American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
85
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
85-88
10.37547/ajsshr/Volume05Issue06-22
24
Parliamentary Journalism in Uzbekistan
Elmuradova Ruxsohra Talibjonovna
Lecturer at the Higher School of Translation Studies, Linguistics and International Journalism, Uzbekistan
Received:
22 April 2025;
Accepted:
18 May 2025;
Published:
20 June 2025
Abstract:
The article explains the various stages involved in the formation of parliament, discussing personal,
contentious and peaceful issues, as well as issues of interaction with neighbors. Such discussions are studied as a
historical representation of parliament or as an initial stage of its formation.
Keywords:
State, parliamentary politics, society, governance, humanity, attitude, discussion, social.
Introduction:
The Emergence and Development of
Parliamentary Journalism in the World
The formation of parliamentary journalism in the world
is directly related to the emergence of parliaments
themselves. Modern perceptions of parliament are
based on the people’s millennia
-old governance
methods. Later, scholars began to refer to this
governance system as “democracy.” In its ideal form,
democracy assumes that all citizens have the right to
vote and be elected, gathering in one place to discuss
pressing issues. Decisions are then made through
voting. Naturally, this system is effective in small
communities
—
but how about on a national scale?
Could 10 million or more people gather in one place?
Even if they did, how many days would such a gathering
last? After all, by rule, every citizen must be given the
floor to express their opinion. This led to the necessity
of electing a representative to speak on behalf of the
larger population. Of course, this was no longer “pure
democracy” because an elected representative brings
their own worldview and opinions. A modern example
of pure democracy can be seen in Switzerland’s system
of governance, where “Amtmänner” (deputies) are
elected annually. They develop laws professionally, and
the citizens with voting rights either approve or reject
them. This type of governance is called “plebiscitary
democracy.” The term “plebiscitary” comes from the
Latin plebiscitum, meaning decision-making through
public discussion. In such systems, the law text cannot
be altered
—only a “yes” or “no” vote is given.
With the growth of the population and the increasing
complexity of socio-political governance, the need
arose for “representative democracy,” and the term
“representation” began to be used instead of
“democracy.” Today, this function is performed by the
parliamentary system. The word “parliament” is
derived from the English Parliament, but its origin lies
in the French verb parler
—
to speak. It is worth noting
that before the French Revolution, only courts in
remote regions of France were referred to as
“parliaments,” which is why the term was later adopted
into English.
Looking back through human history, we can see that
public assemblies existed even at the turn of the first
millennium
—
in cities like Athens and Rome, and later
in England and Spain, as well as in ancient Novgorod in
the form of “veches.” Among older parliaments, Spain’s
“Cortes” can be mentioned. Iceland a
lso claims to have
the oldest parliament. Historians attempt to prove that
several large stones near Iceland’s capital Reykjavik
mark the site of the world’s first open
-air parliament,
still known today as “Althing.” Icelanders believe that
ancient Vikings gathered here to discuss and resolve
state issues.
Citizens or “chosen ones” (elders, representatives,
princes, nobles) gathered at these assemblies to
discuss urgent issues concerning their regions. The
limited size of these regions allowed such gatherings to
be held regularly. Over time, the issues discussed
expanded to include not just personal or judicial
matters, but broader national concerns such as war,
peace, and interregional relations. These discussions
can be seen as the historical prototype or early stage of
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
86
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)
the formation of parliament.
The second stage in the development of parliaments
refers to their emergence as state forums. England is
considered the birthplace of parliament. As early as the
12th
–
13th centuries, the English Parliament began to
play this role and was recognized as a classical model.
The monarchy limited the assembly of major feudal
lords (lords), high clergy, and representatives from
cities and counties. Later, in the 16th
–
17th centuries,
parliament
became
a
corporative-authoritative
institution acting as a council to the king. Similar class-
based institutions later emerged in Poland, Hungary,
France, Spain, and other countries. Eventually, these
developed into the modern form of governmental
institutions.
The third stage in the development of parliament spans
from the late 17th to the late 19th century. During this
period, the ideas of parliamentarism fully took shape.
In the works of European philosophers such as John
Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Montesquieu, and
Voltaire, as well as in the political treatises of the
“founding fathers” of the 1787 U.S. Constitution, the
concepts of popular sovereignty and the social contract
between rulers and citizens were developed. According
to the theory of the separation of powers by Locke and
Montesquieu, the role of parliaments was primarily
limited to exercising legislative power.
The concept of national (popular) representation,
which emerged in the 18th
–
19th centuries, can be
summarized as follows:
1.
National representation is established by the
constitution;
2.
The nation (the people), as the holder of
sovereignty, authorizes parliament to act on its behalf
in exercising legislative power;
3.
For this purpose, the people elect their
representatives (deputies, senators, etc.);
4.
A member of parliament is not only the
representative of their electorate but of the entire
nation, and they are not bound to their voters
—
nor can
they be recalled by them.
As legal philosopher Léon Duguit emphasized:
“Parliament is the mandate of the nation.”
Thus, the
relationship between the concept of representation
and parliaments exists across all nations. However,
when we interpret “mandate” and “representation”
semantically, the actual relationship may differ from
what was originally intended.
Half a century later, French politician Marcel Prélot
wrote: “The expression of the voter's will ends with the
act of election. The elected representative's role is
defined only by the constitution and laws, and voters
have no further influence.” He emphasized that
the
word “mandate” should be understood in the context
of the 1789 doctrine, whereas “representation” carries
a different linguistic implication. In other words, an
elected individual, as a direct and free expression of the
nation’s will, has complete ind
ependence. Parliament,
therefore, knows what the nation wants and expresses
the people’s will through laws and decisions without
external control. The will of parliament is the will of the
nation. This is the essence of representative
governance.
French thinkers
—
from E.-J. Sieyès to Marcel Prélot
—
considered this model to be non-democratic because it
denied citizens the right to control the will they had
entrusted to parliament. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
promoted the idea of supreme unity of power, from
which emerged the notion that the legislative power
should oversee the executive. In the doctrine of the
separation of powers, parliament was given great
importance as the legislative branch.
In developing countries, particularly in parts of Africa
and Asia, parliaments were often built as formal copies
of those in developed Western countries. However, in
practice, they often had no real power and simply
recorded decisions made by centers of authority
outside parliament. Parliament is a legally authorized
div that makes supreme decisions on behalf of the
people and expresses the will and interests of all
citizens of the state. Its significance as a national or
public representative div stems from this function.
The fourth stage of parliamentary development spans
the 19th century. During this time, parliament fully
developed as a state institution. Electoral laws laid the
foundation for regular elections of parliament
members. Parliament became the sole source of
legislation, holding exclusive rights to enact laws. At
that time, parliamentary institutions also began
forming working procedures, the status of deputies,
and relationships with the executive, political parties,
and the press.
The fifth stage of parliamentary development occurred
in the 20th century and was marked by the increasing
importance of parliament. While in the first half of the
century parliaments had to prove their relevance
within state structures, in the post
–
World War II era,
the idea of parliamentary supremacy gained
widespread recognition. The global community
embraced this principle. Parliaments began to play a
central role in public life by actively reflecting and
influencing public opinion. Their maturity became an
indicator of a democratic civil society.
Parliamentary
institutions
gained
significant
experience, and their interaction with other branches
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
87
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)
of government became a dynamic factor in state
governance. Based on the scope of their authority,
parliaments can be categorized into three types:
1.
Parliaments with unlimited authority;
2.
Parliaments with strictly limited authority;
3.
Parliaments with relatively limited authority.
In most states with a parliamentary system of
governance, parliaments are considered to have
unlimited authority. The British Parliament is a classic
example. According to British legal scholars,
parliamentary supremacy implies the following:
1. The Primacy in Lawmaking. Only the Parliament has
the authority to adopt laws, and the law occupies the
highest position in the hierarchy of normative legal
acts.
2. The Right to Approve the State Budget and Introduce
Taxes.
3. Government Accountability Before the Parliament.
4. The Right to Confirm Judges in Office.
5. The Absence of Competing Authorities with Similar
Powers to Parliament.
Legal scholar P. Bromhead supports the idea of an
absolutely competent Parliament. According to him,
there should be no restrictions on the content of laws
or obstacles to their adoption. The Constitution of
Japan, which defines the Parliament as the supreme
representative and sole legislative div of state
authority, does not specify the powers of Parliament in
detail. This, in turn, confirms the unlimited authority of
the
Japanese
Parliament.
The
limitation
of
parliamentary powers within a specific framework
allows us to consider it as a relatively limited authority.
For instance, Articles 34, 35, and 49 of the Constitution
of France define the list of matters that can be resolved
by Parliament through legislation. Other matters are
primarily handled by the government. If the French
Parliament enacts a law outside of its authority, the
Constitutional Council may annul the document based
on a government decree.
In many developing countries, parliaments often have
relatively limited powers. In states such as Senegal and
Gabon, which were formerly French colonies,
parliaments were modeled after the French system.
Parliaments with limited authority are more common
and are typical of federal or decentralized unitary
states. In such states, the powers of the central
government are limited by the rights of federal
subjects, and accordingly, Parliament may act only
within the scope restricted by local authorities. For
example, the U.S. Congress may exercise only those
powers explicitly stated in the Constitution. The
Constitution of Spain establishes a similar procedure,
under which matters not directly included in the scope
of national authority are transferred to autonomous
communities based on their statutes.
Overall, the type of powers Parliament possesses
depends largely on the structure of the state, its system
of governance, and political order. In addition, the level
of democracy in the country and its political orientation
also influence parliamentary authority. For example, in
presidential republics, Parliament has limited
involvement in the formation of the government and
limited control over the executive branch. In
parliamentary
republics,
Parliament
actively
participates in forming the executive branch, elects the
head of government, and exercises strong oversight
over its activities.
In totalitarian political systems, even if the Constitution
and laws grant broad powers to Parliament, they are
often not effectively implemented. Among the most
important functions of Parliament are adopting laws,
exercising financial powers, ratifying and denouncing
international treaties, and participating in the
formation of state bodies. Financial powers include
approving the state budget and introducing taxes. The
budget is typically adopted in the form of a law. This
procedure is followed in countries such as France,
Germany, and Russia. In contrast, countries like Japan,
the United Kingdom, and the United States develop
their state budgets in the form of a program, composed
of several laws.
The power to introduce taxes is of great political
significance, as it allows Parliament to influence the
entire economic life of the state. This authority is often
explicitly defined in constitutions. For example, Article
60 of the Bulgarian Constitution states that taxes and
duties, as well as privileges and obligations in this area,
must be established by law, and their introduction falls
under the exclusive competence of the National
Assembly.
Ratifying and denouncing international treaties is also
one of Parliament’s important powers. Ratification is
the final consent of the state to join a treaty.
Traditionally, the authority to ratify international
treaties was granted to the head of state. However,
over time, international treaties have become
increasingly integrated into domestic legal systems,
and states that sign treaties are obliged to align their
national legislation with the norms and principles
stated therein. Today, under the constitutions of
Germany and Austria, international treaties are
recognized as integral parts of federal law. According to
the Constitution of France, ratified international
treaties take precedence over national legislation. This
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
88
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)
strong influence of international treaties on domestic
legal systems has made it necessary for Parliament to
participate in the ratification process. Otherwise, the
head of state could use their absolute authority in this
area to modify or annul even laws passed by Parliament
by joining international treaties.
Regarding the role of Parliament in the state
mechanism, theorists of the separation of powers such
as John Locke and Montesquieu sought to limit its
authority primarily to lawmaking. Jean-Jacques
Rousseau, in contrast, spoke of the unity of state power
and promoted the idea of legislative oversight over the
executive branch.
The modern Parliament is the supreme representative
div of state power, exercising legislative functions.
This includes a number of financial powers, such as
adopting the state budget and overseeing its
implementation. Depending on the system of
government, Parliament may also have various levels of
oversight over the executive branch. For example,
under the Constitution of Spain, the General Cortes
(Parliament of Spain) exercises legislative power,
approves the state budget, and supervises the activities
of the government.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, global practice shows that in some cases,
Parliaments may come under the influence of
government policy and lose their independence. This
can clearly be seen in the example of the Parliaments
of former Soviet states. Moreover, in some developing
African and Asian countries, supreme representative
bodies, though modeled after those of developed
countries, may operate in practice without real power.
The representative nature of Parliament lies in its
acting on behalf of the entire nation and its citizens.
Therefore, the terms “national” and “people’s” are
often used in naming parliaments. The concept of
national representation, which emerged in the 17th
–
19th centuries, can be recognized as a combination of
the following principles.
REFERENCES
Белоусов Михаил Сергеевич Конституционное
право зарубежных стран.
-
M.: Array Литагент «Ай
Пи Эр Медиа». 2008.
Бромхед П. Эволюция Британской конституции. М.,
ЮЛ, 1978,
История политических и правовых учений. Учебник
/ Под ред. доктора юридических наук, профессора
О. Э. Лейста. –
М.: Издательство "Зерцало", 2000.
История российского парламентаризма : учебно
-
методическое
пособие
для
студентов
исторического
факультета
Тувинского
государственного университета / составитель З. Ю.
Доржу, Е. М. Ондар. –
Кызыл : Изд
-
во ТувГУ, 2020.
Парламентаризм в России: исторический опыт,
проблемы и перспективы : курс лекций.
-
[Томск,
2007]
