ABSTRACT
The late Secretary General of the Mozambican Assembly summarised well the
views of many concerning the relationship between parliament and citizens:
‘Why do you want to know what the public says about us? I can tell you in
just three words what their image of parliament is: a) useless, b) unperturbed,
and c) too expensive’ (Azevedo-Harman, this issue, p. 419); and across the 14
studies included in this issue, this is the main idea that runs through most of
the contributions: that the public does not value parliament. And yet the same
studies also show that parliaments have never been so active in developing lin-
kages with citizens, or as transparent and accessible. In fact it is those cases
where confidence in parliament is at its lowest that there is the most activity,
transparency and accessibility, such as the British or the German legislatures.
Beyond stating yet another of parliaments’ many paradoxes, what does this
show us? Are parliaments bound to be unloved? Are parliaments just not
trying hard enough? Should one indeed expect that a better relationship
between parliament and citizens would lead to higher levels of trust? And how
would one assess a better relationship between parliament and citizens? In this
final contribution we review the evidence presented in this volume and consider
the extent to which the developments in the relationship between parliament and
citizens over recent decades matter for our trust in, and perceptions of,
parliament.
