Parliament holds its first discussion on draft amendments to the Law on Parliamentary Elections after the Constitutional Court issues its third official opinion, declaring parts of the current law unconstitutional.

• 💭 Why it matters: The amendments aim to ensure fair competition between sitting members of parliament and new candidates by removing privileges that favor incumbents during the pre-campaign period.

 📜 The Draft Law

The draft law responds directly to the Constitutional Court’s ruling by targeting 2 specific provisions in the current election law. It repeals Subsection 41.9, which previously allowed members of parliament to distribute work reports and meet voters before the campaign period, giving them an unfair advantage. The draft also revises Subsection 44.6 to let any individual, not just MPs, publicly present their work or achievements before nominations open. This change ensures a fairer, more equal playing field for all candidates.

• 🤞🏻 Between the lines: The law keeps the ban on distributing materials or items that may influence voters, starting from the election year to election day. But it excludes digital and electronic reports, which may spark further debate.
• ⏭️ What’s next: Parliament approves the draft without objections during the first round. Lawmakers plan further readings and revisions in future sessions.

🧭 Zoom out: In a parallel session, MPs discuss Parliament’s proposal to the Constitutional Court, requesting a review on whether a law passed by Parliament breaches the Constitution.

🗣️ What they’re saying:

• MP B. Enkhbayar and MP D. Munkhbaatar call the move a democratic milestone.
• MP Kh.Temuujin stresses that only the Constitutional Court can rule on the constitutionality of laws. “Parliament is the supreme organ of state power, ordinary courts have no right to interfere with the legislative process.”

Final thought... The proposed amendments to the Law on Parliamentary Elections have the potential to drive real reform. However, their effectiveness will depend on full implementation. For example, the exclusion of digital materials from the voter influence ban could raise questions about fairness in the digital age. Will this be a turning point for a more equitable electoral system, or just another favor for pro-politicians?