Volume 4, issue 4, 2025
129
THE ROLE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ENSURING TRANSPARENCY OF
PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT IN UZBEKISTAN: LEGAL GAPS AND
INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE
Azamat Norov
Independent researcher in Parliamentary Law at Parliamentary Research Institute under the
Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan; +99891 977 06 98
Annotation:
This article critically evaluates the organizational and legal architecture
underpinning transparency and openness in parliamentary oversight system in Uzbekistan. The
article analyzes the practical implementation of existing relevant laws and regulations, identifies
legal organizational limitations, and evaluates alignment with global standards. By applying a
comparative legal analysis, it highlights potential deficiencies in public access, procedural
ambiguities, and legal discretion surrounding closed sessions. The article concludes with
evidence-based proposals for legal reform, emphasizing the need for institutional accountability,
regulatory clarity, and the formalized inclusion of civil society actors.
Keywords:
Parliamentary Oversight, Transparency, Legal Framework, Accountability, Oliy
Majlis, Closed Sessions, Civil Society, Comparative Analysis, Institutional Reform, Uzbekistan
Parliamentary oversight is an indispensable mechanism for enforcing executive accountability in
democratic governance. In Uzbekistan, the Oliy Majlis—comprising the Legislative Chamber
and the Senate—has formal authority to oversee executive conduct and the use of public
resources. However, the degree to which this oversight is transparent and participatory remains
questionable. Despite the presence of legal guarantees, there is limited empirical evidence
demonstrating consistent public access or independent scrutiny of oversight outcomes.
Under the decree of the President of Uzbekistan “On the Development Strategy of New
Uzbekistan for the year 2022-2026” dated 28 January 2022, the goals to improve the public
participation in the process of government by ensuring the participation of the citizens in the
law-making process and parliamentary oversight are set out. Further to this, the announcement of
the decisions on the results of parliamentary oversight on the website of the Chambers of Oliy
Majlis is also mentioned to be one of the goals for the development of the country. This article
aims to move beyond normative assertions by critically analyzing the legal provisions and their
real-world application, identifying institutional bottlenecks and offering targeted reforms based
on comparative analysis from various countries.
This article applies the democratic accountability framework, which conceptualizes
parliamentary oversight as a mechanism by which the electorate ensures that elected officials and
executive agencies act in the public interest. According to Bovens (2007), transparency is both a
precondition and an outcome of accountability; without access to information and the ability to
observe institutional processes, the public cannot hold institutions accountable. In Uzbekistan’s
Volume 4, issue 4, 2025
130
case, understanding parliamentary transparency through this lens reveals the need for
institutional mechanisms that enable not only visibility but also responsiveness to public scrutiny.
Uzbekistan's legal basis for parliamentary oversight is expansive and includes several
constitutional and statutory instruments. The key ones among them are as follows:
Constitution of Uzbekistan (1992, amended 2023)
: Article 95 establishes the authority of
the Oliy Majlis to exercise control over the activities of the executive branch, ensuring
compliance with legislation and accountability.
Law on Parliamentary Oversight (2017)
: Article 4-5 define the objects and forms of
parliamentary oversight, including hearings, inquiries, and reviews among others. Article 25
mandates the public presentation and publication of oversight results.
Constitutional Laws on the Legislative Chamber (2002, amended 2022)
and
Senate
(2003, amended 2022)
: Article 10 of the Law on the Legislative Chamber establishes that
sessions of the Legislative Chamber shall be held openly, allowing for public participation and
media coverage, with the option of holding closed sessions when necessary. Article 20 of the
Law on the Senate specifies that the Legislative Chamber has the authority to consider issues
related to parliamentary oversight and invite experts, representatives of civil society, and media
organizations to participate in open sessions.
Regulations on the Legislative Chamber and Senate (2005, updated 2021)
: Article 3(7)
provides detailed procedures for holding open and closed sessions, inviting experts, and
publishing oversight results to ensure public awareness and engagement.
Law on Transparency of State Authority and Administration (2014)
: Article 4
establishes the principles of openness, transparency, and accountability in the activities of state
bodies, except for information classified as state secrets or protected by law under Article 6.
Article 5 also mandates that public information, including the results of parliamentary oversight,
be published on time.
While these laws ostensibly support openness and transparent oversight mechanisms, they still
have some vague definitions, leaving gaps in the practical implementation of the transparency
mechanisms in the parliamentary oversight system. Legal mechanisms supporting transparency
include open sessions, media access, civil society participation, and the publication of oversight
results. Yet, the application of these measures may not be consistent.
For example,
Article 25
of the Law on Parliamentary Oversight mandates publication of results
and encourages open hearings. However, there is no legal requirement to publish detailed
minutes, dissenting opinions, or voting records, that may limit transparency. Furthermore, while
participation of media and civil society is permitted, it is not formalized, leading to selective or
symbolic involvement rather than meaningful engagement.
Similarly,
Article 10
of the Constitutional Laws on the chambers of Oliy Majlis permits closed
sessions with no precise criteria. This creates a permissive environment where openness is the
exception, not the norm. The existing laws also lacks mechanisms for post-facto justification of
closed sessions or periodic review for declassification.
These gaps are not just theoretical—they materially reduce the public ability to scrutinize
oversight activities and limit civil society’s role as a watchdog. The result is an oversight process
Volume 4, issue 4, 2025
131
that appears open in form but remains opaque in substance. Recent research analyses challenges
in effectively implementing parliamentary oversight in Uzbekistan. Otabek Khasanov (2016)
emphasizes that, despite the establishment of legal and institutional frameworks, the oversight
roles of the parliament have not achieved the desired level of control over the executive branch.
He attributes this to the need for enhanced research and proposals to bolster the efficiency of
parliamentary control mechanisms. Similarly, Kamoliddin Yusupov (2021) argues that genuine
democratization in Uzbekistan is contingent upon strengthening parliamentary control, which
serves as a crucial check on executive power. He underscores the importance of not just legal
reforms but also cultural and institutional changes that promote transparency and accountability.
These perspectives suggest that, while formal reforms have been initiated, substantive
improvements in parliamentary oversight require a holistic approach that addresses legal,
institutional, and cultural dimensions.
Three core weaknesses may emerge from the features of the current system, in particular, the
provision of the main legal act – Law on the Parliamentary oversight:
1.
Unclear Role of Public Participation
: The law allows public and media presence but does
not define their rights within proceedings—can they question? Debate? Or merely observe? This
vagueness may not allow as active participation as intended by the law.
2.
Inconsistencies in Information Disclosure
: There is no uniform standard for what oversight
information must be disclosed, when, and how. As a result, some proceedings remain
undocumented or are summarized without meaningful detail.
3.
Discretionary Use of Closed Sessions
: With no objective criteria, there is no means to check
the level of discretion for reasoning to choose to conduct close sessions.
According to the areas for improvement as highlighted above, in order to ensure genuine
transparency, it is proposed to transition from legal formality to enforceable accountability.
Proposed reforms should include:
Codifying Clear Criteria for Closed Sessions
: Amendments to Article 25 should define
permissible conditions for secrecy—e.g., national security or personal data protection.
Mandating Comprehensive Disclosure
: Standardized protocols should govern the
publication of session minutes, voting outcomes, and dissenting views. Laws must also define
deadlines for timely dissemination.
Formalizing Public and Civil Society Participation
: Clear procedural roles should be
assigned to public actors, including the right to submit questions, offer expert analysis, and
observe proceedings.
Institutionalizing Post-Session Review Mechanisms
: Closed sessions should be subject to
periodic review, with the possibility of declassification. This will deter misuse and ensure long-
term transparency.
These proposals are based on the existing international experiences that are already in practice in
other countries to ensure structured transparency in parliamentary oversight processes. The
article analyzed and draw conclusions based on the following models:
Volume 4, issue 4, 2025
132
Germany and Canada
: Both countries strictly limit closed sessions to issues of national
security. Germany’s Bundestag Rules (2022) and Canada’s House of Commons Procedure (2017)
require documented justification.
UK and US
: Legal mandates for proactive and regular disclosure of meeting records and
oversight results, via the UK Freedom of Information Act (2000) and the US Sunshine Act
(1976), create enforceable transparency.
Sweden and South Africa
: These countries legally empower civil society to engage in
legislative oversight and freely publish the results. South Africa’s Constitution obliges
parliament to facilitate public involvement, while Sweden’s Public Access to Information and
Secrecy Act (2009:400) permit wide media access and publication of the results of the
parliamentary oversight results.
New Zealand and Australia
: Standing Order 203 of the House of Representatives (1996) of
New Zealand and Australia’s Senate Procedural Orders and Guidelines (2015) permit expert
input in closed sessions under defined conditions, enhancing the technical quality of oversight.
EU and US
: United States Code and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
(2009) Require periodic review and justification of closed sessions, ensuring temporary
confidentiality does not become permanent opacity.
It is proposed that these practices to can be adapted to the legal context concerning the
transparency and openness of parliamentary oversight in Uzbekistan, establishing a rule-based
oversight culture rooted in openness and accountability. The comparative models cited in this
article were selected based on two criteria: the maturity of their parliamentary oversight systems
and their explicit legal codification of transparency norms. Countries such as Germany, Canada,
the United Kingdom, and South Africa were chosen due to their consistent inclusion in OECD
and other international agencies (i.e. UNDP) reports on good governance, as well as their
documented experiences with civil society integration in legislative processes. This purposive
selection aims to ensure relevance and adaptability to Uzbekistan’s context, considering its
current phase of democratic institutional development.
Legal provisions alone cannot guarantee transparency; their implementation and the institutional
culture surrounding them matter equally. In Uzbekistan, there is a strong legal ground for
ensuring openness of the oversight mechanism of the parliament. However, a broad description
of transparency and openness procedures, ambiguous legal provisions, and undefined
mechanisms for enforcement could be the room for attention and improvement. Addressing these
deficiencies requires a shift toward evidence-based reforms: codified standards for closed
sessions, mandatory and standardized publication practices, and active inclusion of public actors
in oversight processes. Drawing on comparative models, parliamentary oversight system of
Uzbekistan may adopt these reforms based on the existing system of laws and regulations which
already pave the way for ensuring transparency and openness of parliamentary oversight results.
References:
1.
Constitution of Uzbekistan (1992, amended in 2023).
2.
Law on Parliamentary Oversight of the Republic of Uzbekistan, No. 429, dated 3 April
2017.
3.
Constitutional Law on the Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis, No. 439-II, dated 12
December 2002 (amended in 2022).
Volume 4, issue 4, 2025
133
4.
Constitutional Law on the Senate of the Oliy Majlis, No. 472-II, dated 28 August 2003
(amended in 2022).
5.
Regulations on the Legislative Chamber and the Senate, No. 29-I, dated 6 May 2005
(updated in 2021).
6.
Law on Transparency of State Authority and Administration, No. 369, dated 5 May 2014.
7.
German Bundestag Rules of Procedure, Section 14(1), 2022.
8.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Section 118, Canada, 2017.
9.
Freedom of Information Act, Section 19, United Kingdom, 2000.
10.
Government in the Sunshine Act, Section 3, United States, 1976.
11.
Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act, Section 4, Sweden, 2009:400.
12.
Constitution of South Africa, Section 59(1)(a), 1996.
13.
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, Standing Order 203, New Zealand,
1996.
14.
Senate Procedural Orders and Guidelines, Section 13, Australia, 2015.
15.
Title 31 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 712, 2011.
16.
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 15, 2009.
17.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, Article 9, 2001.
18.
Bovens, M. (2007). “Analysing and Assessing Accountability”. European Law Journal,
13(4), 447–468.
19.
Khasanov, O. (2016). The Importance of the Parliament Control Institute in the
Development of Political System. International Journal of Development Research, 6(12), 10366–
10370.
20.
Yusupov, K. (2021). Parliamentary Oversight: Key Findings and Conclusions. JournalNX,
7(12), 173–176.
21.
OECD (2021). Lobbying in the 21st Century: Transparency, Integrity and Access. OECD
Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/lobbying-in-the-21st-
century_c6d8eff8-en.html
