THE ROLE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ENSURING TRANSPARENCY OF PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT IN UZBEKISTAN: LEGAL GAPS AND INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE

Аннотация

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 theformalized inclusionof civilsociety actors. Keywords: Parliamentary Oversight, Transparency, Legal Framework, Accountability, Oliy Majlis,Closed Sessions,Civil Society, Comparative Analysis, InstitutionalReform, 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 consistentpublicaccess orindependent scrutiny ofoversight 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 tothis, 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 oncomparative 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 129 Volume 4, issue 4, 2025 case, understanding parliamentary transparency through this lens reveals the need for institutionalmechanisms thatenable notonly visibility butalso responsiveness topublicscrutiny. 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 withlegislation andaccountability.  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 thepublicpresentation 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 organizationsto 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 publishingoversight results to ensure publicawareness andengagement.  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, bepublished ontime. 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 th