Introduction: The Concept of Institutional Development of Parliament

The subject of parliament gained more momentum on the political and intellectual scene in the Arab World, and the development of the action of Arab parliaments became more important in view of the challenges posed by the development process and in function of the necessity of development in its own terms as well as keeping up with modern trends in the field of building and developing the institutional capacities of parliament.

It is obvious that the development in parliamentary action and performance in the Arab World is linked to international development in this area, and what it carries in terms of closeness between societal and cultural circumstances prevailing on the one hand, and what this development poses as challenges to keep up with the demands of the epoch in the other. It is also influenced by the trend towards globalizing the action of institutions and the local political experiences on another level.

All these are factors which led to adopting the tools of institutional action of democracy at the center of which lies parliament and this became a practically inevitable characteristic of the modern state. The question thus becomes: How can parliamentary institutions be developed in this new international framework, and not whether this development is necessary or not. In other words, the aim of developing parliamentary performance, according to the premise of this paper, is to improve the political performance of parliament i.e. increasing the capacity of parliament's ability to serve its members in fulfilling their duties, particularly through the creation of a common and appropriate culture between the technical apparatus and members. This enhances the role of parliament in society and by the same token, strengthens the democratic system.

Despite the fact that this argument among researchers, and parliamentarians themselves, regarding the motives for development and the latters' direction and scope, may be considered an obstacle preventing its application in accordance with a general agreement that supports it and increases its chances of success, yet, it may be considered an optimistic phenomenon because the issue of developing parliamentary performance now occupies an important position on the agenda of political debate at the public opinion level and among researchers. This emphasizes the importance of the subject of development and its significant social scope. Those who follow the tools of the media, and in particular newspapers and television, may notice a change in their schedule of priorities. They are giving wider space for the coverage of parliamentary performance, regardless of prior stances or value judgements existing in the way they cover parliamentary action.

This issue is no longer restricted, for example, to one newspaper supporting the opposition party and allocating one page a week to cover the news of its MPs or candidates. There is now a wide expansion and an organized follow-up regarding parliament's activities, and an increasing concern with wider coverage and provision of opportunities for many currents of thought to assess the performance of parliament and to discuss the diverse subjects linked to parliamentary life, such as the performance of MPs, the kind of legislation being issued, the criticism of the legislative process and pursuit of the debate around the formation processes of parliamentarians and parliaments. Institutional development is linked to a reformist and continuous view and has its price which yields revenues, like any investment process. We can discuss and alter its costs and the accounts of its revenues.

This paper follows three directions or levels and emphasizes three sectors in the development of parliamentary action. The first is the institutional level (The organizational structure of parliament and its major units), the second is the technical level (those working in the various technical units and administrations i.e. the technical support apparatus to the general secretariat of the parliament) and the third is the political level (The MPs themselves).

As to the three sectors which the paper emphasizes they are: the sector of research and information, the sector of committees, and the sector of training. These are considered some, but not all, of the major sectors in the process of institutional development of Arab parliaments. The three were selected as examples only.

There are also three sources of information and data for this paper, first the published literature (traditional methods i.e. books, reports studies or Internet material) second, the primary sources i.e. the special publications regarding particular cases and practical models of parliamentary development or training programs, and third, the personal experience of the writer, based on personal observation and practical engagement [1] .