Vienna (PK) – What do parliaments know? And what role does this knowledge play in legislation? These issues were the focus of the prelude to the first day of parliamentary polling. The event, organized by the Legal, Legislative and Scientific Service (RLW) of the Parliamentary Directorate, brings science and parliamentary practice together. In their keynote speeches, political scientist Marc Geddes and jurist Iris Eisenberger focused on the relationship between science and politics.
With the event, parliamentary directors want to create a bridge between theory and practice, emphasized parliamentary director Harald Dossi in his opening remarks. The aim is an ongoing and further exchange between parliamentary research and practice. Because for parliamentarians it is increasingly important to generate knowledge and incorporate it into their work. Therefore, according to Dossi, there will never be enough exchange between science and parliamentary practice.
Geddes: Parliaments as “institutions of knowledge”
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 of the University of Edinburgh, who is currently doing research at the Berlin Parliamentary Research Institute. Today, in the context of misinformation, the loss of confidence in politics and challenges such as the pandemic and the climate crisis, this issue is more important and urgent than ever, according to Geddes.
The political scientist explained that research in this area has increased significantly over the last 30 years, but the role of parliaments has been neglected to some extent – despite their central role in political systems. For Geddes, parliaments are “institutions of knowledge”. Knowledge is collected, produced and evaluated during the parliamentary process.
Geddes illustrated this with a case study of selected committees in the UK Parliament. Her research showed that the knowledge gathered by the committees comes predominantly from the government (23%) and public authorities (37%). Only 8% of knowledge came from scientists in universities. Unlike the academic world, other factors also count in parliaments when it comes to assessing knowledge. For example, it is tradition that all political directions are represented at hearings. It also depends on political convictions and ideas of justice and equity, not just evidence. In his research, Geddes recognized as trends the increasing integration of the experience of those affected, the focus on diversity and inclusion and the use of innovative methods to generate knowledge. However, this also presents challenges for committees. After all, ever-increasing amounts of material would have to be handled with the same methods and resources.
Democracy and knowledge are intrinsically linked, concluded Geddes. Because who is heard influences who is involved in the parliamentary process – and who is not.
Eisenberger: AI programs are a challenge for liberal democracies
Iris Eisenberger, a jurist at the University of Vienna, focused her talk on the influence of expert, lay and AI knowledge on legislation. Eisenberger advocated a clear separation of duties between experts and politicians. While experts must provide expertise, it is the responsibility of politicians to set priorities and make responsible decisions. For this, it is necessary to guarantee the plurality of disciplines, methods and specialists. As the Corona crisis has shown, this requires the establishment of permanent institutional arrangements, according to Eisenberger.
With regard to the integration of lay knowledge in the legislative process, the demands on the process of participation of citizens or interest groups are high. For Eisenberger, it is also important to guarantee this knowledge regardless of the opinion of experts, although issues of credibility and legitimacy must be taken into account. Here, too, a clear demarcation of different roles must be made.
Regarding 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 like GTP Chat would currently reflect the opinions of the majority and thus further strengthen them.
Debate with keynote speakers
To make parliamentarians’ knowledge 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 of the Parliamentary Directorate. It is the responsibility of the parties to nominate candidates with different trajectories and backgrounds. Geddes also advocated more training for MPs when it comes to classifying knowledge.
Parliamentary administrations and their scientific services were also discussed. Eisenberger argued that it would take more time and less efficiency to meet the demand for impartiality in management and to take into account a wide range of viewpoints. One should not save everything, she said. Geddes added that equidistance works best when public officials see themselves as “servants of democracy” rather than “servants of the state” or an institution. (Continuation of Parliamentary Poll Day) kar/med