Enviada a todos os Parlamentos da União Europeia a 26 de maio de 2025 e aos principais três jornais de cada país da União.

Introduction

A recent comparative assessment of parliamentary transparency across Europe highlights a critical challenge facing all European parliaments: the lack of meaningful, two-way communication between elected representatives and the public. Out of 270 parliamentarians contacted (10 from each national parliament), only one responded to a direct inquiry—demonstrating a systemic failure in parliamentary openness and accountability.

This result is not just a matter of individual responsiveness but reveals deeper institutional shortcomings. When only a single parliament earns recognition for basic engagement, it signals that transparency and accessibility are not yet embedded as core values in most legislative bodies. The top performers in this ranking—such as Bulgaria, Luxembourg, France, Italy, and Poland—set a higher standard, but the overall picture is one of widespread inertia. Conversely, several parliaments scored negatively, reflecting not only non-responsiveness but also restrictive or opaque practices that undermine public trust.

The implications are significant. True transparency is not limited to publishing registers or documents; it requires proactive, accessible, and reliable channels for citizens, journalists, and civil society to interact with their representatives. Without this, legislative institutions risk alienating the public and weakening democratic legitimacy.

To address these shortcomings, European parliaments should:

Guarantee direct, functional, and monitored communication channels for all members, with clear commitments to timely responses.

Regularly audit and publish metrics on parliamentary engagement and accessibility.

Move beyond passive disclosure by fostering active dialogue with citizens and stakeholders.

Harmonize transparency standards across Europe to ensure that best practices are adopted universally, not just in a handful of countries.

Only by embracing these principles can European parliaments rebuild public confidence and fulfill their democratic mandate in the 21st century.

In May 2025, the Movimento Democracia Participativa conducted a comparative study titled “Registers of Interests and Transparency Metrics in the Parliaments/Senates of European Union Member States.” The data, including rankings, can be consulted here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j7bP_pO6hBvVR-gnMc-znX6jRmtAs5FFI0ev806Jq4A/edit?usp=sharing

Proposals to Make Parliamentary Websites More Transparent

Fully Open Register of InterestsUnrestricted online publication of all MPs’ registers of interests.Data must be accessible without registration, legal threats, or change history obfuscation.

Open and Reusable Data FormatsAll relevant data (interests, income, positions, initiatives, votes, attendance, etc.) must be published in open formats (XML, JSON, CSV) and updated in real time.A public API should be available for automated access and external platform integration.

Searchable and Accessible DocumentsAll documents (minutes, declarations, reports) must be in searchable PDF and/or HTML, with bulk download options.Advanced search tools should be integrated into the website.

Complete and Updated MP ProfilesDetailed, up-to-date information on:

Academic qualifications

Profession and professional experience

External roles (current and past)

Committee and working group participation

List of assistants/parliamentary staff

Relevant family relations (spouse, parents, children, if involved in public functions)

Declared income and assets, with change history

Direct and Functional Contact ChannelsMandatory publication of institutional email addresses with a public response time commitment (e.g., 10 working days) enshrined in parliamentary rules.Direct contact tools (chat, form, scheduling public meetings) must be available.

Full Transparency of Parliamentary ActivityAll initiatives (bills, speeches, votes) must be linked to high-quality audio and video records, searchable by topic, MP, or date.Agendas, attendance, and absences (with justification) must be published.

Conflict of Interest and Nepotism MonitoringAutomatic cross-checks between interests, family ties, and collaborators to detect conflicts or nepotism.Public reports and automatic alerts must be generated.

Civic Interactivity and ParticipationTools for citizens to evaluate MP and parliamentary transparency.Mechanisms for public consultation and online participation in parliamentary hearings.

External Audit and Transparency CertificationRegular audits by independent entities (national and international), with published results.Annual certification of compliance with international transparency standards (e.g., Open Government Partnership, Transparency International).

Civic Education and LiteracyRegular campaigns to inform citizens of their rights to access information and how to use parliamentary transparency tools.

Algorithmic TransparencyPublication of algorithms and criteria for the allocation of committees, media airtime, and parliamentary resources.

Real-Time Transparency DashboardA public platform that monitors and scores transparency for each MP and the Parliament as a whole, updated automatically.

Citizen Audit MechanismAny citizen or organization must be able to request audits of parliamentary data or processes, with mandatory responses and publication of findings.

Integration with the EU Transparency RegisterMandatory registration and regular updating of MPs’ and staff members’ data in the European Transparency Register.

Whistleblower Protection and EncouragementSecure mechanisms for internal and external reporting of conflicts of interest, corruption, or opacity, aligned with the EU Whistleblower Directive.

Transparency Impact ReportsAnnual publication of an independent report on parliamentary transparency, including mandatory recommendations and an action plan.

Quantitative Analysis

Register of Interests16 national parliaments do not publish MPs’ registers of interests: Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, and Romania. Of the 10 that do, all make them openly available. Portugal is the only country that conditions access with threats, undermining transparency.

Open Data PlatformsOnly the French Parliament publishes MPs’ data in an open data platform. Portugal only provides family ties data in open data format:Open data link

Searchable PDFsSix parliaments publish searchable PDFs (text-based, not scanned images): France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, and Romania.

Academic QualificationsOnly 15 out of 27 countries publish this information, which is key for comparative and contextual analyses on transparency, ethics, and interest regulation.

Profession17 parliaments publish MPs’ professional background. This is critical to study transparency, integrity, and representative diversity. Countries omitting it include: Belgium, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Czech Republic, and Romania.

Direct Email23 parliaments publish MPs’ emails. Portugal, Germany, Slovenia, and Romania do not. Out of 270 MPs contacted, only one—Bulgarian—responded.

External PositionsOnly 8 countries publish MPs’ external roles. Portugal is among them, as are Spain, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Luxembourg, and Sweden.

Committee MembershipsPublished by 21 parliaments. Omitted by Finland, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, and the Czech Republic.

Audio/Video of InitiativesOnly 12 parliaments provide these. This is essential for scrutiny and civic participation. Portugal offers partial coverage.

Declared IncomeOnly 5 parliaments publish income data: France, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, and Romania. Portugal does not.

Staff TransparencyOnly 6 countries publish data on parliamentary assistants: France, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Czech Republic.

Spouse/Parent DataImportant to identify nepotism or political dynasties. Only 4 countries publish this: Portugal, Cyprus, Slovenia, and Sweden.

Key Areas & Recommendations

Register of Interests→ Current: 16 do not publish; 10 publish openly; Portugal threatens access.→ Recommendation: Full, unrestricted publication in open, searchable formats, with automatic alerts for updates.

Open Data Platforms→ Current: Only France complies; Portugal only partially.→ Recommendation: Launch a national parliamentary open data portal, following the model of the EU Parliament.

Searchable PDFs/HTML→ Current: 6 comply; Portugal does not.→ Recommendation: Mandatory publication of all documents in searchable PDF and HTML.

Academic Qualifications→ Current: Only 15 publish.→ Recommendation: Mandatory, detailed, and updated publication, linked to verified databases.

Profession→ Current: 17 publish; Portugal does, but not linked to other data.→ Recommendation: Detailed publication with links to external roles, economic interests, and voting records.

Direct Email→ Current: 23 publish; Portugal does not.→ Recommendation: Mandatory publication with public response commitment and regular audit.

External Roles→ Current: Only 8 publish; Portugal included.→ Recommendation: Detailed publication with cross-referenced databases and alert systems.

Committees→ Current: 21 publish; Portugal included.→ Recommendation: Make this data searchable and integrate with legislative records.

Audio/Video of Initiatives→ Current: 12 publish; Portugal partially.→ Recommendation: Mandatory publication with automatic transcription and subtitles.

Income→ Current: Only 5 publish; Portugal does not.→ Recommendation: Mandatory, detailed, and updated publication with links to other variables.

Parliamentary Staff→ Current: Only 6 publish.→ Recommendation: Publish names, roles, and potential family ties, with employment history.

Spouse/Parent Information→ Current: Only 4 publish; Portugal included.→ Recommendation: Optional publication, with regular audits and cross-checks.

Ranking

Given that only one of the 270 MPs contacted responded, only one parliament scored on this metric: Bulgaria, which ranked first. It was followed by Luxembourg, France, Italy, and Poland. Portugal ranks 10th. The lowest-scoring were Greece (with a negative score!), Lithuania, Malta, and Finland.

Conclusion

This analysis demonstrates that, despite some progress, most European parliaments still fall short of the standards required for true transparency and democratic accountability. The overwhelming lack of responsiveness and limited data availability hinder public trust and civic engagement. By adopting the proposals outlined above, parliaments across Europe can not only meet but exceed international best practices, setting a new benchmark for openness, integrity, and public participation. Only through such ambitious reforms can legislative institutions rebuild public confidence and fulfill their democratic mandate in the 21st century.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://movimentodemocraciaparticipativa.org/