AFGHANISTAN:
"It will take time to change attitudes before a democratic National Assembly is here to stay without international support"

Sir Michael Davies, an IPU expert, has recently come back from Afghanistan. He explains why it is important to continue to support the institutions in this country.

INTERVIEW

Q: You have recently returned from two short stints in Afghanistan working for a project to Support the Establishment of the Afghan Legislature (SEAL), sponsored by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the IPU. Can you explain what you actually did?
Sir Michael Davies: My role was to advise on ways in which the legislature might seek to improve its capacity to pass legislation, of which there is a huge backlog built up since the formation of the Afghan Government in 2005, but I have also given advice on other matters of parliamentary procedure and have assisted in the training of staff.

Q: What, in your view, are the major challenges facing the fledgling Afghan Parliament?
M.D.: The present legislature is something new in Afghanistan. There have been thirty years of conflict since the last form of representative government was abolished in 1973. This means that neither members nor staff of the two Houses have any parliamentary experience and are having to learn their respective roles while actually carrying out their duties. It will undoubtedly take time for them to acquire the necessary skills. I believe that there is an eagerness to perform more effectively but the National Assembly currently lacks the infrastructure that those who work in European and other western parliaments take for granted. The accommodation is fragmented and rooms for Committee meetings are inadequate. I attended a Committee meeting where there was absolutely no room to squeeze in another chair and the arrangements were bordering on the chaotic.

Q: Do you think the current political context is conducive to an effective parliament?
M.D.: The electoral system in Afghanistan does not encourage the formation of political parties and this is a major problem in getting the two Houses to act constructively since there are always numerous different opinions on any one issue - almost as many opinions as members. This means that the government is largely spared the need to account for its policies because there is no structured and sustained opposition. Effective oversight is not possible in a fragmented parliamentary environment.

Q: Are the plenary sessions and Committees effective in achieving constructive oversight?
M.D.: Those who preside over the plenaries and the committees have the often unenviable task of trying to ensure that discussion sticks to the point and that constant repetition is avoided. Chairmanship is not easy but it is an essential element in an effective parliament. Capacity building in the art of chairmanship would, I am sure, be a worthwhile project. The major problem at present is the lack of procedural discipline in the Chambers, particularly in the Lower House, the Wolesi Jirga. Too often the business before the Wolesi is disrupted by members raising issues of local interest or some perceived insult to the National Assembly. It is almost certain that these interruptions will diminish as members become more used to the requirements of parliamentary life and realize that they will achieve more if they keep their energies for conducting oversightof the Executive. But this will take time. However, although the male members of the two Houses would probably not agree, the presence of a significant number of women parliamentarians is proving a constructive element.

Q: What are the working relations between the MPs and the parliamentary staff?
M.D.: One concern I have had on my short visits to Afghanistan is that the staff of the two Houses are not respected as professional parliamentary advisers and helpers as they are in countries with thriving democracies. I tried to encourage the committee staff in particular to show their capabilities but many of them are concerned about their job security if they push themselves forward as advisers. There is a cultural explanation for this; nevertheless, it diminishes the role of the staff. A strong and professional staff cadre can have a very positive impact in the oversight functions of a parliament. I hope that Afghan parliamentarians will gradually come to rely more on the staff than they do now.

Q: How is the international community's support perceived by the Afghan legislators?
M.D.: Inevitably, there are tensions about the involvement of the international community in the affairs of the legislature. Capacity building and assistance in all sorts of fields is welcomed by the majority of members but in the case of legislation, there is a perception that not sufficient regard is paid to Afghan culture and practices. There is certainly a need to approach these issues with sensitivity.

Q: Despite the daunting challenges you have just described, is there any chance the Afghan Parliament will emerge as a key player in the democracy field?
M.D.: I believe that the National Assembly will continue to require support, principally financial support, but also advisory support, for a substantial number of years yet. Afghanistan is unused to a representative system of government and it will take time to change attitudes before it can be confidently asserted that a democratic National Assembly is here to stay without international support.