The overarching argument of this paper is that parliamentary digital transformation is a relatively underfunded area of work, but a vitally important one in achieving the very common overarching goals of open, accountable, inclusive and participative government. Improvements in how parliamentary digital capacity building can be done better are possible with better strategy, funding and cooperation, and when parliaments are enthusiastic and willing to take the opportunities offered to them to improve themselves.
Now more than ever, digital transformation has become essential for parliaments. Such transformation can have a significant impact in making parliaments more transparent and accountable and can enable them to leverage greater public interest and engagement in the legislative and electoral processes.
Good external digital engagement requires parliaments to review their own internal digital structures, assess where development and investment are needed, and how digital improvement will assist in achieving their goals. Differential priorities in the needs of the parliament or societal actors can form a guide, according to which specific areas for digital development might be prioritised. These steps require long-term investment, which should go in parallel with the digital transformation of the Executive. However, because a country’s digital transformation is primarily the preserve of the Executive, it can bypass the legislature and may be almost disproportionately influenced by the ruling party. Uneven digital transformation between public bodies and the legislature may weaken the profile and legitimacy of the legislature itself. Furthermore, governments that effectively restrict digital development within the legislature are essentially restricting democratic integrity.
Besides the long-term process of building and developing infrastructure, short-term pilot projects can be useful to test approaches and begin building the digital infrastructure of the future. Properly targeted funding, to achieve specified digital transformation goals, agreed in collaboration with the development agencies operating in target areas, can yield significant dividends in improving the digital democracy ecosystem. This approach can neutralise harmful, short-termist and wasteful approaches to digital deficiency, and remove the ability of the more unscrupulous parliaments to play development agencies off against each other to leverage greater rewards or resources.
Digital transformation of parliaments requires better strategy, funding and cooperation on the part of donors and implementers as parliaments are enthusiastic and willing to take the opportunities offered by digitalisation.
Header photo: Jessica Taylor / UK Parliament
What's it all about?
Report authors Julia Keutgen and Rebecca Rumbol discuss their report and its key arguments
The existential threat of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation has forcefully reordered and narrowed immediate national political priorities. It has also reshaped the convictions, values and visions that underpin the reconstruction and recovery processes and the future of Ukraine.
In times of crisis, members of parliament (MPs) are expected to actively and effectively manage public life in response to existential risks, making decisions that impact the lives of women and men, civilians and military personnel alike. Yet MPs are not immune to the personal trauma of war and are forced to balance this with their public role as political decision-makers in a time of national emergency.
This research offers a rare window into how MPs in Ukraine are navigating these impossible pressures. It captures their evolving priorities, ambitions, fears and hopes in the fourth year of the full-scale Russian aggression. Although the national defence effort has strengthened the executive under martial law, MPs have been actively holding on to a bold vision for the future. Many share a desire not just to rebuild, but to transform the country.
The findings from this report are intended to inform programmes and initiatives that aim to support Ukraine in protecting its democratic gains and consolidating reforms whilst it continues to withstand Russian aggression and embarks on the EU accession process.
Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) is proud to support the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and its members as they navigate these processes. We stand with Ukraine and its parliament in this moment of profound resilience and reinvention. We thank the Members of Parliament who participated in this study amid air sirens, devastation, power cuts and uncertainty. We are grateful to the research team for their dedication and conflict-responsive research approaches.
This report sets out the considerations that international partners should make when deciding whether to engage with electoral management bodies (EMBs) as part of their electoral support strategies. It explains what an EMB is, it discusses the political context in which EMBs operate, and it considers several risks that engagement with EMBs can pose for international partners and EMBs themselves. It concludes with a set of questions that partners should consider when deciding whether to engage with an EMB.
This material has been produced by WFD for the FCDO with support from the UK Government Politics and Governance Centre of Expertise. The views expressed are those of the author(s) alone and do not necessarily represent FCDO or UK Government policy.
WFD is the primary partner delivering the services of the UK Government Centre of Expertise (CoE) on Politics and Governance, alongside FCDO’s Development and Open Societies Directorate, connecting FCDO posts with expertise to better navigate and respond to democratic governance issues, challenges, and developments.
The high and constant cost of politics in Solomon Islands, which often exceeds formal limits during campaign periods, is driven by a multitude of factors. One of these is the demand from potential voters for goods or money. Responding positively to these demands is important as it portrays a candidate as caring and enhances their chances of winning a parliamentary seat. Another factor relates to the logistical expenses required during registration periods and election day to move voters to their constituencies. Campaign tours are also critical and costly, with expenditure shaped by the topography of a constituency, the size of the campaign team, and the style of campaign used.
Individual candidates largely bear the burden for these costs, tapping into personal savings or business proceeds to raise the resources required, with political parties notably absent. For incumbents, access to constituency development funds provides an advantage not just on election day but across their time in office, as it grants them access to resources that are used to consolidate and strengthen voter support within constituencies. While spending significant sums of money does not guarantee electoral success, it can be a critical factor in the outcome of an election contest.
This high cost of politics has become a barrier that excludes individuals from marginalised groups from running for parliamentary seats. It also incentivises corruption and undermines development-driven governance. Solomon Islands must implement stricter campaign financing regulations to create an inclusive space for political participation. This can be supported by establishing structures to ensure compliance with these revised regulations. Alongside this, there is a pressing need for disadvantaged groups, like women, youths, and disabled persons with disability to be supported both financially and technically through dedicated programmes that will enable them to compete more effectively during elections.
Aspects of the election process also need to be reformed. Remote registration, and even voting, has the potential to significantly reduce the costs of participating in polls, which citizens would have to incur if politicians did not do so on their behalf. These and other suggestions can play a key role in making contests for political office in Solomon Islands less about the resources at an individual’s disposal and more about the ideas they have for constituency and national development, a message that should be at the heart of ongoing civic engagement and awareness campaigns.
This report explains what PVT involves and what prerequisites need to be met when running a PVT exercise. It then discusses common risks, key methodological considerations and the lessons learned from four case studies. It concludes with a checklist that diplomatic missions should consider when deciding whether to support a PVT exercise.
This material has been produced by WFD for the FCDO with support from the UK Government Politics and Governance Centre of Expertise. The views expressed are those of the author(s) alone and do not necessarily represent FCDO or UK Government policy.
WFD is the primary partner delivering the services of the UK Government Centre of Expertise (CoE) on Politics and Governance, alongside FCDO’s Development and Open Societies Directorate, connecting FCDO posts with expertise to better navigate and respond to democratic governance issues, challenges, and developments.