the Ministers for treason and other crimes which is very similar to the impeaching power of the US Congress. In Malta there also exists "the Parliamentary privilege", and in cases where this privilege is "broken", Parliament can decide on a verdict. It operates by having the Speaker as Judge and the MPs as jury and requires a majority vote. Parliament can thus impose sanctions, but criminal acts still have to be judged in a regular court. This also applies to the French and US legislatures as an impeachment or indictment is not a conviction. In the US it is then up to the Senate (Upper House) where a two-thirds majority is required.

An often under-rated function of Parliaments is that which enables them to undertake investigative and informational exercises. In Britain and Malta for example these are activated by means of Parliamentary "select committees". In Malta these are mostly made up of government and opposition members with a preponderance of the former and don’t often make waves. In Britain however, select committees often make use of non-parliamentary personnel and thus are more liable to result against the incumbent government if the case so arises. A case in point was the "exports of arms to Iraq" affair. In the US, Congressional investigations are attention grabbers and often arouse public interest especially in such cases as the contras affair and the Watergate scandals. It is probable that the investigative and informative functions of the legislature are given more impetus within a presidential system. More so if there exists at the time a state of cohabitation.

It is difficult to discuss the position of Parliaments today without considering other developments. Most of the changes in the role of Parliaments has been attributed to the development of the party system. Factors such as the Post-materialist Revolution, the development (and demise in some cases) of class based parties, a rise in party discipline, and so on have diminished the previous role of parliament. This however does not necessarily mean that parliaments are defunct. One can argue moreover that they are evolving. This in itself might be a good thing. An institution that does not change DOES become defunct. If it evolves then it starts to adapt to new needs as the cases and circumstances arise.

But why has this need to evolve arisen? Its hard to pinpoint just one factor, and circumstances differ from one country to another. However one common element seems to be the rise of the technocracy. As mentioned elsewhere in this essay legislation is now better prepared by the administration. Importantly the role of policy making has now been lost to Parliament. The specialisation ability of the government has led, in the absolute majority of democracies, to a technocratic elite trained and supposedly capable of handling affairs which have increased in importance along the years. The most obvious is foreign affairs where specialisation is of the utmost necessity. Also important, as previously stated, are fields such as finance, banking regulation, international trade, immigration, social welfare - all requiring specialisation.

One other factor, that has effected Western European Parliaments, is the evolving of the European Union and the increased role of the European Parliament. (EP). Although there are various issues which are beyond the scope of this essay, it has to be mentioned that the development of the EU has also had an effect upon the concept of Parliament within the member states. Some attitudes have been positive and have gladly backed the EP as a new source of voter sovereignty. That national parliaments and judiciaries are subordinate to EU legislation and regulations have been welcomed by some. Others have however seen this development as a threat to their own country’s parliamentary sovereignty with even more powers being lost, but this time to a faceless bureaucracy in Brussels, while the EP itself is viewed as just a talking shop. Whatever the view it is now accepted that the EU and the EP have changed the context and concepts of parliaments within Europe and might give rise to further evolution in the future.

Parliaments in most countries have however already evolved and increased their role as checkers, revisers and overseers. Although they do not initiate policies they are the instruments to scrutinise the initiatives of others. In countries like the US and most other European democratic countries (even more perhaps than Britain where the executive has a stronger hold on Parliament), the legislatures’ functions of revision and criticism are very prominent. A head of the executive knows that an opposition has to be faced and that every move will be scrutinised.

One can, in most cases, emphasise the importance of a free Parliament in a liberal democracy. Whatever the shortcomings and lack of real power, they are constitutionally, especially in a parliamentary system, the source of democratic government. They can, and often do, exercise a restraining force on the executive. Parliament also often has the power to request and impose accountability. This can be done even by the opposition by means of Parliamentary questions, where this system has been adopted. Parliamentary immunity to its members assures that MPs can blow the whistle if their consciences so dictate. This of course can also lead to abuses, but the machinery is intended to protect the righteous not the corrupt, thus making it an important part of the system.

In a Parliamentary system the Legislature is the people’s choice. If Parliaments do not fulfil their obligatory roles than it is not necessarily because the system is lacking but maybe because people should choose their representatives more carefully. This is why political culture (and mentality) is an often forgotten factor that influences the very essence of Parliaments. Also in some countries lobbies and lobbying forces make use of Parliament to have their interests safeguarded. Furthermore in systems where MPs are elected from a constituency they are also expected to protect the interests of their constituents, thus bringing the inevitably centralised parliamentary institution that much closer to the people. This is an important aspect of democracy which it seems Parliaments are best equipped for.

In Ranney’s words " who, after all, is to say that the modern legislature’s role of criticising, revising, and overseeing the executive and the administration does not constitute as valuable a contribution to the health of democracy as the monopoly of policy making originally assigned to it?"

Andeweg, Rudy 1995, The Reshaping of National Party Systems, in Western European Politics, Vol. 18, No. 3, 58-78

Blondel, Jean 1995, Comparative Government: An Introduction, 2nd Edition, Prentice-Hall/ Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire.

Judge, David 1995, The Failure of National Parliaments?, in Western European Politics, Vol. 18, No. 3, 79-88.

Lane, Jan-Erik and Ersson Svante O. 1994, Politics and Society in Western Europe, 3rd Edition, Sage Publications, London.

Mayer, Lawrence C., Burnett, John H. And Ogden, Suzanne 1996, Comparative Politics: Nations and Theories in a Changing World, 2nd edition, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey.

Ranney, Austin 1996, Government: An Introduction to Political Science, 7th Edition, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey.

OTHER SOURCES

Elgie, Robert 1996, The French Presidency: Conceptualizing Presidential Power in the Fifth Republic, in Public Administration Vol. 74, Summer, 275-291.

Goodwin, Barbara 1992, Using Political Ideas, 3rd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex.

Gowland, D. A., O’Neill, B. C., and Reid, A. L. (Eds) 1995, The European Mosaic: Contemporary Politics, Economics and Culture, Longman Group Limited, New York.

Various, 1992, Grolier Encyclopaedia on CD-ROM, Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc

.