Digitalisation of Foreign Parliaments: Comparative Analysis and Evaluation of Applicability to Kazakhstan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48010/4cwc2834Keywords:
Parliamentary Digitalisation, E-Petitions, Civic Participation, Parliamentary Committees, Kurultai, People's Council of Kazakhstan, Personal Data, Algorithmic BiasAbstract
The article compares digital participation in five foreign parliaments and assesses its applicability to Kazakhstan, where the 2026 constitutional reform created the unicameral Kurultai. The main research question asks which institutional elements carry a citizen signal through to a parliamentary decision. The hypothesis holds that the effectiveness of digital participation depends on how deeply a platform is embedded in parliamentary procedure rather than on its technological level. Methods include a comparative case study, institutional analysis along five dimensions and a structured analysis of reform chronologies. The units of analysis are the UK House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the German Bundestag, the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies and the Estonian Riigikogu. In all systems only a small share of published petitions reaches the higher threshold: about 0.6% at Westminster and about 1.5% in the Bundestag in 2025. Portals tied to procedure deliver stable results, while platforms outside procedure lose relevance. Risks related to personal data, cybersecurity and algorithmic bias are analysed. For Kazakhstan, it proposes a two-tier threshold for petitions addressed to the Kurultai, a committee review route, open tracking of petition status and a link with the People's Council of Kazakhstan (Qazaqstan Halyq Kenesi).
References
1 Leston-Bandeira, C. (2007). The impact of the Internet on parliaments: A legislative studies framework. Parliamentary Affairs, 60(4), 655–674. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsm040
2 Lindner, R., & Riehm, U. (2009). Electronic petitions and institutional modernization: International parliamentary e-petition systems in comparative perspective. JeDEM—eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 1(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v1i1.3
3 Ob iskusstvennom intellekte: Zakon Respubliki Kazakhstan ot 17 noyabrya 2025 goda No. 230-VIII ZRK [On Artificial Intelligence: Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 230-VIII dated November 17, 2025]. (2025). Adilet. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2500000230 (In Russian)
4 Tsifrovoy kodeks Respubliki Kazakhstan ot 9 yanvarya 2026 goda No. 255-VIII ZRK [Digital Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 255-VIII dated January 9, 2026]. (2026). Adilet. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K2600000255 (In Russian)
5 87,15% «za»: V Kazakhstane utverdili novuyu Konstitutsiyu po itogam referenduma [87.15% voted “yes”: Kazakhstan approved a new Constitution following the referendum]. (2026, March 17). BES.media. https://bes.media/news/8715-za-v-kazahstane-utverdili-novuyu-konstitutsiyu-po-itogam-referenduma-f4e501/ (In Russian)
6 Pervaya sessiya Kurultaya pervogo sozyva naznachena na 28 avgusta [The first session of the first convocation of the Kurultai is scheduled for August 28]. (2026, August 26). Kapital.kz. https://kapital.kz/gosudarstvo/152122/pervaya-sessiya-kurultaya-pervogo-sozyva-naznachena-na-28-avgusta.html (In Russian)
7 Izbrany chleny postoyannykh komitetov Kurultaya — spisok [Members of the Kurultai’s standing committees elected: List]. (2026, August 28). Zakon.kz. https://www.zakon.kz/politika/6529730-izbrany-chleny-postoyannykh-komitetov-kurultaya--spisok.html (In Russian)
8 Pervoye zasedaniye Qazaqstan Khalyk Kenesi: Klyuchevyye resheniya [First meeting of the Kazakhstan People’s Council: Key decisions]. (2026, September 23). 24.kz. https://24.kz/ru/news/policy/793943-pervoe-zasedanie-kazakstan-khalyk-kenesi-klyuchevye-resheniya (In Russian)
9 Parlament odobril proyekt zakona o sozdanii Khalyk Kenesi [Parliament approved a draft law on the establishment of the People’s Council]. (2026, May 15). Kapital.kz. https://kapital.kz/gosudarstvo/148091/parlament-odobril-proekt-zakona-o-sozdanii-halykh-kengesi.html (In Russian)
10 Serra-Silva, S. (2022). How do parliaments engage with citizens? Online public engagement: A comparative analysis of parliamentary websites. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 28(4), 489–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2021.1896451
11 Bernardes, C., & Bandeira, C. (2016). Information vs. engagement in parliamentary websites: A case study of Brazil and the UK. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 24(59), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-987316245905
12 Griffith, J., & Leston-Bandeira, C. (2012). How are parliaments using new media to engage with citizens? The Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(3–4), 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2012.706058
13 Leston-Bandeira, C. (2019). Parliamentary petitions and public engagement: An empirical analysis of the role of e-petitions. Policy & Politics, 47(3), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319X15579230420117
14 Lindner, R., & Riehm, U. (2011). Broadening participation through e-petitions? An empirical study of petitions to the German Parliament. Policy & Internet, 3(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1083
15 Jungherr, A., & Jürgens, P. (2010). The political click: Political participation through e-petitions in Germany. Policy & Internet, 2(4), 131–165. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1084
16 Matthews, F. (2021). The value of “between-election” political participation: Do parliamentary e-petitions matter to political elites? The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 23(3), 410–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120959041
17 Hendriks, C. M. (2016). Coupling citizens and elites in deliberative systems: The role of institutional design. European Journal of Political Research, 55(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12123
18 O’Connor, K., Janenova, S., & Knox, C. (2019). Open government in authoritarian regimes. International Review of Public Policy, 1(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.325
19 Kurmanov, B., Selteyev, U., & Almaganbetov, A. (2024). “Listening State?”: Exploring citizens’ perceptions of open government in Tokayev’s Kazakhstan. Central Asian Survey, 43(2), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2023.2268652
20 Mukhametkaliyeva, Ye. M., & Bastaubayeva, A. Zh. (2018). Vovlecheniye obshchestvennosti v normotvorcheskuyu deyatel’nost’ Kazakhstana posredstvom ispol’zovaniya kraudsorsinga [Public engagement in Kazakhstan’s rulemaking through crowdsourcing]. Gosudarstvennoye upravleniye i gosudarstvennaya sluzhba, (4), 138–163. (In Russian)
21 House of Commons Library. (2025). Petitions in the UK (Research Briefing No. CBP-8620). https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8620/
22 Vidgen, B., & Yasseri, T. (2020). What, when and where of petitions submitted to the UK government during a time of chaos. Policy Sciences, 53(3), 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09395-y
23 77,000 fake signatures removed from Brexit referendum petition. (2016, June 27). Silicon Republic. https://siliconrepublic.com/trending/brexit-referendum-petition-fake-signatures
24 Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. (2026). Annual report 2025–2026: 1st report, 2026 (Session 6). The Scottish Parliament. https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/committee-reports/cppp/2026/3/16/cppps062026r01
25 Böhle, K., & Riehm, U. (2013). E-petition systems and political participation: About institutional challenges and democratic opportunities. First Monday, 18(7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i7.4220
26 Deutscher Bundestag. (2024, June 26). Petitionsausschuss: Quorum für öffentliche Beratungen auf 30.000 abgesenkt [Petitions Committee: Quorum for public hearings reduced to 30,000]. https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2024/kw26-pa-petitionen-quorum-1010108 (In German)
27 Deutscher Bundestag. (2026, June 10). Petitionsbericht 2025: Bericht des Petitionsausschusses (Drucksache 21/6000) [Petitions report 2025: Report of the Petitions Committee (Parliamentary Paper 21/6000)]. https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2026/kw24-de-petitionsbericht-2025-1181866 (In German)
28 Faria, C. F. S. (2013). The open parliament in the age of the Internet: Can the people now collaborate with legislatures in lawmaking? Edições Câmara.
29 Observatory of Public Sector Innovation. (n.d.). LabHacker. OECD. https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/labhacker/
30 Jonsson, M. E. (2015). Democratic innovations in deliberative systems: The case of the Estonian Citizens’ Assembly process. Journal of Public Deliberation, 11(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.224
31 Observatory of Public Sector Innovation. (2016). Collective addresses and Rahvaalgatus.ee: Nudging the Parliament of Estonia to more openness and accountability. OECD. https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/collective-addresses-and-rahvaalgatus-ee-nudging-the-parliament-of-estonia-to-more-openness-and-accountability/
32 Citizen initiative portal empowering Estonians in digital age of democracy. (2024, January 24). e-Estonia. https://e-estonia.com/citizen-initiative-portal-empowering-estonians-in-digital-age-of-democracy/
33 Rahvaalgatus.ee: Estonian citizen initiative portal. (n.d.). Retrieved October 25, 2026, from https://rahvaalgatus.ee/
34 Toots, M. (2019). Why e-participation systems fail: The case of Estonia’s Osale.ee. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.02.002
35 Inter-Parliamentary Union. (2024). World e-Parliament report 2024. https://www.ipu.org/news/press-releases/2024-10/new-ipu-report-parliaments-embrace-technology-digital-divide-persists
36 O vnesenii izmeneniy i dopolneniy v nekotoryye zakonodatel’nyye akty Respubliki Kazakhstan po voprosam obshchestvennogo kontrolya, sovershenstvovaniya administrativnykh protsedur: Zakon Respubliki Kazakhstan ot 2 oktyabrya 2023 goda No. 31-VIII ZRK [On amendments and additions to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan concerning public oversight and the improvement of administrative procedures: Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 31-VIII dated October 2, 2023]. (2023). Adilet. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2300000031 (In Russian)
37 Lyngaas, S. (2020, December 8). Norwegian police implicate Fancy Bear in parliament hack, describe brute-forcing of email accounts. CyberScoop. https://cyberscoop.com/norwegian-police-implicate-fancy-bear-in-parliament-hack-describe-brute-forcing-of-email-accounts/
38 Inter-Parliamentary Union. (2024). Guidelines for AI in parliaments. https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/reference/2024-12/guidelines-ai-in-parliaments
39 Yefimov, V. (2026, October 16). II obrabotal 2,8 mln zhalob kazakhstantsev cherez eOtinish, no nikto ne znayet, skol’ko raz on oshibsya [AI processed 2.8 million complaints from Kazakhstanis through eOtinish, but no one knows how many times it made mistakes]. BES.media. https://bes.media/news/ii-obrabotal-2-8-mln-zhalob-kazahstantsev-cherez-eotinish-no-nikto-ne-znaet-skolko-raz-on-oshibsya/ (In Russian)
40 Kazakhstantsy podali boleye 5 mln obrashcheniy cherez eOtinish v 2025 godu [Kazakhstanis submitted more than 5 million appeals through eOtinish in 2025]. (2026, January 22). Kapital.kz. https://kapital.kz/tehnology/144309/kazahstancy-podali-bolee-5-mln-obrashenij-cherez-eotinish-v-2025-godu.html (In Russian)
41 Chego khotyat kazakhstantsy? Analiz sayta onlayn-petitsiy [What do Kazakhstanis want? An analysis of the online petitions website]. (2024, July 24). BES.media. https://bes.media/news/chego-hotyat-kazahstantsi-analiz-sayta-onlayn-petitsiy/ (In Russian)
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Елнур Бейсенбаев
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.