Skip to content

Success in parliamentary strengthening: What does it mean?

We must not lose sight of the virtues of promoting the development of strong parliaments, independent of issues deemed important by donors.

Published:
howDoParls-banner@2x.png
howDoParls-banner@2x.png

A sculpture advocating the independence of the disputed territory of Somaliland.
A sculpture advocating the independence of the disputed territory of Somaliland.

A sculpture advocating the independence of the disputed territory of Somaliland. Vladimir Lysenko/Wikimedia. Some rights reserved.In her article “How to navigate trade-offs in parliamentary strengthening”, Susan Dodsworth developed an interesting framework for parliamentary strengthening programs that identified four different approaches taken by donors, including a focus on issues versus institutions, and on narrow versus inclusive approaches.

While the framework is descriptive of donor approaches, what I would like to highlight are the implicit ideas of what success looks like to donors (outside of a few parliamentary strengthening specialists working within those donor agencies.) This is not a critique of Dodsworth’s arguments but of how these concepts reveal problems in what is valued in parliamentary strengthening.