Parliamentary Monitoring Organizations: Partners in Parliamentary Strengthening

Introduction

Over the past decade, parliaments have taken significant steps to make their work more transparent, responsive and accessible to the public. Yet, despite these advances, they remain among the least trusted institutions worldwide.

To address this challenge, a growing number of parliaments are partnering with civil society organizations (CSOs) to better inform, engage and involve citizens in parliamentary processes. These collaborations reflect a shared commitment to building stronger, more effective and truly representative institutions.

This paper, produced by Inter Pares │ Parliaments in Partnership—the EU’s flagship project to strengthen parliamentary capacities—explores the relationship between legislatures and parliamentary monitoring organizations (PMOs). The paper provides a brief overview of the different types of PMOs and outlines how these organizations can support parliaments in the areas of transparency, accountability and participation. It concludes with a series of recommendations on promising ways forward for partnerships between PMOs and the bodies they monitor.

The ideas and practices presented in this paper stem from ongoing conversations between Inter Pares’ partners—both among parliaments and civil society. The paper aims to encourage reflection on opportunities for more effective collaboration between parliaments and PMOs in the shared effort to strengthen democracies.

1. Why parliamentary monitoring organizations?

In the past decade, parliaments have taken significant steps to make their work more transparent, more responsive and better understood. Websites and visitor centres have been built, engagement and education units have been set up—likewise petition systems and other platforms of participation. As a result, many parliaments now operate to a level of transparency that hitherto would have been unthinkable, both practically and politically. Legislatures also invite and interact with the citizens they represent more openly and more frequently.¹

Despite important gains, however, progress has been patchy. Whereas some parliaments are embracing the potential offered by new technologies and a more demanding citizenry, others are hesitant to open their doors. ‘Open washing’—opening up certain processes and (past) records of limited relevance, while keeping a lid on others—remains a common refuge.

Few parliaments, it would seem, have fully cracked the code. Not least because they continue to rank among the least trusted institutions in the world (Bovend’Eert 2020; Wike, Silver and Castillo 2019; OECD 2025). This poses a significant and persistent challenge to the health and sustainability of our democracies; scholars have found that low trust in parliaments can have a negative impact on voter turnout and other political participation (Cruz 2023). Growing lack of trust on the part of young people, in particular, presents a worrying trend (Foa and Mounk 2016). A recent study on trust and the European Parliament supports this picture, indicating an emerging generational gap in public attitudes towards the institution (Bauer and Morisi 2023). Parliaments themselves are not blind to this: respondents to the survey for the 2022 Global Parliamentary Report on representation identified ‘lack of trust’ as a common challenge (IPU and UNDP 2022).

These trends influence the day-to-day work of parliamentary institutions. The adoption of parliamentary codes of ethics in a growing number of countries is driven in no small part by a desire to (re)gain trust, although how successful these measures have been is debatable (Bovend’Eert 2020). Similarly, the evidence base for an increasingly large suite of open parliament measures remains weak, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions on their efficacy with regard to building public trust (Neuman 2024).

Explanations abound for parliaments’ low levels of public approval. A lack of resources for engagement, the challenge of conveying complex procedures and outcomes, the difficulties that come with multi-level governance, and of course the stains of corruption by a few (or more) bad seeds all test the public’s faith (OECD 2021, 2025; Krahi et al. 2024; Neuman 2024). Others suggest that low public trust is an unfortunate yet understandable byproduct of parliamentary democracy itself: ‘In most democratic regimes, the public often dislikes and distrusts parliamentarians. This should not surprise: the public likes neither compromise nor conflict, both of which are legislative hallmarks’ (Convery et al. 2021: 207–26). Finally, a more subtle argument posits that, unlike its members, parliaments as institutions are not (yet) used to beating their own drum: they are, quite simply, ‘not geared up to present a parliamentary corporate identity’ (Walker 2019). If so, that is perhaps not merely to do with ingrained habits but also core, constitutional functions:

As an administration, we have to be neutral. We cannot get into politics, and we do not want to. This can be a bit of a challenge when it comes to social media. The Bundestag is active on Instagram and LinkedIn now, and our President has her own institutional Instagram profile. But the problem is that on social media, people expect us to share opinions, to agree or disagree with them. My colleagues will respond that we are neutral, and that we are not entitled to take a position on anything. That is the role of the politicians, not us at the administration. We are not there to take stands or to make ourselves popular.
—Jochen Guckes, The German Bundestag, 2020

There is some truth to all of these points. But research suggests that parliaments are viewed as highly partisan institutions that fail to offer a level playing field: that some members are, in effect, more equal than others (Holmberg, Lindberg and Svensson 2017). The same study also suggests that low levels of trust in parliament cut across social groups, differing little by gender, social class or education. A notable exception is level of interest in politics. People with a stronger interest in politics appear to place greater trust in parliaments (Holmberg, Lindberg and Svensson 2017). This, in turn, reinforces the argument for legislative openness. When citizens are informed and engaged in the workings of legislative institutions, they develop not just a better understanding of them, but a stronger appreciation:

For a parliament to have a truly impactful role as oversight of the executive branch, truly representative of its citizens, and for it to gain the necessary legitimacy both from the people and other institutions, it first needs to create the right conditions for gaining trust. After all, how can an institution be trusted to perform oversight when the institution itself is not trustworthy?
—Stefanos Loukopoulos, Vouliwatch, 2020

Members and staff of parliaments across all continents have made significant investments in public information and communication; they are understandably frustrated when their efforts do not (immediately) garner higher levels of trust. Disappointment is greater still when parliaments perceive that their efforts are used ‘against’ them: excessive expenses claims by a few members of parliament (MPs) may lead all members to be tarred with the same brush, for example. Similarly, many MPs reject the idea that a scorecard—a simple count of the number of hours of member sits in session, or the number of questions they ask—captures the impact or quality of their work.

In a political landscape increasingly marked by populism and polarization, parliaments are looking for ways to provide context. They recognize the importance of investing in civic education and engagement, but exactly how to get that right is not quite so clear-cut. Transparency is necessary for engagement, yes—but it is not sufficient.

This is where PMOs can prove invaluable partners. PMOs have a wealth of experience and expertise on what citizens wish to know, how to collect and share that information, and how to shape targeted engagement. In strengthening their own efforts in these areas, parliaments stand to benefit from drawing on the work of PMOs. Engaging with PMOs also enables parliaments to help the latter design and implement more discerning indicators of parliamentary performance.

The remainder of this publication will outline what PMOs do, what they have to offer, and how they can contribute to parliamentary strengthening.

2. What are parliamentary monitoring organizations?

Former Canadian Speaker John Fraser said that if the institutions of parliamentary democracy are worth preserving, the duty to explain them to the people they are meant to serve becomes vitally important. And essentially, that’s the role PMOs get to play. You’re actually helping to clarify what parliament is about and how it works.
—Jessica Musila, former Executive Director, Mzalendo Trust, 2020

PMOs aim to strengthen democracy by making parliaments more accountable, more representative and more approachable. They typically view themselves as ‘parliament watchdogs’, delivering monitoring and tracking activities that often go hand in hand with an advocacy agenda. Taking this one step further, many PMOs seek to facilitate engagement between legislative institutions and the citizens they represent.

Globally, hundreds of organizations carry out some form of monitoring or tracking of parliamentary activity (Krahi et al. 2024). An even larger number engage with legislative institutions for advocacy, much of which tends to include some sort of tracking as well. For the purposes of this publication, PMOs are organizations whose core activity consists of parliamentary monitoring, and for whom parliament is (or would ideally be) a key interlocutor. As mentioned, PMOs also typically seek to encourage and facilitate engagement between parliament and civil society. This definition includes organizations who may also have other areas of focus, while excluding those who engage with parliament on an intermittent basis only.

With this in mind, PMOs can be grouped by their main (stated) purpose or activity. This is helpful when exploring potential partnerships, in particular between PMOs and parliaments at national level:

1. Classic PMOs engage in parliamentary monitoring—but often expand their remit to other relevant institutions. They tend to be driven by a thematic focus, often transparency (e.g. Transparency International chapters) but sometimes also natural resources, public services and so on. Like most CSOs, they have an office, a staffing and internal governance structure, and a formal online presence. Classic PMOs typically aim for institutional reforms, looking to change (aspects of) parliamentary processes. In a growing number of countries, they do so by pushing for open parliament plans, often in collaboration with the Open Government Partnership (OGP).
2. Process-focused PMOs monitor parliamentary processes. They track legislation, monitor inputs and assess opportunities for public participation. They focus on who attended what meetings, who asked questions or developed amendments, who voted how, and so on. A significant area of work for these PMOs concerns the integrity of members as well as staff: they track and publish asset declarations, public expenditures and personal expenses. Importantly, they also foster dialogue between parliament and wider stakeholders by making that information available and by providing online opportunities to engage in Q&As (question and answer sessions) with members, for example.
3. Data-driven PMOs monitor specific legislative activities and translate them into more accessible, engaging content for citizens. These PMOs have a more informal way of operating and tend to draw heavily on volunteers and/or students. It is worth noting that several established PMOs started out as volunteer projects, and that their focus can shift from data only to more sustained and substantive advocacy campaigns.

Naturally, these categories are fluid rather than fixed, and many PMOs straddle different types. The size and scope of PMOs varies widely, and as mentioned, an individual PMO will likely develop over time.

Finally, it is important to note that PMOs should adhere to the principles they advocate for. Transparency of activities, partnerships and funding is key to their credibility. It will also support more and deeper engagement with the parliaments they partner with (see the recommendations in 4: Recommendations: Partnering for parliamentary strengthening).

3. How can parliamentary monitoring organizations support parliamentary strengthening?

It is no secret that there is a trust deficit. PMOs are a sort of bridge: they can help us address the representation gap, collect evidence, support our research pursuits. Of course, parliament and its MPs can be apprehensive about the monitoring side of things. But they are open to engagement. In our case, it has been a constructive and valuable collaboration.
—Prosper Hoetu, Senior Research Officer and head of the Citizens’ Bureau, the Parliament of Ghana, 2024

PMOs are uniquely positioned to support parliaments in developing and deepening their efforts towards transparency, accountability and citizen engagement. They can offer technical expertise and, through a well-connected global community, they have access to experienced reformers and open-source tools. Most importantly, they can support parliaments in thinking through the core questions that underpin their efforts in these areas. The following sections will explore what this might look like in practice.

3.1. Transparency

Transparency is a cornerstone of open government and efforts to improve transparency are being taken by a growing number of legislative institutions. But while most parliamentary actors agree that citizens should have access to information, exactly what they should have access to is less clear. It also remains a source of contention between parliaments and civil society, including PMOs.

To an extent, this contention can be attributed to a muddled understanding of transparency. In an institutional context, transparency is often confused with communication (sharing with the public what parliament is doing) or e-government (digitizing parliamentary processes and services). Both of these are pertinent, but neither amount to transparency.

Communication, naturally, is a prerequisite for transparency: people need to find their way to the institution and be kept informed of its activities. Relatedly, e-government has fundamentally changed how many parliaments operate—and communicate. Today, it is relatively common for parliaments to employ e-signatures, to publish and archive parliamentary records on much-improved websites, or to livestream meetings.

These are important building blocks, but transparency goes considerably further. Transparency involves the timely release of records that, within reason, should be accessible to the public. Beyond making and storing such records appropriately, this involves publishing the raw data in machine-readable format, so that it is available for use by others. Publishing a PDF offers information; publishing the underlying data offers access.

Parliamentary committees: To open or not to open?

Jeremy Bentham’s early calls for ‘publicity’ to ‘constrain members of the assembly to perform their duty’ and ‘secure the confidence of the people, and their assent to the measures of the legislature’ (Bentham [1816] 1999) enjoy support in many quarters. Most parliaments offer public access to plenary hearings, and transcripts or summaries are made available either by default or on request. PMOs, as will already be clear, consider public access to parliamentary proceedings an absolute necessity. The evidence on the impact of such measures remains mixed (Neuman 2024).

While there is fairly strong consensus that parliaments’ plenary sessions should be held in public, a significant number hold fast to the principle that their committee work is better conducted behind closed doors. Germany and Sweden are among those that consider private deliberations more conducive to consensus-building and compromise, by removing incentives for the type of political posturing that is often present in plenary sessions. Closed committees can also allow for complex and sensitive issues to be discussed in a calm and collected manner, without pressure from private or public interest groups. This is particularly important in post-conflict states, where constructive collaboration between different political factions can be very difficult in a public setting—where political leaders feel obliged to play to their supporters, rather than seek the often messy compromises that are the only way out of conflict.

Last but not least, transparency involves clarity on the membership of the institution. To tackle and prevent nepotism, misuse of public funds and other forms of corruption, a transparent parliament: (a) is forthcoming about the political, financial and personal associations of its members; (b) provides full details on the benefits its members receive, from salaries to allowances and expenses; and (c) shares full details on who enters its premises and on what grounds.

In exploring what transparency measures to pursue, parliaments face difficult questions. Few MPs or parliamentary staff will support ‘absolute’ transparency, but many do recognize that they fall short of the expectations citizens hold today. PMOs can be valuable conversation partners, helping to frame potential options.

3.2 Accountability

Accountability is not possible without transparency, but greater transparency does not of itself guarantee greater accountability. The latter means a genuine commitment to agreed rules and regulations—and a willingness to be held to account for meeting, or failing to meet, those standards. The complex and often poorly understood nature of parliamentary work makes it difficult to translate those standards into meaningful measures of performance. Can we measure the effectiveness of an MP by counting how much time they spend in plenary or committee meetings? Do more parliamentary questions signal more commitment, more work, more contributions? How to account for the hours spent shaping and reviewing legislative proposals, brokering agreements, or dealing with constituents? And what to make of parliamentarians who spend their time studying substance rather than sharing on social media?

These questions underline the difficulty of monitoring parliamentary performance, both of the institution as a whole and of its individual members. They also explain why many parliamentarians do not welcome the largely quantitative score cards produced by PMOs and the media. Score card reviews tend to favour the visible over the less visible, missing out on more qualitative measures and analyses that would offer a nuanced view of the institution and its work.

Underlying these concerns are deeply held principles of institutional independence that seemingly run counter to the notion of ‘external’ accountability. The ability of a legislature to do its work without interference and without repercussions is a cornerstone of its effectiveness—anchored, in most cases, in (diverse) legal immunities known as parliamentary privilege. These are important principles, and they must be adhered to if parliaments are to remain free to play their law-making, oversight and representative roles (Venice Commission 2014).

A modern parliament, however, must acknowledge that independence from executive interference and accountability to citizens are not mutually exclusive—indeed, they are very often complementary. Institutional independence does not necessarily imply secret voting records, for example—and certainly not unchecked expenses. The simple injunction to act ‘in good faith’ has given way to new, better defined accountability standards: parliamentarians are asked to demonstrate that they do, in fact, work on behalf of the citizens they represent, and that parliamentary staff provide impartial and informed support.

Aligning independence and accountability requires a change in mindset. PMOs can support parliaments as they navigate possible means to strengthen their internal and external accountability. Engaging PMOs will also allow parliaments to identify why certain reform measures might be counterproductive or otherwise undesirable, and to explain this constructively to a wider audience; the feasible limits of accountability should, like all democratic decisions, be reached accountably.

3.3. Citizen engagement

A growing number of parliaments run citizen engagement and/or civic education initiatives. These efforts are typically geared towards making parliament better understood and involving citizens more closely and consistently in parliamentary processes. Tried and tested formats include school visits, youth parliaments, public petition systems and legislative tracking platforms.² Parliaments are investing significant time and resources in citizen engagement initiatives, in an effort to educate, inform and engage the public.

In Ireland and New Zealand, school curricula—complete with teacher guidance and testing materials—have been made available free of charge. Young people are invited to take a seat as members of Youth Parliaments, designed to spark interest and offer hands-on experience of what parliament is about.

Estonia’s Rahvaalgatus platform invites citizens to submit legislative proposals to parliament, half a dozen of which have made it into law. Similarly, Croatia’s crowd-law platform discloses high-quality information and empowers citizens to monitor and contribute to the drafting of legislative proposals.

While many of these initiatives are well received, they do not always have the intended impact. As parliaments continue to search for more effective ways to engage citizens in their work, important lessons can be learned from experiences to date. Broadly, these suggest that meaningful engagement of citizens by parliaments centres on three pillars: (a) education; (b) inclusion; and (c) accountability.

Education, first and foremost, is the basis for constructive engagement. As mentioned earlier, research shows that people with a better understanding of the role of parliaments are more likely to trust them. They are also more likely to invest their time in engaging with their members and staff, and to take an interest in their work.

In light of this, the importance of civic education cannot be understated—particularly (but not exclusively) in countries with a growing youth population. Concerted efforts to provide both informal and formal civic education should be at the heart of all parliamentary engagement initiatives. Critically, this should leverage the non-partisan expertise of teachers, youth workers and other educators concerning why and how young people learn and develop.

Closely connected to this is inclusion: the commitment to engage with all voices, not just those that are most educated, loudest or physically closest to capital cities. Many opportunities offered by parliaments—public hearings, petitions, consultations—remain opaque to citizens who lack the financial means or literacy skills to use them. Digital technologies have made it easier to connect with citizens across geographies and languages, but targeted outreach continues to lag behind targeted disinformation.

To truly strengthen citizen engagement, parliaments must carefully balance their resources. Is a state-of-the-art crowd-law platform a better investment than regular in-person consultations? Is livestreaming of committee hearings more valuable than training journalists on parliamentary procedure? Would a new visitor centre reach more young people than school-based initiatives? None of these questions are likely to have easy answers, and different circumstances will call for different solutions.

This is where accountability comes in. Engagement, unlike communication, is a two-way street. Citizen engagement opportunities might start with a call for consultation, but they must end with feedback on the outcome of that process. Where inputs are invited, the convenors owe a specific, measurable and time-bound response. This does not mean that every interaction should land on staff who are already overburdened, or necessarily on MPs—who cannot possibly respond to each and every request in person. It does mean, however, that every engagement opportunity offered should have a built-in feedback mechanism to ensure that inputs do not go unseen or unanswered.

Lastly, it is important to recognize that citizen engagement builds on transparency and accountability; it does not replace it. Efforts to engage the public on individual pieces of legislation while leaving MPs’ or parties’ financial dealings shrouded in secrecy will do little to strengthen parliaments’ reputation or impact. The same is true of opening the doors to the public once a year or, as mentioned, leaving citizens’ inputs unanswered.

Meaningful citizen engagement requires a willingness to listen, and to take into account what has been said. PMOs can support parliaments as they explore new and improved ways to do this.

4. Recommendations: Partnering for parliamentary strengthening

The agenda is a shared one. In some ways, it has been built by consensus: we all push for the same issues. In one country a PMO might focus some more on the accountability for members, and in another on legislative tracking. But all in all, this is it. We want transparent, accountable and responsive parliaments. No more and no less.
—Maria Baron, Global Executive Director, Directorio Legislativo, 2020

The previous sections have illustrated how the experience and expertise of PMOs can support parliaments in their drive for transparency, accountability and citizen engagement. It must be recognized, however, that parliaments face practical and political barriers to partnerships with PMOs. Moreover, resources—both financial and human—are limited.

Even where resources are available, and where a political commitment exists to strengthen transparency, accountability and inclusion, parliaments might be reluctant to work with organizations that have been critical of them in the past.

In exploring a potential partnership, the following questions can guide reflections on what is feasible and desirable:

• What are the values and objectives of the PMO? Are they complementary to yours? Do you see opportunities to identify shared goals?
• Is this PMO in a position to offer expertise, resources or access that parliament would benefit from?
• Is this PMO transparent about its own methods? What do you know about its track record and/or its previous dealings with parliament?
• How does the PMO fund its work? Does it have financial ties to other organizations, or can it function independently?
• What, if anything, do you risk by sitting down for a conversation?

With these questions in mind, parliaments can set out to explore what might be possible. To inform those discussions and strengthen connections between all concerned stakeholders, the recommendations offered here draw on input from parliaments, PMOs and Inter Pares partners.

1. Open data standards. PMOs are well placed to support parliaments in adopting open data standards that will streamline their internal functioning and facilitate their engagement with citizens. Many parliaments still fail to publish information in user-friendly formats and continue to invest time and resources in information materials that cannot be readily used by third parties or on mobile devices. PMOs can offer technical expertise or connect parliaments to experts in those areas.
2. Staff training. Parliaments can invest in staff training on transparency (including freedom of information requests), accountability standards and citizen engagement, to better equip the administration as a whole on these issues. This will allow relevant requests to be dealt with more efficiently, enabling parliament to streamline who deals with these issues and how—so that the administration can act more promptly and decisively where appropriate.
3. Access to information. Access to information or freedom of information laws govern how citizens can access information held by government. These laws are important: the right to request and access information affords citizens protections—and enables the work of journalists, PMOs and civil society more broadly. The strength and implementation of these laws vary widely, and many countries still lack legislation in this area.³ Parliaments can invite PMOs to discuss how existing access to information legislation or its implementation falls short.
4. Civic space. Civic space exists where governments uphold basic freedoms of expression, assembly and association. In recent years, civic space has come under increasing attack: research by Civicus (n.d.) suggests that less than four per cent of the world’s population enjoys open civic space. This makes it much more difficult—and, in a growing number of countries, dangerous—for civil society to function. A natural point of departure for parliaments is the protection and promotion of these basic freedoms through their legislative and oversight powers. Beyond that, by engaging with PMOs and wider civil society, parliament recognizes basic rights and the role of civic space in a functioning democracy.
5. Research. An evidence-based understanding of how parliament is perceived by the people it represents is necessary when shaping strategies for better inclusion and representation of vulnerable groups. How best to work with CSOs, including PMOs, should be part of that; building research capacity, and investigating how to include civil society, women and youth in parliamentary processes, are of vital importance. PMOs can help identify the strategic questions and support parliament in reaching a wider and more diverse audience.
6. Financial sustainability. Sustainable funding is one of the key challenges for PMOs today. While parliaments cannot and should not fund the work of their watchdogs, they can help create an enabling environment for PMOs to seek and obtain funding. Constructively collaborating with PMOs signals the legitimacy of their work to potential partners and donors, both public and private. Finally, implementing open data standards and inviting PMOs to take part in parliamentary engagement initiatives will allow PMOs to focus on the quality of their oversight, without being bogged down in data collection.
7. Dialogue. Moving from communication to dialogue is a challenge for most political institutions, and parliaments are no exception. Some PMOs have developed innovative and effective ways to inform, engage and connect with citizens. They can act as a sounding board for parliaments looking to develop new initiatives or test new channels, and they can facilitate access to established networks and platforms. They can also, should parliament be open to it, offer mediation or facilitation services.
8. Innovation. It is difficult for parliaments to innovate when they are not aware of successful practices elsewhere. PMOs are at the frontline of parliamentary and democratic innovations more broadly; they can highlight strong practices that allow for maximum internal and external oversight, for example. PMOs have knowledge of the latest trends and technologies allowing parliaments to move forward—whether on asset declarations, regulation of lobbying, social dialogue or inclusion.

References

Bauer, P. C. and Morisi, D., ‘Has trust in the European Parliament polarized?’, Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 9 (2023), pp. 1–8, <https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231231175430>

Bentham, J., Political Tactics: The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, M. James, C. Blamires and C. Pease-Watkin (eds) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1816] 1999)

Bovend’Eert, P., ‘Public office and public trust: Standards of conduct in parliament: A comparative analysis of rules of conduct in three parliaments’, Parliamentary Affairs, 73/2 (2020), pp. 296–322, <https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsy048>

Civicus, Monitor Tracking Civic Space, ‘In numbers. Global summary: Civic space dynamics’, [n.d.], <https://monitor.civicus.org/globalfindings_2024/innumbers>, accessed 30 September 2025

Convery, A., Haines, P., Mitchell, J. and Parker, D. C. W., ‘Questioning scrutiny: The effect of Prime Minister’s Questions on citizen efficacy and trust in parliament’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 27/2 (2021), pp. 207–26, <https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2020.1850010>

Cruz, J. N., ‘A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis of how corruption, education, inequality and trust in parliament affect voter-turnout’, Crime, Law and Social Change, 80/5 (2023), pp. 547–67, <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-023-10102-0>

Foa, R. S. and Mounk, Y., ‘The danger of deconsolidation: The democratic disconnect’, Journal of Democracy, 27/3 (2016), pp. 5–17, <https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-danger-of-deconsolidation-the-democratic-disconnect/>, accessed 17 September 2025

Holmberg, S., Lindberg, S. and Svensson, R., ‘Trust in parliament’, Journal of Public Affairs, 17/1–2 (2017), pp. 1–9, <https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1647>

International IDEA, Guides on Citizen Engagement for Parliaments, [n.d.], International IDEA, WYDE, Inter Pares, International Parliament Engagement Network and the University of Leeds, <https://www.inter-pares.eu/en/publications/guides-on-citizen-engagement-for-parliaments>, accessed 30 September 2025

Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Global Parliamentary Report 2022. Public Engagement in the Work of Parliament (Geneva, New York and Vienna: IPU, 2022), <https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/reports/2022-03/global-parliamentary-report-2022>, accessed 17 September 2025

Krahi, J., Hasson, V., Kim, D.-Y. and Sample, K., ‘Parliamentary Monitoring in Tough Times: Lessons Learned for Building Networks and Achieving Results’, National Democratic Institute and Directorio Legislativo, April 2024, <https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/Final%20Parliamentary%20Monitoring%20in%20Tough%20Times%20VF_0.pdf>, accessed 17 September 2025

Neuman, L., ‘Parliamentary Transparency. Does It Improve Behavior, Trust, and Policy?’, Open Government Partnership, October 2024, <https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/parliamentary-transparency-skeptics-guide>, accessed 17 September 2025

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), ‘Trust in public institutions’, in Government at a Glance 2021 (Paris: OECD, 2021), pp. 206–07, <https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en>

—, ‘Trust in public institutions’, in Government at a Glance 2025 (Paris: OECD, 2025), pp. 44–45, <https://doi.org/10.1787/0efd0bcd-en>

Venice Commission (European Commission for Democracy through Law), ‘Report on the Scope and Lifting of Parliamentary Immunities’, CDL-AD(2014)011, Study No. 714/2013, 14 May 2014, <https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2014)011-e>, accessed 17 September 2025

Walker, A., ‘Trust, parliaments, and stability’, UK Political Studies Association, 20 March 2019, <https://psaparliaments.org/2019/03/20/trust-parliaments>, accessed 17 September 2025

Wike, R., Silver, L. and Castillo, A., ‘Many Across the Globe are Dissatisfied with How Democracy is Working’, Pew Research Center, 29 April 2019, <https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/04/Pew-Research-Center_Global-Views-of-Democracy-Report_2019-04-29_Updated-2019-04-30.pdf>, accessed 17 September 2025

Interviews and online public consultations

Baron, M., Global Executive Director, Directorio Legislativo, author’s interview, 2020, 2024

Dignam, D., Former Head of Communications, Houses of the Oireachtas, author’s interview, 2020

Guckes, J., Parliamentary Support Programmes Coordinator, Division WI4—International Exchange Programmes, German Bundestag, author’s interview, 2020

Hoetu, P., Senior Research Officer and head of the Citizens’ Bureau, the Parliament of Ghana, 2024

Loukopoulos, S., Vouliwatch, author’s interview, 2020, 2024

Musila, J., former Executive Director, Mzalendo Trust, author’s interview, 2020

Obeng, S., Parliamentary Network Africa, author’s interview, 2024

Acknowledgements

The ideas and practices presented in this paper stem from ongoing conversations between Inter Pares partners to date, including a PMO workshop in January 2020, an online public consultation in October 2024 and various exchanges in the context of peer-to-peer partnerships. It is hoped this paper can be a useful resource in fostering further collaboration between parliaments and PMOs as they seek to strengthen their democracies.

The author is very grateful to all those who contributed with their knowledge and expertise, including: Maria Baron, Directorio Legislativo; Derek Dignam, Former Head of Communications, Houses of the Oireachtas; Jochen Guckes, The German Bundestag; Prosper Hoetu, Parliament of Ghana; Stefanos Loukopoulos, Vouliwatch; Jessica Musila, former Executive Director, Mzalendo Trust; Sammy Obeng, Parliamentary Network Africa, as well as inputs from the Open Government Partnership Support Unit.

Abbreviations

About the author

Lotte Geunis is a parliamentary advisor with over 15 years’ experience in parliamentary strengthening. Since 2019, she has been a senior advisor with Inter Pares, where she developed a global e-learning programme and has guided work streams on open parliaments and youth participation. She previously worked at the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank and the Open Government Partnership. In 2025, Lotte obtained her PhD in Governance (youth participation) from Maastricht University. She holds an MPhil from the University of Oxford, an MA from the KU Leuven and a BA from the University of Warwick.

About INTER PARES

Inter Pares | Parliaments in Partnership, implemented by International IDEA, is the European Union’s global initiative aiming to foster representative and inclusive democracy worldwide through strengthening global parliamentary development and inter-parliamentary cooperation. Inter Pares collaborates with parliaments across various regions to promote the effectiveness, accountability and transparency of their activities and to support the strengthening of legislative, oversight, representative, budgetary and administrative capacities. Inter Pares’ partnerships respond to the parliaments’ development priorities and are based on peer-to-peer support and mutual learning between the national parliaments of partner countries and the EU Member States.

As part of enhancing parliaments’ capacities to meet critical global challenges, Inter Pares supports parliaments’ meaningful engagement with citizens and civil society organizations contributing to responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision making.