Parliamentary Representation in Modern Britain: Past, Present, and Future

A series of recent books all attest to a revival of interest in the theory and practice of parliamentary representation in the modern era as a scholarly discipline. This review surveys eight different aspects of that history since the early nineteenth century: the spatial dimension of the Palace of Westminster; the comparative framework offered by the history of parliaments in Europe; ideas of parliamentary representation; the history of parliamentary procedure; women in parliament; the House of Lords; the history of corruption; and the Brexit crisis. Insights and perspectives are drawn from recent historical research as well as from political science and intellectual history. The review concludes by observing that the history of parliamentary representation in the modern era is in good shape. Some older interpretive paradigms still lurk, especially an obsession with ‘democratization’. However, more is now known about individual MPs and constituencies than ever before. The digitization of the records of parliament is expediting the kind of longitudinal analysis which was impossible back in the 1960s and 1970s. And the intellectual history and public policy literature around the idea of representation is enjoying a renaissance.

Parliamentary procedure as a type of legal procedure

The subject. The article examines the refraction of the doctrine of legal procedure in relation to the activities of parliament.The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that parliamentary procedure is the kind of legal procedureThe methodology. The author uses formal legal interpretation of Russian legislative acts and decisions of Russian Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights as well as such general scientific methods as analysis, synthesis, systemic approachThe main results, scope of application. The author draws attention to the fact that at the present stage of the development of the theory of law, it can be stated that procedural social relations have developed in the parliamentary bureaucracy, which are not only regulated, but must also be regulated by procedural norms, which confirms the conclusions of the authors of a "broad" approach to the theory of legal process. However, there will be a window of opportunity for the supporters of the "narrow" approach in the parliamentary process. In accordance with the conclusions of the ECHR and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which have prerequisites even in the works of Montesquieu, the parliament, as a body with jurisdictional powers, must comply with the appropriate procedure in their implementation. Hence, the author deduces the tasks of further improving both the doctrine of parliamentary procedure and the need for clear and competent regulation of legal procedures in parliament, the ultimate goal of which is to observe and implement the rights, freedoms and constitutional guarantees of participants in the parliamentary process.Conclusions. The procedures governing the work of the Parliament and its organs are legal procedures in the broad sense of the term. This does not negate the understanding that the legal procedures of the parliament, corresponding to its quasi-judicial powers, has the nature of the jurisdictional process. This conclusion is consistently confirmed in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

Rationalizing Parliamentary Rules of Procedure in the Czech Republic

Post-socialist Central European parliaments in the period since 2010 have seen rationalizing tendencies with the intention of increasing the effectiveness of the legislative procedure. This article describes in detail the changes to the parliamentary rules of procedure in the Czech Republic. Parliamentary procedure in the Czech Republic is subject to extremely slow development and is being reformed only gradually within the existing stabilized system of procedural rules.

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht in der Ära der Grossen Koalition: Zur Rechtsprechung seit dem Lissabon-Urteil

Der Beitrag analysiert die Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts seit dem Lissabon-Urteil des Jahres 2009 in ihrem politischen und institutionellen Kontext. Was hat der Konflikt um die Grenzen der europäischen Integration mit der Verschärfung der verfassungsgerichtlichen Kontrolle im Wahl- und Parlamentsrecht oder der zunehmenden Bedeutung parlamentarischer Informationsrechte zu tun? Und was beides mit der Verschärfung des Neutralitätsgrundsatzes im Parteienrecht oder der Aktivierung des Alimentationsprinzips? Der Wandel der Rechtsprechung ist, so die These des Beitrags, Teil einer grundlegenden Veränderung des politischen Systems seit dem Beginn der Großen Koalitionen im Jahr 2005. Die Tendenz zur Verdichtung und Materialisierung institutioneller Maßstäbe ist einerseits eine defensive Strategie des Gerichts angesichts der gestörten Möglichkeiten des Machtwechsels. Sie ist andererseits aber gerade die Konstitutionalisierung des großkoalitionären Regierungsmodus, der die Unterscheidung von Politik und Verwaltung, von Mehrheit und Minderheit systematisch eliminiert. In einem Regierungssystem, dessen Institutionen und Verfahren nicht zu verstehen sind ohne die Bedeutung, die ihnen die Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts gibt, ist das ein Vorgang von großer Tragweite. The article provides a contextual analysis of the German Federal Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence since the 2009 landmark ruling on the Lisbon Treaty. In key fields such as European integration, electoral rules, parliamentary procedure, parliamentary control, taxation, or civil service law, the Court has broken new ground in recent years. The article argues that these changes reflect a more fundamental transformation of the German political system in the era of grand coalitions under Angela Merkel since 2005. With the place of parliamentary opposition largely vacant, the Court has been increasingly inclined to tighten its constitutional review of the rules of the political process. On the other hand, however, its new approach has precisely entrenched the mode of governing brought about by the grand coalitions, which eliminates the distinction between both politics and administration, majority and minority. In the German constitutional order, whose institutions and procedures are deeply shaped by the unique powers of the Constitutional Court, this represents a particularly momentous transformation.

MINI-PARLIAMENTS IN THE POST-DICTATORSHIP DEMOCRACIES OF WESTERN EUROPE AND LATIN AMERICA

The article investigtes the powers and parliamentary procedures in the standing committees and commissions of several countries of Western Europe and Latin America. The author believes that one of the modern paradigms for the development of parliamentary democracy is to strengthen the role of standing committees in the work of parliament by transferring to the committee level a number of constitutional powers of parliaments. In this regard, the author clarifies approaches to the classification of the committee structure of parliaments and looks at committee parliamentary procedures in Italy, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Brazil and Argentina at the present stage. The author comes to certain conclusions regarding the paradigm of the committee parliamentary procedure, including further improvement of domestic constitutional-legal matter in the context of the ongoing development of parliamentary democracy in the Russian Federation.

Parliamentary Procedure under Theresa May: Nothing Has Changed?

During the premiership of Theresa May, parliamentary procedure in the UK was scrutinised, criticised and challenged to an extent unprecedented in recent years. This put intense pressure on the ‘rules of the game’ governing parliamentary politics. This article thus aims to answer three questions. First, what were the pressures on parliamentary procedure in this period? Secondly, what were their consequences? Thirdly, how can these consequences be explained? The article addresses these questions by describing challenges to the House of Commons’ rules regarding agenda control, proxy voting and private members’ bills. It also describes the procedural changes resulting from these challenges and evaluates their significance. Finally, it considers how far these changes support the expectations of existing literature on parliamentary rule changes. Overall, the article shows that procedural reform during Theresa May’s premiership was minimal. Despite some temporary informal innovations, the formal rules of the Commons remained almost entirely unchanged. During this period, therefore, Britain’s parliamentary rules were challenged extensively but changed very little.