[This on-line version does not contain any charts, graphs, or tables. To receive a published
copy of this report,  PN-ABY-213, contact DISC, 1611 N. Kent St., Suite 200, Rosslyn, VA
22209. Ph: 703-351-4006; fax 703-351-4039; internet docorder@disc.mhs.compuserve.com]

               CDIE
          Impact
                Evaluation

LEGISLATIVE STRENGTHENING IN POLAND

     Turning the corner on four decades of communist rule,
  Poland's parliament is embroiled in the everyday struggle of
        sustaining a multiparty democratic legislature.

SUMMARY

In 1989 and 1990 as communist regimes toppled in Central and Eastern Europe, the U.S.
Congress looked for ways to demonstrate its commitment to the fledgling democracies
replacing them. For Poland's parliament, Congress came up with two overlapping programs:
an initial "Gift of Democracy" from the Senate, primarily consisting of automation and office
equipment, followed by a House of Representatives task force effort that provided equipment,
training, and technical support. Most of the funding, more than $4 million from 1990-95, was
provided through USAID, although the Agency's role in implementing both programs was
minimal. 

Authors Hal Lippman and Joel Jutkowitz. Team members: Pat Isman and Holly Wise. Local consultants: Dariusz
Stola and Bartosz Korkozowicz.

PN-ABY-213                                             May1996, Number 6

The assistance these programs provided signaled a new era for the Polish legislature. The
equipment (computers, printers, and copiers), training, and technical support have helped
parliament become more efficient, effective, and transparent. For example, draft bills that used
to take a week or more to edit, print, and distribute are now ready overnight, helping
parliament handle a high volume of needed legislation. Similarly, transcripts of parliamentary
proceedings that used to take six months to produce are now available the following day.

Parliament's information capabilities have increased dramatically.  Research service support
from legislative databases, reports, and other expert input and analysis have helped reduce the
duplication and errors in legislation that were common in the early 1990s. The new
information resources have made parliament more transparent because it is easier for the
media, advocacy groups, and public to follow the legislative process.

These accomplishments have helped make parliament more independent.  Its legislative
deliberations are more informed and parliament is now the source of most proposed
legislation, although the executive still generates the most significant bills.    

The assistance had limitations, however. For example, it did not help parliament acquire the
capability to review and analyze adequately executive branch budget submissions. In addition,
high turnover among legislative staff, who are expected to be nonpartisan but are vulnerable to
political pressure because they do not have civil service status, threatens the sustainability of
program achievements. Finally, USAID's minimal involvement meant missed opportunities to
link program activities with related USAID lines of effort, such as strengthening democratic
local governance and political parties. 

The assistance successfully met its original objectives--strengthening parliament's
infrastructure and information capability. However, it did not address other important facets of
legislative strengthening, such as constituent relations, the links between the legislature and
civil society, and public understanding of how a democratic legislature works and what can be
expected from it. The case study indicates the assistance provided through the Gift of
Democracy and Frost Task Force is not sufficient as a stand-alone legislative strengthening
activity--a broader mix of support is needed to meet a newly democratic legislature's diverse
needs.

The case study suggests the following lessons learned:

--   Provide assistance beyond infrastructure and information needs
     
--   Gain the support of legislative leaders
     
--   Allocate and distribute assistance fairly
     
--   Include training in the United States
     
--   Include regional training
     
--   Support development of budget review capability
     
--   Make staff retention a priority
     
--   Ensure broader involvement of the USAID Mission  
     

LEGISLATIVE STRENGTHENING IN POLAND

Introduction

Seven years into its postcommunist transformation, Poland's National Assembly has seen the
high hopes and expectations of 1989 give way to the rough-and-tumble of democratic
governance. What was once a united Solidarity front opposing the communist government is
now a fragmented opposition to a majority coalition of reconstituted parties that formed the
political core of the pre-1989 regime.1  The reality of current parliamentary politics is no
longer the battle of Solidarity versus totalitarianism, but the daily grind of maintaining and
expanding the multiparty democracy accepted by both victors and vanquished of the 1980s
struggle.
   
While these transition years have seen the institutional foundations of a democratic polity
firmly established, two generations of totalitarian rule still cast a shadow over the new
democracy. As one member of parliament (MP) put it, what many Poles need to overcome is
that they have "minds of slaves" when it comes to politics. Another MP said, "The Polish
people don't yet understand or appreciate that democracy is a permanent conflict of interests."
A professor expressed an ironic nostalgia for the "clarity of the times of the old regime,"
explaining: "Back then you knew precisely where you stood; good guys and bad guys were
unmistakable. Now, it's not as easy to tell," especially in light of Poland's multiparty political
system.

Poles also harbor a deep-rooted, readily exploitable mistrust of government. For example, in
response to perceived "legislative obstructionism" in late 1991 and early 1992, then-president
Lech Walesa discredited the Sejm (pronounced "same"), the more powerful of the National
Assembly's two chambers, by taking advantage of negative public reaction to the bickering
and gridlock depicted in television broadcasts of its proceedings. He compared the Sejm with
its 17th century namesake, the "parliament of nobles," and used pejorative terms, such as
"squabbling," to characterize its present-day activities. 

The origins of Polish parliamentarianism date to 1493, when a national assembly composed of
the king, a senate, and a house of deputies was convened. From that time until the close of the
18th century, parliament represented the nobility. Beginning in the late 16th century, when
Poland became a republic, parliament served as a powerful and effective counterweight to the
monarch, which it began electing in 1592. By 1795, however, the Polish state ceased to exist,
and the land was partitioned among Austria, Prussia, and Russia. 

In the interwar period (1918-39), an independent Poland was reestablished and a
democratically elected parliament was seated for the first time. While many Poles regard that
parliament as an important milestone in the country's development, it was short lived. The
new parliament's role declined after a 1926 coup and was further eroded by the 1935
Constitution. For four decades after communists assumed power following World War II,
parliament's role was largely to rubber-stamp decisions reached by the party apparatus.
 
In 1989, the parliament was at the center of the events that led to Poland's becoming the first
Soviet client state to dissolve its communist-dominated political and economic system. In the
"Round Table" talks between the communist government and Solidarity that concluded in
April that year, leaders of the two sides agreed that free elections for a portion of the Sejm and
a reconstituted Senat would be held in June. The Round Table agreement guaranteed that 299
(65 percent) of the Sejm's 460 seats would be retained by the Communist party and its
supporters. The election was a staggering defeat for the government. Solidarity made a clean
sweep, picking up every one of the 161 seats it was allowed to contest in the Sejm and 99 of
100 Senat seats.

That overwhelming rejection of the government marked the beginning of the end of communist
rule in Poland. Indeed, while still dominated by Communist party deputies and their
supporters, on December 29, 1989, parliament sanctioned constitutional amendments that
abolished the party's leading role, renamed the state the Republic of Poland, and provided for
restoration of a market economy. Abruptly, Poland had ceased to be a socialist state, and a
new era of Polish democracy had begun. The parliament could act as Solidarity had demanded
in its hallmark slogan, echoing a 16th-century political motto, "Nothing concerning us can be
settled without us!" 

CDIE Study 

In March 1996 a CDIE evaluation team spent two weeks in Poland examining the impact of
donor efforts to strengthen the Polish parliament. Last in a series of CDIE legislative case
studies, including ones in Bolivia, El Salvador, Nepal, and the Philippines, the Poland
assessment helped round out the mix of legislatures examined by adding the case of a former
communist nation with a parliamentary form of government.

The assessment is an outgrowth of USAID's increased emphasis on democracy and governance
programming in recent years, and the desire to examine the results of such efforts
systematically for the first time. Findings from the country studies are to be combined in a
synthesis report that lays out an analytical framework for future USAID legislative assistance
programming.

Team members included a CDIE program analyst with extensive Capitol Hill experience; a
consultant with years of experience working on democracy and governance issues in Asia,
Eastern Europe, and Latin America; a development management specialist in charge of
legislative strengthening in USAID's Center for Democracy and Governance; and the senior
adviser to the head of USAID's Global Bureau. Three of four team members participated in
one or more of the prior legislative strengthening assessments. 
      
The assessment explored several questions:

--   What are the essential features of the legislature and the broader legislative arena
     (political parties, the electoral process, civil society organizations and the media) that
     influences it?
     
--   How has the legislature been performing, and how has it affected democratic reform
     and consolidation? 
     
--   What have USAID and other donors contributed to strengthen the legislature, and how
     have these efforts influenced democratization?
     
The team interviewed lawyers, academics, opinion researchers, media representatives,
members and staff of both houses of parliament, representatives of public and private sector
interest groups, and staff of the USAID Representative's Office and the American Embassy. In
addition, the team observed operations of parliament including a committee hearing and a
plenary session of one of the houses. It reviewed documents and observed operations of
parliament's key legislative support offices, and examined background materials on the Polish
legislature, legislative process, and politics and government in general. In the United States,
the team met with staff of the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. agency that
implemented the legislative strengthening program for Poland.

 
THE PARLIAMENT

Functions and Organization

Poland has a hybrid presidential-parliamentary system based on separation of powers.2  Its
bicameral legislature consists of the Senat, with 100 members, and the Sejm, with 460
deputies. In the Sejm, 391 deputies are chosen from multimember regional party lists and 69
from national party lists. Senators are elected on the basis of party lists, with two members
representing each of 47 voivodships (administrative units of the central government) and three
each representing Warsaw and Katowice, the most populous voivodships. Members of both
chambers are elected to four-year terms that run concurrently.3  Under the Constitution,
deputies and senators represent the whole nation and are "not bound by any instruction of the
electorate."

The main functions of the Sejm are to shape the direction of state policies, enact laws, make
appointments, and supervise the executive branch. The Senat's role is the same as that
envisioned for the U.S. Senate in 1787--the saucer used to cool the tea before drinking. Bills
passed by the Sejm are sent to the Senat, which has 30 days to approve, disapprove, or suggest
amendments.4  Sitting jointly, the Sejm and Senat are the National Assembly, which is
empowered to adopt the constitution and swear in and impeach the president.

Each house is presided over by a marshal and deputy marshals elected by secret ballot in
plenary sessions of the respective body. The marshal and deputy marshals form the Presidium,
which directs the work of the chamber, including determining the agenda, issuing calls for
plenary sessions, coordinating committee activity, and carrying out other housekeeping tasks.
A Council of Seniors in each house, composed of the Presidium and party heads, coordinates
the agenda and other procedural matters to facilitate the input and cooperation of party leaders.

Parliament meets year-round, with a one-month summer recess. Plenary sessions are usually
held on three days every second week. Sessions of the Sejm and Senat are open to the public
and are broadcast on closed-circuit television in the parliamentary building complex. Public
television regularly broadcasts sessions of the Sejm, but only infrequently those of the Senat.
Official and unofficial verbatim records of plenary sessions are readily available to journalists
and the public.

Most of parliament's substantive work is performed in standing committees, supported by
subcommittees that are established as needed to handle specific tasks.5  At the start of the
current term (October 1993), there were 24 standing committees in the Sejm and 13 in the
Senat. Both houses have standing committees covering agriculture, culture and media,
education, environmental protection, foreign affairs, health, legislation, local government,
national defense, Poles abroad, rules, and social policy. Committee assignments are
determined by the plenum, pursuant to a motion by the Presidium that has been coordinated
with the Council of Seniors. The number of committee staff is limited--about 100 in the Sejm
and 30 in the Senat. 

Committees and subcommittees meet often. In the Sejm, for example, from October 1993 to
June 1995 there were 2,457 standing committee meetings and 1,227 subcommittee meetings.
Committee and subcommittee meetings of the Sejm and Senat are closed to the general public,
but with the consent of the chair they are usually open to the media, invited experts, and
interest group representatives. However, committees responsible for areas such as foreign
affairs, national security, and public safety regularly meet in closed sessions. Committee
meetings are recorded, but subcommittee meetings are not. Sejm committees have minutes of
their meetings, which are published in committee bulletins. In the Senat, only a summary of
committee proceedings is available to the public. 

Each chamber has a chancellory that provides administrative support for parliamentary
operations and technical assistance for members. The Senat chancellory's functions are
organized in offices of administration, information, legislation, member services, and research
and analysis. In the Sejm, identical functions are carried out by bureaus for administration,
interparliamentary relations, organizational and legal matters, personnel, and research. The
Sejm chancellory also includes parliament's library, which, as of June 1995, had holdings of
more than 400,000 books, periodicals, and official parliamentary documents and publications.

Political Context

Parliament's actions and operations reflect Poland's party politics, electoral system, and the
special character of its hybrid political system. For example, since the advent of democracy in
1989, there have been significant changes in the party composition of the parliament. After the
semifree 1989 election, essentially two groups were represented, Solidarity and the former
communist regime. However, after the 1991 election, 28 parties were represented in the Sejm
and 11 in the Senat. Many of the parties were fragments of Solidarity that had broken away
over differing views on economic reform, government organization, the role of labor, and the
nature of church-state relations. The result was constant political turmoil, made worse by then-president Walesa, who was frequently frustrated over his inability to influence the deeply
divided parliament. 

In response to this situation, parliament adopted a new electoral law setting a threshold for
proportional representation of political parties (5 percent of the votes cast nationwide) and
coalitions (8 percent of the votes cast nationwide). The new electoral law had the desired effect
in the next election (September 1993). The number of parties dropped from 28 to 6 in the Sejm
and from 11 to 5 in the Senat. However, it also had the unanticipated effect of excluding about
30 percent of those voting from being represented because the parties they supported failed to
satisfy the new threshold requirements. The 1993 election also saw the seating of a dominant
working majority in both chambers of members of the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) and the
Polish Peasants party (PSL), the two parties with strong ties to the former communist regime.6 

Some are concerned that the dominant position of the SLD-PSL coalition may preclude
development of an effective opposition. The 30 percent of the electorate not represented reflect
the failure of Catholic Church, conservative, nationalist, and other groups to build party
structures or coalitions with enough support to meet the threshold requirements. Indeed, few
opposition party leaders appear to understand how to build effective party organizations--for
example, by using the media and other tools of public opinion to better inform their
constituencies and enhance their appeal to voters. By contrast, the SLD and PSL have
extensive, long-lived grass-roots organizations and a degree of sophistication in party
operations that helped them win their 1993 victory.7  

The president, prime minister, and Council of Ministers play critical roles in parliamentary
operations. Executive authority rests jointly with the president and the Council of Ministers.
The president nominates, and the Sejm confirms, the Council of Ministers. As of April 1996,
12 of 21 members of the Council of Ministers were Sejm deputies. 

The council is presided over by the prime minister, who is chosen by mutual agreement
between the president and Sejm. The Sejm can remove the Council of Ministers and prime
minister by a no-confidence vote. If the Sejm is unable to choose a replacement Council of
Ministers within three weeks of a no-confidence vote, the president can dissolve parliament
and call for new elections or appoint an interim prime minister and council.

Relations between the parliament, the president, and the government are based on "rationalized
parliamentarianism." Under this concept, if there is a stable majority (more than half the 460
deputies) in the Sejm, the Sejm has the primary role in the legislative process and in relations
with the government. Absent a stable majority, the role of the president increases, allowing
him or her to have greater influence over the legislative process and the government. 

This rationalized approach affects the way a government is formed. The president appoints the
government, but must obtain a vote of confidence from the Sejm. After the vote of confidence,
the Sejm may appoint "its" prime minister and, on the prime minister's motion, the other
members of the government. The president must accept these actions if a majority of the Sejm
is in favor. Absent a majority, the president has the initiative to appoint the government.

The Role of Civil Society and the Media 

Since 1989, Poland's media have played a major role in ensuring transparency and
accountability in the legislative process. A number of correspondents regularly cover the
workings of the Sejm and Senat. At one time or another in recent years some 700 journalists
have covered parliament.

The media have virtually unimpeded access to parliamentary proceedings. Plenary session
records, proposed bills, and general information on Sejm and Senat activities are readily
available. There is a press room in the parliament and areas are set aside for the press in the
respective chambers. Equally important, journalists have easy access to individual MPs. 

The media have had an impact on legislation. They have brought to light errors and potential
problems in proposed legislation and informed the public about important legislative issues.
The Senat, for example, modified a bill on state secrets after newspaper reports described
potential problems with the legislation that could reduce government accountability. 

The media have also covered issues of importance to civic advocacy organizations, which are
increasingly using information and educational techniques to influence parliament. For
instance, the president of the Polish Association for Persons with Mental Handicap was the
moving force behind a media campaign on proposed legislation that reputedly would have
diminished educational opportunities for children with disabilities. Newspapers and TV played
a major role in persuading parliament to delete the problematic language. 

Civic advocacy organizations are also active in promoting a more open, accountable
legislature. For instance, the Civic Education Association, a group of Polish parents working
to reform the state-dominated education system, challenged Finance Ministry revenue and
expenditure data in a proposed bill. On the basis of that information, the Senat rejected the bill
and the Sejm accepted the revised version incorporating the association's figures.

In recent years, a growing number of organizations have expressed their interests and concerns
to parliament through lobbying, public information, and appearances before committees and
subcommittees. They include traditional groups, such as the Catholic Church, as well as ones
established as a result of Poland's economic liberalization, such as business and professional
associations. There are also public interest groups concerned with issues such as education, the
environment, human rights, and local government.

These organizations lobby the parliament using a variety of approaches and techniques.8 
Business groups, for example, focus on committees and members that work on their legislative
concerns, since executive branch offices and personnel are far less accessible. Others, such as
the public interest group Helsinki Watch, concentrate on the broader process by which
legislation is developed in government ministries and parliament to ensure that its views are
known at the earliest possible point. Using this approach, Helsinki Watch was able to get 30
amendments inserted in the ministry draft of a proposed bill regarding treatment of foreigners
and refugees before it was sent to parliament. The organization's lobbying efforts inside
parliament were to target 20 additional amendments.

LEGISLATIVE STRENGTHENING
          
U.S. assistance for the Polish legislature was sparked by the momentous events of 1989 and
1990, when Eastern and Central European countries jettisoned their communist systems.
Monitoring these developments and traveling to see firsthand what was happening there, many
members of the U.S. House and Senate became convinced that Congress should take a leading
role in supporting these fledgling democracies.

In October 1989, the U.S. Senate seized the initiative to demonstrate Congress's commitment
to the new Polish parliament by adopting a resolution to provide a "Gift of Democracy." The
resolution authorized a delegation to carry out a needs assesssment, which was done in
Warsaw in February 1990. The delegation reported:
     
     Resources for conducting legislative business are so meager that an emergency
     condition exists. The Senat is a new organization with 100 freshman members. The
     Sejm, although an established institution, has 422 freshman members out of a total of
     460. These conditions call for an immediate infusion of equipment, supplies, and
     training to ensure that the parliament can proceed with its critical and growing
     workload.
     
According to a senior Senate staffer and delegation member, the Senate wanted to send a
powerful message from one democratic legislature to another and wanted to do it quickly. The
Gift of Democracy consisted of an initial donation of surplus Senate computers, printers, and
copiers, and an additional $750,000 worth of similar new equipment procured by USAID on
the Senate's behalf. The program cost $2.25 million and was implemented by the Office of the
Secretary of the Senate.

Next, in June 1990, on the basis of recommendations of the House Special Task Force on the
Development of Parliamentary Institutions in Eastern Europe, a regional program was
established to assist the legislatures of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland.9  Under this
program, which became known as the Frost Task Force, after its chairman, Rep. Martin Frost
(D-Texas), Poland received another $1.7 million for equipment, training, and technical
support. The assistance provided under this initiative was administered and implemented by
the Congressional Research Service under the direction of the task force, according to an
interagency agreement between USAID and CRS's parent, the Library of Congress. Under the
agreement, USAID was responsible for program oversight and funding.10  

According to CRS documents, the objective of these initiatives was to jump-start the new
parliament by strengthening its infrastructure, with particular emphasis on research and
information capabilities. The underlying premise was that "freedom and democracy are closely
linked to information [and that] an informed independent legislature [is] ... a critical building
block of a stable democracy. Good legislation, in turn, depends on information resources,
information technology, and the analytic capacity to use those tools effectively." 

The Frost Task Force-CRS program began with a needs assessment that reviewed
parliamentary support services as well as the status of each house as a legislative body.11  CRS
established and maintained contacts with leading MPs and senior staff to coordinate the
program's implementation, and most particularly, to ensure that the assistance was
administered and distributed fairly. The program provided some equipment to round out the
computer resources provided under the Gift of Democracy, but its main effort was directed
toward training, technical assistance, and strengthening the library. The program included:

--   Parliamentary institutes: two-week programs for 47 professional staff (lawyers,
     committee staff, and librarians) in Washington, D.C., including orientations on
     Congress, CRS, and several agencies; seminars and workshops with experts; and
     mentoring by CRS and congressional staff.
     
--   Parliamentary conferences: three-day regional conferences for MPs and senior staff of
     the parliament and their Eastern and Central European counterparts.  In Poland one
     conference covered rules of procedure, the other automation issues.
     
--   Orientation and training: five parliamentary librarians, an executive specialist, and the
     directors of research, information, and computer services for the parliament visited
     Washington for orientations on CRS and the Congress and to meet with their
     counterparts on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures.
     
--   Expert consultations: congressional staff and CRS analysts, administrators, and
     librarians visited the Polish parliament numerous times to conduct seminars and consult
     with MPs and staff on legislative procedures, bill drafting, reference issues, and other
     areas of parliamentary activity. 
      
--   Library support: strengthening the collection, including development of a core
     materials bibliography, donation of 1,238 books and serial publications, provision of
     113 books from the Library of Congress's exchange and gift collection, and provision
     of a short-term adviser to help the research branches of both houses evaluate their
     collections.
     

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The Gift of Democracy and the Frost Task Force-CRS programs provided "valuable input into
the process of reshaping parliamentary services and most significantly staff awareness,"
according to a Sejm chancellory document. 

This was elaborated by the parliamentary library's director: 

     Since 1992 the library has changed considerably. . . . It goes without saying that those
     dramatic changes would not [have been] possible without all kinds of assistance
     received from the Frost programme. The visits to the CRS and other places influenced
     . . .  [most] of all our "professional imagination" and helped us to turn into a modern
     library management team able to cope with new challenges.
     
More specifically, MPs and staff most often cited the computers as the most visible and useful
components of the Gift of Democracy and Frost Task Force in interviews with the CDIE team.
Although some indicated that parliament probably would have invested in computers
eventually, the provision of so many so early in the transition to democracy was critical.

The computers sent a signal to deputies, the press, and the public that the winds of change
were sweeping through parliament. The computers also enabled the Sejm and Senat
chancellories to establish their credibility more quickly. Whatever their past professional role
or political affiliation, the staff were acquiring new skills and abilities, enabling them to
provide high-quality, objective, and timely support services.
 
Parliament has maximized this initial investment in automation: the computers have been fully
used and maintained. Perhaps most important, parliament has upgraded and replaced much of
the equipment at its own expense. Some original Gift of Democracy computers are still in use
in parliament or have gotten a third lease on life through donation to schools and hospitals.
 
Program initiatives have helped parliament become more efficient and effective. Research staff
are generating more products, the library has been improved, and MPs and staff are using
these services more. In the Senat, for instance, requests for reports and other research
products jumped from zero to 1,117 over the past five years. 

Sejm research staff have developed information packets (sets of publications on important
issues) patterned after the yellow CRS InfoPacks used in the U.S. Congress. Often used by
MPs and staff, the Polish blue versions are prominently displayed in the Sejm Research
Bureau's information center, visible reminders of the Washington-based training and its hands-on experiences. 

As a result, the legislative process is more informed. New legislation is now being developed
using research service databases with information on Polish law, regulations, and customary
practice. This has helped prevent mistakes and duplication in drafting legislation, a common
problem in the early 1990s.

Members also are now able to access bills on a timely basis at all stages of the legislative
process, enhancing their participation in parliamentary debates. Interviewees told the CDIE
team, for instance, that the time needed to edit, print, and distribute a draft bill or revision had
dropped from a week or more to overnight. These and similar changes have helped parliament
handle the volume of urgently needed legislation with which it is faced. 

In addition, parliamentary spokesmen indicated the assistance provided helped shift "the
weight of Polish legislative activity...from the government ministries increasingly to the
parliament." Indeed, the majority of bills in parliament is now initiated by MPs rather than the
ministries, although the most significant legislation still originates with the government.
Parliament, in short, is becoming a more independent, assertive body vis-a-vis the executive.

Program efforts have made parliament more transparent and accountable. Its new information
capabilities, for example, have been a boon for civic advocacy organizations and others
concerned with parliament's activities. Advocacy groups, such as the Business Centre Club,
told the CDIE team that they have used materials distributed by parliamentary support service
units in their lobbying activities. Computerization of some functions has also enhanced
transparency.12  For instance, transcripts of parliamentary proceedings, which used to take six
months to produce, are now completed overnight, greatly enhancing media and interest
groups' ability to track legislative developments.

In some cases the effects of the program have exceeded its original intent. For example,
legislative staff have maintained working relationships developed during regional training with
colleagues in Eastern and Central European countries. These relationships have fostered
regional cooperation among the new democratic parliaments and their library, research, and
administrative staff.

Finally, the Gift of Democracy and Frost Task Force have demonstrated the U.S. commitment
to Poland's newly democratic parliament. Staff and members of the Sejm and Senat repeatedly
emphasized the importance of the fact that the assistance they were getting was from the U.S.
Congress. Some explained that beyond the professional benefits they realized from their
training, most important was to have had the opportunity to be in "the heartland of
democracy" and take that experience back to Poland to share with colleagues, friends, and
families. 

LIMITATIONS AND CONCERNS

Aside from minor procurement problems, delivery delays, and training design flaws, program
limitations and concerns primarily involve issues beyond the stated objectives of strengthening
parliament's infrastructure and information systems. For example, in interviews with the
CDIE team, majority and opposition MPs pointed out that parliament does not yet have the
information resources or analytical ability to review adequately executive branch budget
submissions. Some information can be obtained from the Ministry of Finance, they said, but it
is not routinely available on a timely basis--a problem, given that parliament must complete
action on the budget in 90 days. 

CRS documents openly acknowledge that program activities did not "contribute to a rise in the
parliament's stature" or address other admittedly important areas, such as "the critical
challenge of nurturing a culture of democracy." Nor did they address constituent relations and
the related need to help the public understand how a democratic legislature operates and what
should reasonably be expected from it. Several informants emphasized this issue, pointing to
the negative reaction to televised proceedings of the Sejm in the early 1990s as indicative of
the public's lack of understanding. 

Some senior parliamentary staff expressed concern about sustainability of project achievements
because of high staff turnover. The concern centers primarily on the Sejm chancellory, which
has lost about 60 percent of its staff since 1991. The heart of the problem lies in the concept of
having a nonpartisan support staff that does not have the protection of civil service status. The
resulting vulnerability to public pressure and uncertainty make them likely targets for
recruitment by a growing private sector that can offer more job stability and higher wages.

Finally, the interagency agreement under which the Frost Task Force-CRS program was
implemented provided for minimal USAID involvement. Some observers raised concerns
about the effects of this limited role. They suggested that USAID's limited involvement may
have reduced opportunities to link program activities with other USAID assistance efforts,
with a loss of potential benefits to both. For example, there are obvious connections between
the program and work the USAID Representative Office has been doing to strengthen
democratic local governance, by helping local governments learn how to deal with parliament.
There are also potential links to other USAID program areas, such as privatization and
strengthening political party structures.

OTHER DONOR SUPPORT 

Since 1989, the Polish parliament has received assistance from other donors, the bulk of which
has come from Western European parliaments, the European Parliamentary Union, and the
European Union. Much of this assistance has been in the form of observation and training
visits by MPs and staff to the legislatures of Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Spain, the
United Kingdom, and the Parliament of Europe in Strasbourg, France. There have also been
multinational regional conferences centered on topics of mutual concern for Western and
Eastern European parliaments. 

The United Kingdom and Germany have had the most extensive programs with the Polish
parliament. German programs have sponsored exchange visits among parliamentarians and
provided training for parliamentary staff on committee operations and support services. The
British have provided similar training, but most of their exchanges centered on sharing
experiences. British efforts have included regional conferences on parliamentary services,
rules of procedures, and parliamentary practice.

The European Parliament has assisted the Sejm and Senat through interparliamentary
delegations and training. It also participated in regional conferences supported by the Frost
Task Force, including the Sejm Conference on Parliamentary Services (1992), the Conference
on Rules of Procedure and Parliamentary Practice (1994), and the Conference on Information
Technology in Parliaments (1994).

SUMMING UP

In the aftermath of the historic events that saw the demise of communism in Poland, the
country's newly democratic parliament was faced with the immense task of drafting a new
constitution, reorganizing itself as an independent and effective legislative body, and quickly
rewriting virtually all of Poland's fundamental laws. The U.S. Congress sought to aid
parliament by strengthening its ability to manage information and provide research and
analysis support. The Gift of Democracy and Frost Task Force programs successfully
accomplished these ends, delivering equipment, technical assistance, and training responsive to
parliament's expressed needs.

As a result of the assistance, parliament has become more efficient and effective in performing
its legislative functions. The computers and modern office equipment have made more and
better information available for MPs to use as they draft, revise, and debate legislation.
Members no longer have to wait weeks for bill revisions to be compiled and distributed,
accelerating the overall process and easing handling of the large volume of legislation under
development. 

Parliament has also become more transparent and accountable. Speedier publication and wider
distribution of key legislative documents and records made possible by project assistance has
made coverage of parliament easier for the media. In addition, parliamentary databases can be
accessed by civic advocacy organizations, businesses, and others interested in the legislative
process.

However, the scope of the assistance raises questions about the programs' overall efficacy:

--   How can legislative strengthening programs meet the diverse needs of a fledgling
     democratic legislature?
     
--   Is assistance such as that provided through the Gift of Democracy and Frost Task Force
     sufficient? 
     
--   Is there a need to provide a broader mix of assistance, in areas such as constituent
     relations, the links between the legislature and civil society, the role of political parties,
     and how a democratic legislature works and what can be expected from it?

From the standpoint of this case study, the answer to these questions is that the assistance
provided by the Gift of Democracy and the Frost Task Force is not enough by itself, and that a
broader mix of activities is needed to meet a newly democratic legislature's diverse needs. 

LESSONS LEARNED     

The legislative strengthening projects in Poland suggest a number of lessons learned and
thoughts for further consideration:

1.   Assistance should go beyond infrastructure and information needs. In terms of
     facilitating development of an independent, nonpartisan research, analysis, and
     information management capability, the Gift of Democracy and Frost Task Force were
     highly successful. However, the experience in Poland suggests that as a stand-alone
     legislative strengthening activity this approach is not sufficient in terms of meeting a
     newly democratic legislature's diverse needs. 
     
2.   Gain the support of legislative leaders. The extent to which leaders understood and
     were vested in the programs was a key determinant of success. In Poland, Gift of
     Democracy and Frost Task Force officials worked to establish and maintain an ongoing
     relationship with parliamentary leaders and senior staff.
     
3.   Allocate and distribute assistance fairly. Conditioning assistance on the fair
     distribution of benefits among political factions is important. The more such
     distribution is based on agreed-to formulas, the more likely it is that fairness will
     prevail when control of parliament changes hands. Gift of Democracy and Frost Task
     Force personnel observed this principle, enabling Sejm and Senat staff to weather a sea
     change in the composition of parliament.
     
4.   Include training in the United States. Parliamentary staff who had such opportunities
     said they were tremendously beneficial. They explained that it helped them move
     beyond abstract notions of democratic governance by experiencing "the real thing"
     firsthand. Washington-based training also brought together staff from many countries
     who developed relationships that have served as the basis for individual follow-on
     contacts and regional cooperation.
     
5.   Include regional training. MPs and parliamentary staff emphasized the benefits of
     regional training. Regional seminars and conferences supported by the Frost Task
     Force-CRS program enabled the Poles to share with and learn from others experiencing
     similar problems. Such activities also helped them become more informed about the
     standards their laws would have to meet to be consistent with those of the Western
     European countries with which they are establishing new and more broadly based
     economic, political, and social relationships.
      
6.   Support development of budget review capability. MPs said the capability to review
     and analyze the government budget is the most significant unmet need they have
     regarding the research capacity available to them. This is an area that should be
     addressed early on in any legislative strengthening project.
     
7.   Make staff retention a priority. Legislative strengthening should include efforts to
     increase the likelihood that staff in general, and those that have benefited directly from
     project training in particular, will remain with the legislature. The Sejm's research
     bureau has lost more than half its staff since 1991, owing to the lack of civil service
     status for parliamentary personnel and the availability of higher paying private sector
     jobs. 
     
8.   Ensure broader involvement by the Mission. The Gift of Democracy and Frost Task
     Force programs could have accomplished more had USAID been more involved in
     their implementation. USAID was unable to capitalize on the investment of resources
     and program success in Poland, in contrast to El Salvador for example, where
     legislative strengthening efforts were coordinated with other areas of Mission
     programming. In addition, had USAID/Poland been more involved, relatively low-cost
     training and technical assistance to MPs and staff on issues of joint concern--such as
     local government, lobbying, and privatization--could have helped achieve other short-
     and long-term USAID program objectives.

ENDNOTES

1 An anitgovernment trade union mass movement, Solidarity agitated relentlessly from 1980-89
for reforms and concessions that threatened and ultimately brought down the communist
government.

2 Relationships between the presidency, the government (that is, the prime minister and the
Council of Ministers), and the legislature rests primarily on the Constitutional Act of October
17, 1992 ("Little Constitution"), which made major modifications to, but did not entirely
replace, the 1952 Constitution instituted under the Communist regime. A new constitution has
been under development for several years and may be completed later in 1996.

3 The term of office can be shortened if parliament is dissolved, as occurred in October 1991
and May 1993.

4 The Sejm may reject the Senat's action by a vote of an absolute majority (50 percent plus one
of those voting) of its members.

5 In the Sejm, for example, 320 subcommittees have been established during the current term,
170 of which were still operating as of March 1996.

6 Although a major element of many parliamentary systems, party discipline--the means by
which party members are required to vote the party line--does not appear to be a matter of
great concern at this time in the Polish parliament. A majority deputy in the Sejm, for
example, said during the current term that his party has resorted to discipline only 10 times,
and even in those cases little was done to enforce it.

7 They also showed a willingness and ability to adapt modern campaign and constituent
relations techniques to polish circumstances. A PSL leader, for example, told the CDIE team
he learned important lessons--telephone canvassing, door-to-door techniques to get out the
vote--from observing firsthand events of the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign.

8 Owing to the legacy of Poland's communist past, where lobbying was looked upon with
disdain as a "capitalist tool," lobbying is still neither completely understood nor accepted as
legitimate. With USAID assistance, parliament has just begun to consider developing ground
rules of acceptable and ethical lobbying practices. However, until such rules were established,
a sense of discomfort and reserve will remain, as the director of the Sejm's research bureau
indicated by pointing out he does not generally allow information developed by his staff to be
shared with lobbying groups.

9 Later, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovakia and the Czech
Republic (after the breakup of Czechoslovakia) were added.

10 As of late 1995, $20.5 million had been spent or allocated for Frost Task Force activities.

11 Program participation was contingent on a country's ability to meet certain threshold
criteria, including a commitment to democracy and human rights and movement toward a
market economy.

12 A recent $10,000 USAID/Poland investment has increased public access to library
information resources.