Tuesday, March 19

Parliament’s fights and degradation of democracy

The degrading situations for democracy and politics that we frequently experience in the plenary sessions of Congress require the president of the Chamber and the groups to reflect on the measures to be adopted. Among them, the reform of its regulations through the processing of the bill presented by the socialist group, an initiative whose consideration by the plenary session was approved 18 months ago.

The activation of this proposition would allow a debate, in a presentation and calmly, on the incidents that are repeated in the interventions and on the responses that the Board must apply. It seems that we do not realize the seriousness of the situation we have reached and that it affects the quality of democracy.

From the highest political institution of the democratic system, there are groups that promote, towards society, tension, extreme polarization and confrontation without any modesty, repeating hate speech and violence that penetrates the street.

Since October 2020, and after European bodies such as GRECO of the Council of Europe insistently demanded it, Parliament has a Code of Conduct that lists six principles, but it does not develop behavior guidelines for its honorable members in plenary sessions, committees and in the different spheres of parliamentary life. It does not incorporate sanctions for behaviors contrary to the principles of the Code, breach of some obligations and duties related to transparency, because it leaves it as a matter of the regulation.

On the other hand, in May 2021, the plenary session of Congress approved the consideration of a bill, presented by the socialist group, which proposed the regulation in detail of the activity in Congress of interest groups or lobbies.

But, in addition, with this proposition the PSOE intended to take advantage of the opportunity to incorporate a section into the regulation that clarifies the rules to be followed in the debates and in parliamentary work, as well as an extension of the sanctions (add those of an economic nature and extend the cases of suspension of article 101) for those who fail to comply with these rules of conduct, the established duties and lack of transparency. It would also be appropriate to make the sanctioning procedure more specific.

At present, the regulations of the Congress contemplate as sanctions (in their articles 16, 70.3 and from 99 to 106) the withdrawal of the word, calls to order, the expulsion of the plenary session for one session or for a longer time and suspension. However, these sanctions are rarely applied and do not serve as a response to different attitudes and violations.

Undoubtedly, a review of the self-regulation rules on parliamentary discipline must have the consensus and political commitment of the vast majority of the Chamber. It is about guaranteeing the survival, for a long time, of what is approved.

However, after a year and a half, the socialist proposal remains stuck and has not yet been processed to debate the amendments of the groups. A mediation work is needed to achieve a meeting of positions, especially between the PP and the PSOE, which allows the process to advance.

Interpretation rules and criteria are necessary to set limits to the verbal excesses of the speakers, hate speech, expressions of political violence and shouted insults towards the speaker and, also, ethical breaches.

An agreement shared by the vast majority of the Chamber on how to avoid the degradation of the institution due to extremist parliamentary behavior is essential. An agreement that could be included in the current Code of Conduct. Without this agreement and without incorporating the precise sanctioning mechanisms into the regulations, it will be difficult for the president and the Board of Congress to make the right decisions.

In the pending reflection, the dimension of freedom of expression to be respected plays an important role, which must be broad, but not absolute. Said without complexes, it must have some limit to the role and values ​​that a democratic Parliament must represent that cannot function as if we were seeking to attract spectators eager for anger.



www.eldiario.es