First: Remarks Regarding the Experiences of Institutional Development in Contemporary Parliaments

2. The Development in Internal Regulation of Parliament

There are internal rules and procedures regulating parliamentary action since the parliament is an institution. These rules also regulate how MPs can perform their monitoring and legislative parliamentary tasks. As any other legal frameworks, the internal list of regulations and rules should be considered from a formal / legal and political / practical angles at the same time.

From a formal angle, the list includes a number of regulations pertaining to the performance of the various parliamentary tasks. In this sense, the stipulations mentioned on the list become conditions and regulations to be adhered to in parliamentary action. From the political angle, the list becomes a system or set of ideas and traditions and parliamentary principles aiming at facilitating parliamentary action and the achievement of a greater degree of democracy within the parliament, as well as transparency towards society and giving power to MPs to represent the citizens. This is why the list should be seen as a whole and examined over the principles it relies upon and the aspects which need to be developed.

The internal procedural list embodies great importance for parliamentary action. Here, the following can be proposed:

A - The organized procedural listing of parliamentary discussions and deliberations should never be in contradiction to the freedom of expression of opinion and views of all the MPs or with the variety of views, political allegiances and party affiliations existing inside parliament. In this matter, the party or political differences should not undermine the natural right for all, on equal terms, to participate in the permanent and special committees within parliament, or take part in the leadership of the parliament and its committees.

B - The organized procedural listing should guarantee a cooperation between the parliament and the other political and constitutional institutions.

C - The organized procedural listing of discussions and the issuing of parliamentary decisions are only a part of a complementary system or set in which the procedural list itself legally occupies the third place, after the rules of the constitution and law. This is why an MP could protect using the stipulations of the constitution or law if he finds that the procedural list does not allow the freedom of discussion.

D - The rigid view which considers the procedural list as the primary reference in parliamentary action i.e. a binding order for everyone regarding parliament's structures or discipline of work and its performance of its legislation, monitoring and financial functions, should be constantly discussed and developed.

In this regard, we suggest a discussion of the possibility that parliament elects a committee and calls it "The Procedural Commission". This committee should be specifically concerned with the following: Looking at the possibility of altering the procedural list at the beginning of a legislative session so that the list becomes more in line with the political, economic and social developments and conditions of the society in question. These developments will inevitably improve parliamentary action. The committee should also examine MPs complaints regarding the parliamentary presidency's commitment to the list's provisions whether in the discussions or in issuing parliamentary decrees, and ensure the committee present its report on these complaints to the presidency of the parliament who will in turn submit it to MPs.

During the parliamentary session whose specific task is to discuss parliamentary complaints, the leader of parliament should temporarily delegate his position to one of his deputies or to the oldest MP in parliament, because he cannot be an adversary and a judge at the same time.

E - The preparation and organization of the procedural list should not be complicated to an extent that it is difficult to understand it and act upon it by legal experts and people with legal experience. This is a matter that contradicts the task for which the list has been created and its role in "facilitating" the MP's action and enabling him to perform his job. In the case of complicated lists, the MP is left with two choices: Either to do as little as possible in the way of study and analysis for the sake of formality (like the order of presence and procedure of voting) or to spend much effort to adapt to the complications of the list, using special capacities (professional or personal or party provided by a party). There are matters not available to all. He may rely on the general secretariat of parliament, thus becoming more dependent on technical staff, losing his active independence and becoming a mere role figure.

F - The tendency in procedural lists of Arab parliaments to consider the leader of parliament as a patron over the performance and behavior of MPs contradicts the egalitarian principle among parliamentarians. The leader of the House is the first among equals and his role is primarily organizational.