Administrative Review and Oversight by maqboolshahin

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 5

									Administrative Review and Oversight: The Experiences of Post-Communist Legislatures

David M. Olson

Co-Chair, Research Committee of Legislative Specialists International Political Science Association Professor Emeritus of Political Science Co-Director, Parliamentary Documents Center for Central Europe University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA dmolson@uncg.edu fax 1 336 334 4315

Paper presented to panel “Legislative Oversight: Theories and Practices,” at Southern Political Science Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, January 7-10, 2004.

1

Administrative Review and Oversight: The Experiences of Post-Communist Legislatures David M. Olson

The parliaments of post-communist democracies have concentrated much more upon political and economic reform policy questions than upon review of the implementation of those new policies in the first decade since the collapse of communism. With new rules, a system of permanent committees, and external audit agencies, post-communist parliaments in the second decade will have increasing capacity to be active in oversight as a result of both the budgeting process and growing international influences upon policy choices. The Polish Sejm is currently the most active post-communist parliament in oversight and administrative review.

Review of administrative activity has not been a priority of the newly energized post-communist parliaments. In the first decade since the collapse of communism, the parliaments have been preoccupied with other tasks. The parliaments of new democracies have concentrated upon the architecture of the new democratic political system. Many constitutional questions required attention, and both government and parliament have been overwhelmed with the policy requirements of a new economy as well as a new political system. The new democratic parliaments have had a concurrent major task to organize themselves. The communist inheritance was their starting point: neither structures nor rules of procedure were adequate to consider serious policy questions in a multi-party environment. They have had to create a functioning committee system, define and regularize the formation of parliamentary party groups, and to devise and agree upon new rules of procedure (Agh 1998; Olson and Norton 1996; Olson 1997). The Polish Sejm is the only one of the post-communist parliaments to devote time and effort to administrative review and oversight. Its committees utilize a distinctive “desiderata” system to examine and instruct ministers and administrative agency heads. This extensive procedure is

2

not, however, a new invention: both the committee system and the oversight procedure were developed during the last thirty years of communist rule. The post-communist parliament has, in this case, been able to directly build upon its communist era inheritance (Simon and Olson 1980; Karpowicz and Wesolowski 2002). This legislative innovation was part of a much broader process of distinctive Polish thought and action under communism. At least some of the post-communist parliaments (Czech Republic, Hungary) are now paying more attention than previously to budgeting and to economic policy linked to the state budget. Typically, the proposed state budget in its several parts is referred to legislative committees though the Finance Committee, to which the other committees report recommendations. But typically, according to interviews, each committee asks for increases in its portion of the budget, most of which the Finance Committee denies. As committees develop experience and gain a support staff, interest in administrative review and oversight might develop in post-communist parliaments in the second decade as a direct result of the budget process. There is a notable, by contrast with west European parliaments, absence of attention to district and constituency in the newly democratized post-communist parliaments. But there is also a concern that occupationally homogenous committees (e.g., teachers on the education committee) are a source of “inside” or hidden lobbying (Agh 1998; Karpowicz and Wesolowski 2002). Either circumstance is a potential motive for oversight. At least some post-communist parliaments are supported in their oversight function by external investigative and audit agencies, of which the Polish Supreme Chamber of Control is an example. A portion of the Sejm’s “desiderata” activities is related to reports and investigations by their support agency. International requirements impose a heavy burden upon fledging state structures, including the legislatures, of post-communist states. To obtain financial support from international lending bodies, and especially to meet the requirements of membership in NATO and the EU, both government and legislature have rushed to adopt new law.

3

Over time, we might expect legislatures to ask how things are working, for them. Currently, legislatures and governments cooperate closely in working toward NATO and EU membership. But over time, increased legislative oversight on such matters could very well become the expression, among other views, of grievances toward and reactions against such international influences upon national level policy.

4

References Agh, Attila. 1998. “Changing Parliamentary Committees in Changing East-Central Europe: Parliamentary Committees as Central Sites of Policy-Making,” Journal of Legislative Studies 4:1 Spring 85-100. Blondel, Jean. 1973. Comparative Legislatures. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood

Karpowicz, Ewa and Wlodzimierz Wesolowski. 2002. “Committees of the Polish Sejm in Two Political Systems,” in Committees in Post-Communist Democratic Parliaments: Comparative Institutionalizaton. Ed. David M. Olson and William E. Crowther. Columbus OH: Ohio State University Press. Olson, David M. 1997. “Paradoxes of Institutional Development: The New Democratic Parliaments of Central Europe,” International Political Science Review 18:4, 40116. Olson, David M. and Philip Norton, eds. 1996. The New Parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe. London: Cass. Simon, Maurice D. and David M. Olson. 1980. “Evolution of a Minimal Parliament: Membership and Committee Changes in the Polish Sejm,” Legislative Studies Quarterly, V 2 May, 211-32.

5


								
To top