Print
See related documents
A. Draft resolution
(open)
Report | Doc. 15740 | 06 April 2023
Assessing the functioning of the partnership for democracy
Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy
Summary
The report takes stock of the functioning of the partner for democracy status introduced in 2010 and presents an overview of the Parliamentary Assembly’s relations with its four partners: the Parliaments of Morocco, Kyrgyzstan and Jordan, as well as the Palestinian National Council.
The report concludes that, overall, the partnership has reached its statutory goal of establishing a structured co-operation with parliaments of neighbouring countries willing to perform a rapprochement with the Assembly on the basis of shared values. It has offered to partner parliamentarians an opportunity to participate, on an institutionalised basis, in the European political debate.
However, the rapporteur points out that the partners have shown a varying degree of commitment to the goals of partnership, both in terms of implementing reforms in their countries and of using the opportunities to work in the Assembly and its committees. There is a demand, on the part of some partners, to have more possibilities to contribute to this work.
Accordingly, the draft resolution suggests, on the one hand, providing more participation rights to all partner delegations, and on the other hand, to grant additional rights to those delegations which have shown outstanding results in achieving the goals of partnership and participate fully in the work of the Assembly and its committees.
A. Draft resolution 
(open)1. In June 2009, the Parliamentary
Assembly adopted Resolution
1680 (2009) “Establishment of a ‘partner for democracy’
status with the Parliamentary Assembly”, in which it reaffirmed
its strong commitment to developing co-operation with neighbouring
regions as a means of consolidating democratic transformations and
promoting stability, good governance, respect for human rights and
the rule of law. The new status was introduced in the Rules of Procedure
of the Assembly by Resolution
1698 (2009) in November 2009 as a new Rule 60 (now Rule
64) and entered into force from January 2010.
2. The Assembly recalls that granting of partner for democracy
status is conditional on a political commitment, on the part of
the candidate parliament, to embrace the values of the Council of
Europe, which are pluralist and gender parity-based democracy, the
rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It constitutes a recognition by the Assembly of democratic aspirations
of parliaments requesting or enjoying it. The partnership is a dynamic
tool aimed at promoting parliamentary democracy, facilitating democratic
transformations in partner countries and assisting partner parliaments
in strengthening democratic institutions, good governance and the
rule of law.
3. The Assembly further recalls Resolution 1818 (2011) “Request
for partner for democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly
submitted by the Parliament of Morocco” whereby it stated that progress
in taking forward reforms is the prime aim of the partnership for
democracy and should constitute the benchmark for assessing its
efficiency.
4. The Parliaments of Morocco, Kyrgyzstan and Jordan, as well
as the Palestinian National Council, have obtained partner for democracy
status. The Assembly has considered specific reports on the evaluation
of the partnership for democracy in respect of these parliaments
and has reviewed progress made in achieving the aims of the partnership.
5. The Assembly believes that, overall, the partnership has reached
its statutory goal of establishing a structured and values-based
co-operation with parliaments of neighbouring countries willing
to perform a rapprochement with
the Assembly on the basis of shared values. It has contributed,
though to varying degrees, to the strengthening of the role of parliaments
in consolidating democratic transformations and promoting stability,
good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law. It
has offered to partner parliamentarians an opportunity to participate,
on an institutionalised basis, in the European political debate.
6. Based on this experience, the Assembly deems it appropriate
to consider ways for improving the functioning of the partnership
with a view to making it more meaningful and effective for both
the Assembly and the partners.
7. The Assembly resolves that the following rights shall be granted
to partner for democracy delegations in addition to those foreseen
by Rule 64:
7.1. the chairpersons
of partner for democracy delegations shall have the right to participate
in the meetings of the Standing Committee;
7.2. members of partner for democracy delegations shall have
the right to put spontaneous oral questions to guest speakers in
plenary sittings of the Assembly and in the Standing Committee;
7.3. partner for democracy delegations shall have the right
to designate their members to work in Assembly committees and sub-committees
(including ad hoc sub-committees)
open to them. The names of such designated members would appear
on the lists of committees and sub-committees under reference “partners
for democracy” and would be in addition to the number of committee
members designated by the delegations of member States in accordance
with Rule 44.1;
7.4. members of partner for democracy delegations shall have
the right to be appointed as full members in various networks set
up in the Assembly.
8. The Assembly further resolves that some additional rights
may be granted to partner for democracy delegations which have shown
outstanding results in achieving the goals of partnership and participate
fully in the work of the Assembly and its committees. Such additional
rights may include:
8.1. the right
to table motions for recommendation and resolution, subject to co-signature
of a member of the Assembly, with both names appearing as authors
of the motion;
8.2. the right to table amendments, subject to co-signature
of a member of the Assembly, with both names appearing as movers
of the amendment;
8.3. the right to request current affairs debates and to be
chosen to open such debates. If such a request is made by an individual
member of a partner for democracy delegation, this right should
be subject to co-signature of a member of the Assembly, with both
names appearing as authors of the request and collecting support
from 19 more members. In case of a request made by a partner for democracy
delegation, it should be supported by a political group, a national
delegation or a committee as provided by Rule 53.2;
8.4. the right to table written declarations, subject to co-signature
of a member of the Assembly, with both names appearing as authors
of the written declaration;
8.5. the right to be appointed as rapporteurs for information
reports which do not contain a draft resolution and/or recommendation.
9. The additional rights referred to in paragraph 8 above may
be granted by decision of the Bureau, ratified by the Assembly,
at the beginning of a new session (in January). The decision shall
be based on a proposal from the Committee on Political Affairs and
Democracy. Extended rights shall be granted for the duration of
the session (one year) with possibility to extend or not to extend
them in view of the results.
10. The Assembly encourages its committees open to the participation
of partners for democracy to:
10.1. consider
organising more meetings and other activities in co-operation with
the partner delegations, including in their countries. Members of
partner delegations should be associated more closely to the preparation
of various events and be given prominent roles in the programmes
of such events;
10.2. increase the visibility of the input of partners to the
work of the committees, for example by indicating on their agendas
whenever an item is put on it following a proposal from a partner
delegation;
10.3. show more creativity and flexibility in order to facilitate
and highlight the positive contribution of partners to their activities.
11. The Assembly encourages the partner delegations to make their
participation in the work of the Assembly better known in their
parliaments, for example by presenting regular reports on the activities, priorities
and key decisions of the Assembly.
12. The Assembly encourages its presidents to consider holding
regular meetings with the Speakers of partner parliaments in order
to overview the functioning of the partnership, make it more visible
and provide political impetus to it.
13. The Assembly will continue to offer various training activities
for members and the staff of partner parliaments on issues defined
by common agreement.
14. The Assembly recalls that, in accordance with Resolution 1680 (2009),
the national parliaments of all southern Mediterranean and Middle
Eastern countries participating in the Union for the Mediterranean-Barcelona
Process, and of central Asian countries participating in the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe, should be eligible to request
partner for democracy status. Furthermore, requests from parliaments
of other States may also be considered if the Bureau of the Assembly
so decides.
15. The Assembly asks its relevant committee to prepare amendments
to its Rules of Procedure in accordance with the present resolution.
B. Explanatory memorandum by Ms Ria Oomen-Ruijten, rapporteur
(open)1. Introduction
1. In June 2009, the Parliamentary
Assembly adopted Resolution
1680 (2009) “Establishment of a “partner for democracy”
status with the Parliamentary Assembly”, in which it reaffirmed
its strong commitment to developing co-operation with neighbouring
regions as a means of consolidating democratic transformations and
promoting stability, good governance, respect for human rights and
the rule of law. The new status was introduced in the Rules of Procedure
of the Assembly by Resolution
1698 (2009) in November 2009 as a new Rule 60 (now Rule
64) and entered into force from January 2010.
2. The Parliaments of Morocco, Kyrgyzstan and Jordan, as well
as the Palestinian National Council, have obtained partner for democracy
status. Parliamentarians from these delegations regularly take part
in the work of the Assembly and its committees, thus availing themselves
of the opportunity to benefit from the Assembly’s experience in
democracy building and to contribute to the political debate on
common challenges which transcend European boundaries.
3. In June 2019, ten years after the introduction of the partner
for democracy status, the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy
tabled a motion for a resolution “Assessing the functioning of the
partnership for democracy” . The motion calls for
considering ways of improving the functioning of the partnership
with a view to making it more meaningful and effective both for
the Assembly and the partners.
. The motion calls for
considering ways of improving the functioning of the partnership
with a view to making it more meaningful and effective both for
the Assembly and the partners.4. The tabling of the motion followed an exchange of views in
the committee on the item “Partner for Democracy Status 2009-2019:
Stock-taking and the way forward” (June 2019) to which the delegations
of Morocco, Jordan and Palestine made written contributions.
5. On 14 November 2019, the committee appointed me as rapporteur.
Due to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in the beginning of
2020, my work was considerably complicated by the absence of direct
contacts with our partners. Nevertheless, the committee organised
in December 2020 a remote hearing on the Council of Europe Neighbourhood
Policy with the participation of late Ambassador Rémi Mortier, Permanent Representative
of Monaco, Chairperson of the Rapporteur Group on External Relations
of the Committee of Ministers, and representatives of partner for
democracy delegations of Morocco and Palestine.
6. On 25 October 2022, I carried out a fact-finding visit to
Rabat, and had a chance to discuss the experience and expectations
of Moroccan counterparts with regard to the partnership. I take
this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Moroccan delegation
for organising my visit at very short notice.
7. The Assembly has considered specific reports on the evaluation
of the partnership for democracy in respect of the parliaments enjoying
this status and has reviewed progress made in achieving the statutory goals
of the partnership. The purpose of this report is not to perform
another country-by-country evaluation, but to review and assess
the functioning of the partnership as such, including to what extent
the purposes of the partnership have been attained, and put forward
proposals for its improvement.
2. Partnership for democracy: aims and conditions
8. As mentioned above, partner
for democracy status was introduced by Assembly Resolution 1680
(2009) with a view to establishing institutional co-operation with
parliaments of non-member States in neighbouring regions wishing
to benefit from the Assembly’s experience in democracy building
and to participate in the political debate on common challenges
which transcend European boundaries.
9. The Assembly thus reaffirmed its strong commitment to developing
co-operation with neighbouring regions as a means of consolidating
democratic transformations and promoting stability, good governance, respect
for human rights and the rule of law, as expressed, inter alia, in its Recommendation 1724 (2005) “The Council
of Europe and the European Neighbourhood Policy of the European
Union”, Resolution 1506
(2006) “External relations of the Council of Europe”, Resolution 1598 (2008) “Strengthening
co-operation with the Maghreb countries”, and Resolution 1599 (2008) “The situation
in the republics of central Asia”.
10. The status entered into force in January 2010. Rule 64 of
the Rules of the Procedure sets out the conditions and the procedure
for granting the status, as well as the rights of members of delegations
enjoying the status to participate in the work of the Assembly and
its committees (see more detail in paragraph 50 below).
11. The partner for democracy status has two particular features
that differentiate it from other forms of co-operation with parliaments
of non-member States.
12. First, its granting is conditional on a political commitment,
on the part of the candidate parliament, “to embrace the values
of the Council of Europe, which are pluralist and gender parity-based
democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms”. The political commitments,
which parliaments applying for the status must subscribe to, are
contained in Rule 64.2. In addition, when deciding on the granting
of the status, the Assembly may lay down specific conditions.
The political commitments,
which parliaments applying for the status must subscribe to, are
contained in Rule 64.2. In addition, when deciding on the granting
of the status, the Assembly may lay down specific conditions. 13. Second, the status introduces a degree of accountability:
the Assembly stated that “…progress in taking forward reforms is
the prime aim of the partnership for democracy and should constitute
the benchmark for assessing its efficiency.”
14. In particular, when requesting the status, the parliament
applying for it shall commit “to inform the Assembly on the state
of progress in implementing Council of Europe principles”. It
has to be recalled that in Resolution
1680 (2009), the Assembly resolved to “periodically review
the progress made by the parliaments concerned in the framework
of partner for democracy status” (paragraph 12.4).
It
has to be recalled that in Resolution
1680 (2009), the Assembly resolved to “periodically review
the progress made by the parliaments concerned in the framework
of partner for democracy status” (paragraph 12.4).15. Accordingly, the status is not an honorary title. It has to
be viewed as a recognition by the Assembly of democratic aspirations
of parliaments requesting or enjoying it and a dynamic tool aimed
at promoting parliamentary democracy, facilitating democratic transformations
in partner countries and assisting partner parliaments in strengthening
democratic institutions, good governance and the rule of law.
3. Partnership for democracy: Overview (2010-2022) and current state of play
3.1. Morocco
16. As early as in February 2010,
the Parliament of Morocco was the first parliament to apply for
the new status. It was also the first one to obtain it in June 2011,
when the Assembly adopted Resolution
1818 (2011) “Request for Partner for Democracy status
with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Parliament of Morocco”.
17. In Resolution 1818
(2011), the Assembly resolved “…to review, no later than
two years from the adoption of this resolution, the state of progress
achieved in implementing the political commitments taken by the Parliament
of Morocco…” (paragraph 14). The Resolution also contained a list
of specific issues which the Assembly considered to be of key importance
for strengthening democracy, the rule of law and respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms in Morocco (paragraph 8).
18. In June 2013, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1942 (2013) “Evaluation
of the partnership for democracy in respect of the Parliament of
Morocco”. The report took stock of political reforms in the country and
of the implementation of political commitments undertaken by the
Parliament of Morocco in June 2011, and welcomed the adoption of
the new Constitution, the holding of early parliamentary elections
and the formation of a government based on the results of these
elections. In addition, the report concluded that the partnership
had created new dynamics in the co-operation between the Council
of Europe and Morocco, both at parliamentary and government levels,
and thus contributed to achieving its primary aim.
19. When preparing the first evaluation report, the Committee
on Political Affairs and Democracy held a meeting in Rabat (13-14
March 2013) which offered an opportunity for an in-depth exchange
of views with key Moroccan stakeholders on the implementation of
reforms in the country and co-operation programmes with the Council
of Europe.
20. The Assembly further evaluated its partnership with the Parliament
of Morocco in June 2015 and in May 2019 (Resolution 2061 (2015) and Resolution 2282 (2019)).
Both reports assessed positively the results achieved in the framework
of the partnership. The 2019 report highlighted the high level of
participation of the Moroccan partner delegation in the activities
of the Assembly and its committees, in particular the Committee on
Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons and the Committee on Equality
and Non-Discrimination.
21. The 2019 report further suggested that the Assembly would
need to re-think the partner for democracy status in such a way
as to take into account that it brings together countries in disparate
stages of reform and whose parliamentary delegations are involved
to varying degrees in the Assembly’s activities.
22. While the 2013 resolution provided for a new evaluation within
two years, resolutions adopted in 2015 and 2019 stated that the
Assembly would make a new assessment when appropriate, thus taking
a more flexible approach and recognising a degree of maturity attained.
3.2. Palestine
23. In Resolution 1680 (2009), the Assembly
explicitly referred to the eligibility of the Palestinian Legislative Council
(PLC) to request partner for democracy status (paragraph 15). In
October 2010, the Assembly decided that the Palestinian National
Council (PNC), which had indicated its interest to obtain the status,
was eligible to make a formal request to this effect. In November
2010, the Speaker of the PNC made an official request for the status.
24. In October 2011, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1830 (2011) “Request
for partner for democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly
submitted by the Palestinian National Council”.
25. When dealing with the request by the PNC, the Assembly broadly
followed the procedure and the modalities introduced in the case
of the first request for the status made by the Moroccan Parliament.
26. Resolution 1830
(2011) provided for an evaluation of the state of progress
achieved in implementing the political commitments undertaken by
the PNC within two years (paragraph 18) and specified the issues
that the Assembly deemed of key importance for strengthening democracy,
the rule of law and the respect of human rights and fundamental
freedoms in the Palestinian territories (paragraph 12).
27. The first evaluation report on the partnership with the PNC,
presented in January 2014, concluded that the continuation of the
partnership was in line with the wishes of all political factions
and welcomed the fact that the Palestinian delegation made full
use of its possibilities to participate in the activities of the
Assembly. Resolution
1969 (2014) “Evaluation of the partnership for democracy
in respect of the Palestinian National Council” made an overall
positive assessment of it while calling on the PNC to speed up the
implementation of its general commitment to the core values of the
rule of law and fundamental freedoms. The Assembly resolved to make
a new assessment within two years.
28. The Assembly made a second evaluation of its partnership with
the PNC in April 2016. The report provided a more nuanced assessment
as compared to the one made in 2014. The rapporteur pointed out
that, while the PNC would like to comply with the commitments it
had undertaken when signing the partnership, it had become increasingly
difficult, or even impossible, to meet some of them given the circumstances
on the ground related to the Israeli occupation.
29. In Resolution 2105
(2016), the Assembly welcomed the active participation
of the Palestinian parliamentary delegation in the work of the Assembly
and its committees (paragraph 7.1) and noted that the Palestinian
delegation regularly participates in regional interparliamentary
activities organised by the Assembly with the aim of making its
experience available to members and staff of the PNC (paragraph
7.2).
30. The Assembly further resolved to continue to review the implementation
of political reforms in Palestine and to offer its assistance to
the PNC, and to make a new assessment of the partnership when appropriate (paragraph
13). There have been no reports prepared since then.
3.3. Kyrgyzstan
31. The Speaker of the Parliament
of Kyrgyzstan made an official request for partner for democracy
status for the parliament in October 2011, the first to come from
central Asia. The first rapporteur appointed by the Committee, Mr Mevlüt
Çavuşoğlu, carried out two fact-finding visits to Bishkek in 2013
and presented a preliminary draft report to the committee in June
2013. However, the committee was reluctant to follow the rapporteur’s
positive view on the Kyrgyz Parliament’s request, and decided to
constitute an ad hoc Sub-Committee
on Kyrgyzstan composed of the chairpersons of all political groups
in order to visit the country. Mr Çavuşoğlu left the Assembly in
2014 due to his appointment to a position in the Government of Türkiye.
The committee then appointed Mr Andreas Gross who presented his
report in April 2014 following a new fact-finding visit to Kyrgyzstan.
32. The report concluded favourably on Kyrgyz Parliament’s application
for the status, and argued that, in the regional context, Kyrgyzstan
was the only country showing a serious commitment to parliamentary democracy
and having a political system which sought to provide a balance
between various political actors and did not rely on a single person.
33. In line with the previous practice, Resolution 1984 (2014) “Request
for partner for democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly
submitted by the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic” indicated a
number of specific issues that the Assembly deemed of key importance
for strengthening democracy, the rule of law and the respect of
human rights and fundamental freedoms in Kyrgyzstan. In this case,
the list was particularly lengthy (29 items). The resolution also
contained a provision on a review of the state of progress achieved
in implementing the political commitments entered into by the Kyrgyz
Parliament.
34. Due to various circumstances, neither of three rapporteurs
appointed by the committee to evaluate the implementation of the
partnership with the Parliament of Kyrgyzstan was able to complete
their work.
35. Following a political crisis in the country after failed elections
in November 2020, a new motion was tabled asking the Assembly for
a review of the partnership with the Kyrgyz Parliament. The report
presented in June 2022 noted the controversial evolution of the
political and institutional situation in Kyrgyzstan and concluded
that the partnership with the Kyrgyz Parliament had produced mixed
results. Many political commitments undertaken by the parliament
upon requesting the status remained unfulfilled. The country had not
become party to any of the Council of Europe conventions or partial
agreements. The members of the Kyrgyz partner delegation participated
only rarely in the work of the Assembly. On this particular point,
the rapporteur argued that there could be no genuine partnership
without presence, participation and dialogue.
36. In Resolution 2453
(2022) “Review of the partnership for democracy in respect
of the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic”, the Assembly resolved
“…to continue the partnership with the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic
in order to support the country’s authorities along the path to
democracy while at the same time maintaining a rigorous dialogue
with them and reassessing the partnership in depth in two years’
time based on an analysis of tangible progress.” It further stressed
that “The prolonged absence of Kyrgyz parliamentarians from the
sessions and of concrete results, notably on the effective ratification
of conventions or protocols, could lead to the partnership being
terminated.” (paragraph 14)
37. Since the constitution of the new parliament in December 2021
and the appointment of a new delegation in March 2022, Kyrgyz members
were present, though in limited numbers, at the part-sessions of
the Assembly in April, June and October 2022 and took the floor
several times in our committee. This is a welcome development, but
it remains to be seen whether it stands the test of time.
3.4. Jordan
38. The Parliament of Jordan presented
an official request for partner for democracy status in July 2013. The
first rapporteur appointed by the committee, Mr Mogens Jensen, left
the Assembly in 2014 due to his appointment to a position in the
government of Denmark. The committee then appointed Ms Josette Durrieu who
presented her report in January 2016 following two fact-finding
visits to Jordan (March 2014 and September 2015).
39. Resolution 2086
(2016) “Request for partner for democracy status with
the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Parliament of Jordan”
largely followed the pattern laid down by the previous Assembly
reports on granting the status. It also contained a provision on
a review of the state of progress achieved in implementing the political
commitments entered into by the Jordanian Parliament (paragraph
12), and a list of reforms and other steps which it deemed essential
for strengthening democracy, the rule of law and respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms in the framework of a constitutional
parliamentary monarchy (paragraph 9).
40. In October 2017, the Assembly made a first evaluation of the
partnership with the Parliament of Jordan. The report concluded
that Jordan was moving in the right direction, even though the reforms
were advancing more slowly than planned. She regretted, in particular,
that Jordan had not become party to any of the Council of Europe
conventions or partial agreements.
41. Resolution 2183
(2017) “Evaluation of the partnership for democracy in
respect of the Parliament of Jordan”, while welcoming some positive
developments with regard to implementing political commitments and democratic
reforms, pointed to a number of shortcomings in this process. In
particular, the Assembly regretted the executions carried out in
Jordan from 2014 to 2017.
42. At the same time, the Assembly welcomed the Jordanian parliamentary
delegation’s active participation in the work of the Assembly and
its committees and encouraged its members to keep a watchful eye
on, and play an active role in, the implementation of the process
of reforms needed for the establishment of the rule of law and respect
for human rights and fundamental freedoms, in line with the commitments
entered into under the partnership. Consequently, the Assembly resolved
to continue following very closely the implementation of reforms
in Jordan and to offer the Jordanian Parliament its full assistance.
43. A new assessment of the partnership was to be done within
two years of the adoption of Resolution
2183 (2017), but it was postponed for various reasons
and was only presented in November 2022. The report concluded that
Jordan had made advances in some areas whereas it had stagnated
in others. Ratifying one Council of Europe convention was a welcome
step and an encouraging sign for future signatures and ratifications.
However, some recent constitutional amendments were controversial.
The participation of the Jordanian delegation in the work of the
Assembly dropped significantly in 2020-2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic
and the pre- and post-election periods, but a new delegation appointed
in January 2022 regularly attended the committee meetings since
March 2022.
4. Re-thinking and upgrading the partnership
44. Overall, the partnership has
reached its prime goal of establishing a structured and value-based
co-operation with parliaments of neighbouring countries willing
to perform a rapprochement with
the Assembly on the basis of shared values. It has contributed,
though to varying degrees, to the strengthening of the role of parliaments
in consolidating democratic transformations and promoting stability,
good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law. It
has also offered to partner parliamentarians an opportunity to participate, on
an institutionalised basis, in the European political debate.
45. However, as may be seen in section 3 above, the Assembly’s
partners for democracy have shown varying degrees of commitment
to the use of the partnership, both in terms of practical results
in implementing democratic reforms, and participating in the work
of the Assembly.
46. It is therefore not surprising that those of our partners
who are the most committed to the partnership have an appetite for
greater opportunities to work in the Assembly and its committees,
and would like to see their commitment and achievements recognised.
47. In this respect, I am particularly thankful for the position
paper shared with me by the Moroccan delegation which contains a
number of ideas and proposals for extending the possibilities of
active participation in, and contribution to, our common work. My
visit to Rabat in October 2022 was an opportunity to better understand
the motivation behind it and to explore these proposals in a more
detailed manner.
48. I am also grateful to members of the Jordanian and the Palestinian
delegations who presented to us in June 2019 their written comments
on the functioning of the partnership.
49. I remain convinced that we should not create an additional
status for those partners who achieve more progress in implementing
the goals of the partnership than the others do. Multiplying statuses
may lead to confusion and complicate unnecessarily our institutional
framework. However, I agree that the Assembly could decide to extend
the rights currently enjoyed by partners for democracy, and make
the access to some of these extended rights conditional upon the
degree of progress achieved and engagement by some of the partners.
4.1. Existing rights of partners for democracy
50. The current Rule 64 offers
to partners the following rights:“
“64.5. Members of delegations with partner for democracy status may sit in the Assembly but without the right to vote. They shall have the right to speak with the authorisation of the President of the Assembly.
64.6. Members of delegations with partner for democracy status may participate in committee meetings as provided in Rule 48.5.
4.2. Contributions and proposals from partners
51. The written contribution by
the Moroccan delegation provided a positive assessment of the partnership. The
three evaluation reports adopted by the Assembly underscored the
voluntary efforts by Morocco to make progress in consolidating its
democratic choice. The partnership brought about positive results
in many areas and was instrumental for building multidimensional
intergovernmental co-operation between Morocco and the Council of
Europe. The partnership should not be a one-way street; a number
of Moroccan experiences were of relevance for European partners.
Morocco should be considered as a bridge between Europe and Africa
and could help strengthen the South-South co-operation. The parliament
was favourable to exploring new avenues in its co-operation with
the Assembly.
52. The position paper presented by the Moroccan delegation suggests
that the following rights might be granted to partners:
i. attend the work of the Standing Committee;
ii. be appointed as members of sub-committees and participate in drawing up of committees’ and sub-committees’ agendas;
iii. participate, on a voluntary basis, to Assembly’s fact-finding visits and election observation missions;
iv. be proposed as rapporteurs or co-rapporteurs on general issues;
v. table, jointly with Assembly members, amendments to draft texts examined in meetings;
vi. co-sign motions for resolutions and recommendations, as well as written declarations.
53. Furthermore, the Moroccan position paper suggests:
i. allowing partners to participate in the work of political groups;
ii. establishing a group of friendship;
iii. holding regular bi-annual meetings between the President of the Assembly and the Speakers of partner parliaments in order to take stock of the partnership.
54. These concrete proposals are a welcome food for thought and
are worth carefully considering. While granting some additional
rights may require changes in the Rules of Procedure and/or standing
practice (see my proposals in Section 4.3 below), other rights are
already foreseen by the existing rules, for example 52.ii. drawing
up of agendas; 52.v. proposing amendments in meetings; and 52.vi.
co-signing motions and written statements (see paragraph 50 above).
Likewise, participation of partner parliamentarians in the work
of political groups is referred to in Rule 64.6, last sentence,
and is already the current practice in several groups, including my
own.
55. The only proposal which seems difficult to follow is 52.iv.
referring to the right to be appointed as rapporteur or co-rapporteur.
I believe that the capacity to act as rapporteur of the Assembly
for a report or an opinion leading to the adoption of an Assembly
text, or as General Rapporteur, shall remain reserved to the members
of the Assembly. However, I suggest a few changes which would allow
our partners to play a more active role in the work on substantial
issues, including the right to prepare information reports (see
paragraph 63 below).
56. In its written contribution made in June 2019, the delegation
of Jordan also stressed that they greatly valued the experience
of partnership with the Assembly. The experience gained in several
fields was positively reflected in Jordanian legislation. The delegation
intended to continue working with the Assembly with a view to gradually
embedding fundamental Council of Europe principles in legislation.
The reform process would continue despite harsh economic problems
and a difficult political situation in the region but would take
time.
57. The Jordanian delegation made the following suggestions which,
in their view, should contribute to strengthening the partnership:
i. widening the circle of parliamentarians involved from the Jordanian side through carrying out more Assembly activities (for example committee meetings) in the country;
ii. organising brainstorming sessions between Jordanian and European parliamentarians in Jordan;
iii. organise training and educational sessions for the parliamentary supporting staff at the Jordanian Parliament.
58. In my view, these proposals are welcome and could be implemented,
without changing the Rules, at the level of committees and when
planning the programmes of inter-parliamentary co-operation.
59. The 2019 contribution from the Palestinian delegation states
that its members highly appreciate the participation in the work
of the Assembly and its committees. The delegation learned a lot
and appreciated the commitment of Europe to basic values and democratic
principles. The partnership status was an important tool for learning
and sharing experiences, and also a channel for voicing partners’
concerns, such as the Palestinian issue. The exchanges with the
European colleagues on a broad range of issues such as Islamophobia, intolerance
and the need to seek a better understanding of others, were particularly
appreciated. Setting up a youth assembly involving the young people
from the Council of Europe member States and partners should be considered.
60. I welcome all these contributions, which show that our partners
attach great importance to the partnership and the opportunities
it offers for their participation in the political dialogue at the
Assembly. I share the view that the framework for partners’ input
in the work of the Assembly and its committees may be improved.
4.3. Proposals for extending partners’ rights
61. I believe that the Assembly
may grant unconditionally some additional rights to all partner
for democracy delegations. More specifically,
i. The chairpersons of partner for democracy delegations should have the right to participate in the meetings of the Standing Committee.
ii. Members of partner for democracy delegations should have the right to put spontaneous oral questions
iii. Partner for democracy delegations should have the right to designate their members to work in Assembly committees and sub-committees (including ad hoc sub-committees) open to them. The names of such designated members would appear on the lists of committees and sub-committees under reference “partners for democracy” and would be in addition to the number of committee members designated by the delegations of member States.
iv. Members of partner for democracy delegations should have the right to be appointed as full members in various networks set up in the Assembly.
62. Moreover, some extended rights may be granted to partner for
democracy delegations on the basis of outstanding results in achieving
the goals of the partnership and full participation in the work
of the Assembly and its committees. These could be granted by decision
of the Bureau, ratified by the Assembly, at the beginning of a new
session (in January), based on a proposal from the Committee on
Political Affairs and Democracy, for example for the duration of
the session (one year) with possibility to extend or not to extend them
in view of the results.
63. Such extended rights may include:
i. the right to table motions for recommendation and resolution,
ii. the right to table amendments,
iii. the right to request current affairs debates
iv. the right to table written declarations,
v. the right to be appointed as rapporteurs for information reports
64. I am also in favour of granting to members of partner for
democracy delegations the right to participate in ad hoc committees to observe elections. However,
I understand that, currently, such ad
hoc committees are set up by the Bureau, following proposals
by the political groups, which makes it impossible for members of
the Assembly not belonging to a political group to participate.
Under these circumstances, it would be difficult for me to propose
granting to non-members of the Assembly a right which not all Assembly
members are entitled to. Still, I believe this issue has to be looked
at once the problem of participation of non-registered Assembly
members in elections observation is solved. In the meantime, the
political groups should be encouraged to include members of partner
for democracy delegations participating in their work to election observation
missions.
However,
I understand that, currently, such ad
hoc committees are set up by the Bureau, following proposals
by the political groups, which makes it impossible for members of
the Assembly not belonging to a political group to participate.
Under these circumstances, it would be difficult for me to propose
granting to non-members of the Assembly a right which not all Assembly
members are entitled to. Still, I believe this issue has to be looked
at once the problem of participation of non-registered Assembly
members in elections observation is solved. In the meantime, the
political groups should be encouraged to include members of partner
for democracy delegations participating in their work to election observation
missions.4.4. Further improving the partnership
65. In my view, the main added
value of the partnership status is more the possibility for working
together and engaging with the partners in a mutually constructive
political dialogue rather than a formal opportunity for “reviewing
progress” in the sense of a strict monitoring exercise going on
in one direction.
66. Based on our joint experience of more than ten years, we should
consider some other ways of making the status more effective and
visible, and possibly more attractive and co-operative.
67. The committees should be encouraged to organise more meetings
and/or other activities (for example conferences, seminars, etc.)
in co-operation with the partner delegations, including in their
countries. Members of partner delegations should be associated more
closely to the preparation of various events and be given prominent
roles in the programmes of such events.
68. In order to increase the visibility of the contribution of
partners to the work of the committees, the agendas should contain
a clear indication when an item is included following a proposal
from a partner delegation.
69. In turn, the partner delegations should make their participation
in the work of the Assembly better known in their parliaments as
well as its activities, for example by presenting regular reports
on the activities, priorities and key decisions of the Assembly.
70. The proposal to hold bi-annual meetings between the President
of the Assembly and the Speakers of partner parliaments could be
taken into consideration in the planning of Assembly Presidents’
priorities. Such meetings would offer a good opportunity to overview
the functioning of the partnership, make it more visible and better
known both in the Assembly and in partner parliaments and provide
political impetus to it.
71. For its part, the Assembly should continue to offer various
training activities for members and the staff of partner parliaments
on issues defined by common agreement.
72. Generally, there are many small moves which may be taken in
order to facilitate and highlight the positive contribution of partners
to our activities. The committees should be encouraged to show more
creativity and flexibility to make it possible.
5. Conclusions
73. The partnership for democracy
is probably the best tool that we have developed, in the Assembly,
for building co-operation with our colleague parliamentarians from
neighbouring countries, and this is our significant parliamentary
contribution in bringing about democratic security.
74. More than ten years after the introduction of the status,
it is the right moment to take stock of our experience and consider
ways of improving the functioning of the partnership with a view
to making it more meaningful both for the Assembly and the partners.
75. In my view, the partnership has reached its prime goal of
establishing a structured and value-based co-operation with parliaments
of neighbouring countries willing to perform a rapprochement with the Assembly
on the basis of shared values. It has contributed to the strengthening
of the role of parliaments in consolidating democratic transformations
and promoting stability, good governance, respect for human rights
and the rule of law. It has offered to partner parliamentarians
an opportunity to participate, on an institutionalised basis, in
the European political debate.
76. At the same time, Assembly’s partners for democracy have shown
varying degrees of commitment to the partnership, both in terms
of practical results in implementing democratic reforms, and participating
in the work of the Assembly.
77. Therefore, I suggest, on the one hand, to grant additional
rights of participation to all partner for democracy delegations
in the work of the Assembly and its committees, and on the other
hand, to make sure that the performance of the most active and committed
partners is duly recognised by offering them, on conditional basis,
extended rights.
78. My concrete proposals are contained in the draft resolution.