Kamerleden in regeringsdelegaties: een oud probleem opnieuw bezien

Abstract

An analysis is presented of the practice of some countries, such as the Netherlands, the United States, and Sweden, to include members of parliament in official national delegations to international organizations and international conferences. Most of the material is based on the author’s experiences with the 23rd General Assembly of the United Nations in 1968, which he attended as an observer at the Netherlands delegation. Advantages and disadvantages of this custum are discussed. While the parliamentarian may acquire knowledge of and experience with international diplomacy, he may also become subject to role-conflicts, if after serving the executive for three months at the U.N. he is afterwards compelled to criticize some of the decisions in which he has taken part. The latter applies especially, if (as in the case of the Netherlands and the United States) members of the opposition are included in the delegation. It is argued that in addition to the well-known parhamentarian roles of lawmaking, checking the executive and representing the voters, the role of helping to execute governmental policies should be distinguished. This role may hinder a proper representation of the voters. If people ate willing to accept this new role, there should be no objection to the inclusion of members of parliament in such delegations. The members of parliament should themselves decide which roles they consider most important. If they are not willing to contribute to the execution of governmental policies, they should opt for an observer status at international of conferences and international organizations. An argument is made in favour of annual reports by the members of parliament who have served in governmental delegations, to the full parliament. Moreover, all political parties should take part in the selection of these members of parliament.