Parliament Watch: Monitoring Report on the Debate Quality in the Parliament (July – December 2025)

The report indicates a relatively low level of debate quality in the Parliament for the current mandate, and confirming that there is significant room for improvement. The average debate quality score for the first half of 2025 is 5.7 on a scale of 1-10. This represents no change from the previous monitoring period (January-June 2025) but a slight improvement (+.2) compared to the initial monitoring period (July – December 2024) of 5.5.

In addition to measuring the quality of the debate, MPs’ activity was also assessed on how often they spoke and the duration of their speeches.

Among the MPs who most frequently took the floor, seven were from the opposition and three from the majority. Among the MPs who spoke for the longest duration, eight were from the opposition, and two were from the majority. The three MPs who both spoke most frequently and spent the longest time at the parliamentary rostrum were Sali Murati, Fatmir Bitiki, and Jovanka Trenchevska. Among the ten MPs who most frequently took the floor and the ten who spent the longest time at the rostrum during the monitoring period, there were four women and seven men.

In 21% of analysed debates, participants made no arguments, and in 49% of analysed debates, they made weak arguments, meaning that speakers provided explanations of their positions that were insufficient to be considered a fully developed argument. In 21% of analysed debates, speakers used at least one argument to substantiate their position. The level of argumentation in 2025 shows a slight improvement compared to the second half of 2024 and to 2023. Argumentation was significantly lower in replies and counter-replies than in substantive speeches, which considerably diminishes the quality of debate in the Parliament.

With regard to how MPs respond to arguments presented by other MPs, the monitoring indicates that MPs addressed those arguments adequately in only 10% of their speeches, meaning that the MP responded directly to points previously raised by another participant in the debate. In contrast to previous monitoring periods, which recorded a continuous trend of improvement, 10% represents a decline from the 14% of adequately addressed arguments in the previous reporting period.

MPs from the parliamentary majority did not refer either to the arguments of interlocutors13 (78%) or to their personality14 (78%) in the large majority of their speeches. This relationship is almost at the same level as in the previous monitoring period.

Monitoring also focused on the review of four reports submitted to the Parliament15 by independent and regulatory bodies. Of the four reports, three were subject to weak discussion, while one was not discussed at all, indicating a lack of substantial parliamentary oversight in this segment.

Three regular and two additional sessions of parliamentary questions for the opposition were held. The regular parliamentary question sessions scheduled for September and October were not conducted due to a decision by MPs not to sit during the local election campaign period.

The report also confirms the low level of MPs’ attention towards the rights of marginalised groups across all monitoring periods. In 79% of their discussions, MPs do not refer to the rights of marginalised persons. While this represents an improvement from the previous reporting period, when this figure reached 87%, MPs consistently do not address the rights of marginalised groups unless a specific law or agenda item related to those rights is under discussion.

Recommendations for improving the quality of parliamentary debate:

• Enhance the quality and level of argumentation of parliamentary debate through systematic improvement of MPs’ preparation and presentations.
• Strengthen MPs’ knowledge, debating, and oratory skills through continuous training and education, while ensuring systematic support for newly elected MPs, with a particular focus on argument-based speaking and the effective use of available analytical tools.
• Make more intensive and effective use of the services, analyses, and research provided by the Parliamentary Institute and the Parliamentary Budget Office.
• Actively apply Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) in the work of the Parliament, including for draft laws submitted by MPs.
• Ensure that shortened legislative procedures are used carefully and only in limited and justified contexts, so as not to restrict parliamentary debate.
• Strengthen the oversight role of the Parliament through more active monitoring and evaluation of the Government’s strategic policies and reform processes.
• Encourage greater involvement of citizens, civil society organisations, and the expert community in the legislative process, including through legislative public hearings.
• Promote the use of examples drawn from citizens’ experiences, interests, and needs in parliamentary debates, and to actively respond to discriminatory and sexist speech.
• Apply a calendar of parliamentary and committee sessions in order to increase predictability, improve preparation and enhance the quality of parliamentary debate.

Read more:
PARLIAMENT WATCH: MONITORING REPORT ON THE DEBATE QUALITY IN THE PARLIAMENT (JULY – DECEMBER 2025)

This publication has been prepared within the framework of the Parliamentary Support Programme (PSP), a project of the Government of Switzerland under the auspices of the Parliament of the Republic of North Macedonia. The PSP is implemented by the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Institute for Democracy “Societas Civilis” – Skopje (IDSCS) and the Center for Change Management (CCM). The opinions, views and content expressed do not reflect the views of the project, the donor and the implementer.