2023-06-26 13:06:20
Vienna (PK) – What do parliaments know? And what role does this knowledge play in legislation? These questions were the focus of the prelude to the first day of parliamentary research. The event, organized by the Legal, Legislative and Scientific Service (RLW) of the Parliamentary Directorate, brings together science and parliamentary practice. In their keynote speeches, political scientist Marc Geddes and legal scholar Iris Eisenberger focused on the relationship between science and politics.
With the event, the parliamentary directors want to create a bridge between theory and practice, emphasized Parliamentary Director Harald Dossi in his opening words. The goal is a further, continuous exchange between parliamentary research and practice. Because for parliamentarians it is of increasing importance to generate knowledge and incorporate it into their work. Therefore, according to Dossi, there can never be enough exchange between science and parliamentary practice.
Geddes: Parliaments as “knowledge institutions”
The relationship between science and knowledge on the one hand and politics and democracy on the other has been discussed for centuries, emphasized Marc Geddes from the University of Edinburgh, who is currently doing research at the Institute for Parliamentary Research in Berlin. Today, against the background of disinformation, the loss of trust in politics and challenges such as the pandemic and the climate crisis, this question is more important and urgent than ever, according to Geddes.
The political scientist explained that research in this area has increased significantly over the past 30 years. However, the role of parliaments has been overlooked to a certain extent – despite their central role in political systems. For Geddes, parliaments are “knowledge institutions”. Knowledge is collected, produced and evaluated during the parliamentary process.
Geddes illustrated this with a case study of select committees in the UK Parliament. His research showed that the knowledge gathered by the committees comes predominantly from government (23%) and public authorities (37%). Only 8% of the knowledge came from scientists at universities. In contrast to the academic world, other factors also count in parliaments when it comes to evaluating knowledge. For example, it is a tradition that all political directions are represented in hearings. It also depends on the political convictions and ideas of justice and fairness, not just on the evidence. In his research, Geddes recognized the increasing integration of the experience of those affected, a focus on diversity and inclusion, and the use of innovative methods to generate knowledge as trends. However, this also poses challenges for the committees. After all, ever larger amounts of material would have to be handled with the same methods and resources.
Democracy and knowledge are inextricably linked, Geddes concluded. Because who is listened to has an influence on who is involved in the parliamentary process – and who is not.
Eisenberger: AI programs are a challenge for liberal democracies
Iris Eisenberger, legal scholar at the University of Vienna, focused her lecture on the influence of expert, lay and AI knowledge on legislation. Eisenberger advocated a clear separation of tasks between experts and politicians. While experts should provide knowledge, it is the responsibility of politicians to set priorities and make responsible decisions. For this it is necessary to ensure the plurality of disciplines, methods and experts. As the Corona crisis has shown, this requires the establishment of permanent institutional agreements, according to Eisenberger.
As far as the integration of lay knowledge in the legislative process is concerned, there are high demands on the participation process of citizens or interest groups. For Eisenberger, it is also important to ensure this knowledge apart from expert opinions, although questions of credibility and legitimacy must be taken into account. Here, too, a clear demarcation of the different roles should be made.
In connection with artificial intelligence programs, Eisenberger spoke of a challenge for liberal democracies and advocated a slowdown in the use of legislation. First, more institutional knowledge is needed about how these programs work, where the generated content comes from, and when and where there are opportunities to use it. Programs such as Chat GTP would currently reflect majority opinions and thus further strengthen them.
Discussion with the keynote speakers
In order to make the knowledge of parliamentarians more diverse, it is also important to make politics itself more diverse, emphasized Marc Geddes in the subsequent discussion with Iris Eisenberger and Christoph Konrath from the Parliamentary Directorate. It is the responsibility of the parties to nominate candidates with different educational careers and backgrounds. Geddes also advocated more training for parliamentarians when it comes to classifying knowledge.
The parliamentary administrations and their scientific services were also a topic of discussion. Eisenberger argued that it would take more time and less efficiency to meet the demand for impartiality in administration and to take a wide range of points of view into account. One should not economize everything, she said. Geddes added that equidistance works better when public servants see themselves as “servants of democracy” rather than “servants of the state” or an institution. (Continued Parliament Research Day) kar/med
#day #parliamentary #research #House #PK073326.06.2023