In the context of the comments and debates which followed the presentation of the study, several methodological and critical observations about the study were made. Furthermore, there was an exchange of opinion on a number of issues that the study has raised: the role of external and internal factors in activating parliamentary work, the relationship of parliamentary work to the nature of the political system, political pluralism within parliament and the role of parliament in enforcing the law. However, the oversight role of parliament occupied the widest scope of the discussions.

As for the methodological observations, a participant said that the methodology followed by the writer combines the descriptive and analytical approach. The writer moves from theory to practice. He presented a general view of the subject and the international decisive developments then gave a presentation of cases from Arab parliaments.

In contrast, another critical remark was made about the study for having failed to point to the gap separating theory from practice and this is a matter that ought to be debated if the goal is to develop the monitoring role of parliaments. The dilemma of the Arab world is sometimes the presence of democracy on paper while practice rejects it. One participant noted that the problem in the Third World, in general, does not lie in theory. Rather, there is a deficiency in the role of parliament in upholding the rule of the law. In other words, parliaments do not perform a principal role whenever the law is breached regardless who is the law-breaker. In most Arab parliaments the MPs approve constitutions which grant the head of state exceptional powers that raise him above the law. This is not to be found in the prerogatives given to the president of the republic in the most presidential systems in Europe, for example.

Hence, a researcher said, we cannot arbitrarily separate parliament's role from the political systems in the Arab states. Despite the existence of several Arab political systems that claim to be founded on the parliamentary democratic system, most of these systems are patriarchal and authoritarian. Therefore, there is an imbalance between powers which call for the activation of the role of Arab parliamentarians in restoring the balance to power-sharing as a substitute for the delusive "separation of powers". In other words, power must not be monopolized by one side whether it is the executive power, president or a political party.

Consequently, the distribution of power in a system is the entry-point for Arab parliamentarians to give parliament a role in power-sharing by giving it its proper role in oversight and legislation.

Some participants said that the study has dealt with monitoring as if oversight models in the Arab world are the same, although they are different. Hence it is difficult to speak of monitoring in Arab parliaments in general because there are differences between one country and another, in accordance with the nature of the political system, and the source of authority.

Some participants raised the question why budget waking was ignored by the study although it constitutes one of the basic pillars of a parliament's function. As it is well known, parliament has a fundamental role in debating the budget and in monitoring its implementation throughout the year.

Furthermore, the debates pointed out to need to develop political pluralism and the transfer of power the Arab world. In other words, no regime, under the cover of elections, ought to stay in power for several decades. Pluralism requires a ceiling on staying in power.

In a remark about the concentration of the study on external factors in developing the role of parliament in achieving democracy, one participant said that we cannot separate internal from external factors. Moreover, we cannot rely on external developments to transfer democracy to our fatherland. Democracy in the Arab world must emanate from within. After all, democracy is not a donation and we must pay a price to realize it. Another participant said that we cannot bet on the external factors in realizing democracy because often the foreign forces have a vested interest in interfering in our Arab societies under the pretext of enhancing democracy.

Another participant mentioned that the problem of Arab parliaments lies in that they can not subject all the branches of the executive power to their monitoring jurisdiction. Certain security officials cannot be summoned by parliament for interrogation and questioning. This situation must be changed so that no official of the executive power may be exempted from questioning.

In addition, mechanisms to insure a greater monitoring role for parliament should include the right of parliament to summon for questioning officials from the public administration, who would then enjoy the protection of parliament, or the right to approve the appointment of officials in sensitive posts such as the head of control commissions or the public prosecutor.

Moreover, the discussions pointed out that the real problem does not lie in the Arab constitutions. Two basic factors impact on the monitoring capacities of an Arab parliament: political parties and an MP's performance.

No political monitoring is really possible without genuine, and not "artificial", parties. And there cannot an effective role for individual MP's unless parliament provides him with assistants who support his activities. In contrast, one participant said the existence of parliament and several political parties is not an adequate proof of the existence of democracy. Party pluralism might not be genuine when there are not political options or choices for these parties.

On the other hand, the discussions pointed out that political monitoring must be enhanced by the existence of a force other than the law, namely the power of public opinion. If parliaments do not actually rise from the people, how can they insure popular support in exercising their monitoring role. Moreover, how can we possibly request parliament, where the majority has obtained 90 or 99% of votes, to exercise political monitoring over those who fabricated that majority and rigged the parliamentary elections so that parliaments would do their bidding?

Furthermore, an MP's monitoring of government cannot actually emerge unless the MP is subject to the monitoring of the elector. This idea leads us back to the source of authority, the people. If parliament comes as a direct result of elections, these elections must take place on the basis of clear programs that the citizen can discuss and between which they can make a choice.

In addition, parliament's monitoring of government raises another problem: who appoints the government? If parliament appoints the government, then it can actually monitor it. However, if it is appointed by the head of state, then it is difficult for parliament to effectively monitor it. Finally, for monitoring to be effective, elections must bring about a parliament that enjoys full independence and powers. Parliament must have the authority to adopt and amend the constitution, after debating it with the people.