The overarching argument of this paper is that parliamentary digital transformation is a relatively underfunded area of work, but a vitally important one in achieving the very common overarching goals of open, accountable, inclusive and participative government. Improvements in how parliamentary digital capacity building can be done better are possible with better strategy, funding and cooperation, and when parliaments are enthusiastic and willing to take the opportunities offered to them to improve themselves.
Now more than ever, digital transformation has become essential for parliaments. Such transformation can have a significant impact in making parliaments more transparent and accountable and can enable them to leverage greater public interest and engagement in the legislative and electoral processes.
Good external digital engagement requires parliaments to review their own internal digital structures, assess where development and investment are needed, and how digital improvement will assist in achieving their goals. Differential priorities in the needs of the parliament or societal actors can form a guide, according to which specific areas for digital development might be prioritised. These steps require long-term investment, which should go in parallel with the digital transformation of the Executive. However, because a country’s digital transformation is primarily the preserve of the Executive, it can bypass the legislature and may be almost disproportionately influenced by the ruling party. Uneven digital transformation between public bodies and the legislature may weaken the profile and legitimacy of the legislature itself. Furthermore, governments that effectively restrict digital development within the legislature are essentially restricting democratic integrity.
Besides the long-term process of building and developing infrastructure, short-term pilot projects can be useful to test approaches and begin building the digital infrastructure of the future. Properly targeted funding, to achieve specified digital transformation goals, agreed in collaboration with the development agencies operating in target areas, can yield significant dividends in improving the digital democracy ecosystem. This approach can neutralise harmful, short-termist and wasteful approaches to digital deficiency, and remove the ability of the more unscrupulous parliaments to play development agencies off against each other to leverage greater rewards or resources.
Digital transformation of parliaments requires better strategy, funding and cooperation on the part of donors and implementers as parliaments are enthusiastic and willing to take the opportunities offered by digitalisation.
Header photo: Jessica Taylor / UK Parliament
What's it all about?
Report authors Julia Keutgen and Rebecca Rumbol discuss their report and its key arguments
The Political Party Transparency Index (PPTI) is a tool developed by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) in North Macedonia, in collaboration with the Forum for Reasonable Policies (FRP). Drawing from international best practices and comparative experiences, the index evaluates the transparency of political parties in their public communication, financial practices, and the level of intra-party democracy. Designed as an annual assessment, the PPTI serves as both a benchmark and a roadmap, highlighting areas for improvement within political parties.
The 2024 survey covers eight political parties from North Macedonia: Alternativa, Alliance of Albanians (Zijadin Sela’s wing and Arben Taravari’s wing), Besa, VMRO-DPMNE, Democratic Union for Integration (DUI), Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), New Social Democratic Party (NSDP) and Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM). Additionally, two new political parties/movements, ZNAM and the Democratic Movement, participated in research and mentoring events organized by the WFD. However, due to the need for a longer-term approach in measuring certain indicators, their inclusion in this year’s evaluation was postponed.
The findings of the report show that both external and internal factors influence the performance of political parties. For instance, the results of the 2023/2024 parliamentary elections and some party restructuring, as well as divisions and factionalism within certain parties, have slowed progress or even led to the formation of new political entities. The extended transition period from old to new leadership has also played a role.
While the index measures each party's progress, it also fosters a sense of competition. The results highlight several parties that made significant strides in improving their operations, benefiting not only themselves but also the public. For the first time, this report includes a comparative analysis of individual party progress, emphasizing that the goal is not ranking, but measuring the individual progress of the respective political party. Notably, smaller parties often demonstrate greater flexibility and receptiveness to improve, while larger parties tend to be slower in embracing reforms. Furthermore, internal crises in larger parties tend to have a more significant impact, hindering intra-party democracy, while smaller parties are typically able to recover more swiftly.
Addressing environmental challenges and climate change while ensuring gender equality and social inclusion is a significant undertaking for Georgia. This effort aligns with the country’s development priorities and international commitments. As environmental issues increasingly affect the quality of life, integrating these principles is essential to creating inclusive and effective solutions.
Objective
This analysis evaluates how gender equality and social inclusion are integrated into Georgia’s environmental protection and climate change policies and legislation. It examines the current legal framework to identify gaps that may hinder the full inclusion of these principles. The review aims to assess whether existing policies adequately address the needs of women and other marginalized groups while safeguarding their rights and interests.
Georgia’s environmental and climate policy framework
Georgia's environmental and climate change policies are guided by key planning documents and legislation that outline national priorities, including:
- Sustainable development and natural resource management
- Climate change mitigation and adaptation
- Pollution reduction and ecosystem preservation
- Waste management and forestry protection
- Key Documents and Strategies Reviewed
The analysis focuses on pivotal national strategies and legislative frameworks, including:
- Fourth National Environmental Protection Program (2022–2026)
- 2030 Climate Change Strategy of Georgia
- National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan
- Long-Term Low-Emission Development Concept
- National Waste Management Strategy (2016–2030)
- National Forestry Concept
These documents establish Georgia’s long-term vision for tackling climate change, promoting environmental protection, and managing resources sustainably.
Legal frameworks evaluated
The review also considers foundational environmental laws, including those governing air protection, waste management, environmental assessment, and forestry codes. Together, these laws form the backbone of the country’s strategy to meet its national and international environmental commitments.
The analysis highlights how incorporating gender equality and social inclusion into environmental policies enhances the overall well-being of society.
This comprehensive review serves as a foundation for addressing gaps and advancing more inclusive environmental governance in Georgia.
This analysis addresses a key question for Montenegro: Should the country maintain its integrated model of parliamentary budgetary oversight, where the Committee for Economy, Finance, and Budget (CEFB) oversees both ex-ante and ex-post functions, or adopt a standalone ex-post oversight committee model like those in the UK and Slovenia?
By comparing Montenegro’s system with the experiences of Croatia and Georgia, which have a single committee performing the ex-ante and ex-post oversight (referred to here as an integrated approach), and Slovenia and the UK, which have standalone ex-post oversight committees, this paper aims to identify the most effective approach for strengthening parliamentary oversight in Montenegro.
The goal is to ensure that the model chosen optimizes resources, enhances accountability, and improves public financial management through robust scrutiny of budgetary processes and audit findings.
This analysis ultimately recommends that Montenegro retain its integrated model while implementing key enhancements.
This policy paper provides a working definition of AI for Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) and the broader democracy support sector.
It then provides a preliminary review of how AI is being used to enhance democratic practices worldwide, focusing on several themes including:
- accountability and transparency
- elections
- environmental democracy
- inclusion
- openness and participation
- women’s political leadership.
The paper also highlights potential risks and areas of development in the future. Finally, the paper shares five recommendations for WFD and democracy support organisations to consider advancing their ‘digital democracy’ agenda.
This policy paper also offers additional information regarding AI classification and other resources for identifying good practice and innovative solutions.
Its findings are relevant to WFD staff members, international development practitioners, civil society organisations, and persons interested in using emerging technologies within governmental settings.