The President of the Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
has just been elected to the European Parliament.
Mr Martínez tendered his resignation to the Spanish Chamber
of Deputies on 15 July 1999, at which point his national
parliamentary mandate came to an end.
As stipulated in Article 20.4 of the Statutes of the Inter-Parliamentary
Union, the function of President will be exercised from 15 July
1999 by the Vice-President of the Executive Committee, Mrs Najma
Akbarali Heptulla, Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha of India,
until such time as the Council has elected a new President.
As regards the election of a new President, Article 20.3 of the
Statutes states that "The election shall take place during
the second Conference of the year". In accordance with
past practice and following consultations with the President of
the council and Executive Committee members, the Executive Committee
has decided to include an item entitled "Election of a
President of the Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union"
(with a mandate of three years) in the provisional agenda of the
second sitting of the 165th session of the Council to be held
on Saturday 16 October in Berlin.
Q: You are familiar with all of the ins and outs of the
Inter-Parliamentary Union. How do you assess these years spent
in the IPU?
Miguel Angel Martínez: There is always a dialectical
relationship between men and the moment they are elected. I was
elected because the time was ripe for mobilising to make the Inter-Parliamentary
Union a more political body, an important instrument in the process
of democratisation and globalisation which the world is experiencing,
an institution that co-ordinates the activities of the world's
parliaments for a balanced, democratic world order where peace
is safeguarded. Now that the world order based on bloc confrontation
has disappeared, democracy has become a necessity everywhere and
for all. Yet democracy has no meaning unless it also applies
to international relations. Accordingly, parliaments are called
to play a role on the international political scene and to act
effectively and in concert. We have defined what parliamentary
diplomacy is and how to make it effective, and now we have to
work this out in practice.
Q: Will it be easy for parliamentary diplomacy to carve out
a place for itself on the international scene?
MAM: Certainly. What we have been hearing over the
past two years are calls for more resolute action by parliaments
on the international scene. The strategy to achieve this aim
is to convince all the presiding officers of the world's parliaments
to see to it that such action is more visible and more effective.
For example, we could organise conferences for Speakers of Parliaments
on a yearly or two-yearly basis. We have been able to explain
to people and the main international actors that the role we are
claiming for parliaments should not be understood as a wrestling
match for sharing power, but rather viewed in the context of concrete
action to promote democracy. This action is not taken against
any given institution - we must conduct it with governments and
with international civil servants. We have already managed to
secure acceptance for this idea. Now, what we have to do is move
ahead and give concrete substance to this plan, which is aimed
at ensuring that all recognise the Inter-Parliamentary Union as
the body representing Parliaments, particularly in relation to
the UN. To be effective, the UN must make provision, within the
framework of its reform, for the parliamentary dimension it lacks,
for the argument that inter-State bodies are automatically intergovernmental
bodies is no longer valid.
Q: What is your answer to those who feel that the "UN
machine" is already sufficiently bureaucratic and cumbersome
and that adding a dimension would only compound its lack of effectiveness?
MAM: The question of a parliamentary dimension that
could make the UN more democratic is unavoidable. The fact that
this new dimension will make things a bit more complex should
not stop us. At present, given the context of globalisation,
if we cannot manage to extend democracy beyond national borders,
it is the very principle of universal democracy that will be called
into question. Accordingly, our vision of the needs of the day
must be as simple as possible.
Q: The Inter-Parliamentary Union has of late given the impression
of "sticking" closer to reality, of being more in tune
with the concerns of citizens, men and women alike. It is also
interesting to note that women MPs are making more and more concrete
proposals to ensure that the IPU is more present "in the
field", as was the case for example with the crisis in the
former Yugoslavia...
MAM: You have just touched on several problems. I
have fought hard to ensure better representation of women in political
life at the institutional level and within the IPU. I must confess
that my feelings in this respect are somewhat bitter-sweet. Admittedly,
we have moved forward, because several measures have been taken:
for example, the Meeting of Women Parliamentarians has become
an official IPU body, and the President of the Co-ordinating Committee
of Women Parliamentarians is henceforth an ex officio member
of the Executive Committee. However, I have the feeling that
I miscalculated, because we have moved ahead much more slowly
than I would have wanted, due to the tremendous resistance put
up by men. On the other hand, I am not disappointed as far as
women's input to the IPU and their involvement in that body is
concerned. This merely strengthens my conviction as to the democratic
vocation of the IPU and the creativity, courage and nuances that
women MPs can contribute to it. We must continue to fight for
parity representation of women in parliamentary institutional
life and in IPU bodies. As far as "sticking" closer
to reality is concerned, I believe that parliamentarians who do
a proper job of representing those who have elected them are temporary
staff who take over from each other and who are held accountable
every four years. To be elected and re-elected, they must be
close to the people. Due to the privilege and obligation to act
as IPU member parliamentarians, we are moved by not only what
we read in the press or what we see but also by messages from
colleagues who, on behalf of the people who have elected them,
urge us to act.
Q: What is the major challenge that the IPU will have to take
up?
MAM: Not being obsessed by the media. Granted, we must act
and publicise our action, and the media are essential in this
respect, but it is not essential to act according to the media.
Due to our limited means, there is insufficient awareness of
the IPU's activities. Efforts are being made in this respect,
but they must be made on the basis of a clear definition of priorities
and approaches. I would also like to stress that in the IPU,
as in the parliamentary world in general, we must cope with a
fundamental problem: the severely limited means of parliaments
and democracy. As I take stock, it fills me with indignation
to see the scant means made available to the Inter-Parliamentary
Union and international parliamentary action as compared with
how easy it is to obtain funding in other fields. We must denounce
this problem, which can be compared to resistance to democracy
in some of our countries.
The President of the 
