By M.Iveel
Authorities and politicians frequently emphasize the importance of “increasing citizen participation in policymaking,” “upholding the people’s right to govern,” and “making legislative processes more transparent and participatory.” Yet, when it comes to translating these promises into concrete action, their approach is far from committed, it’s marked by reluctance and inconsistency. A telling example is the “D-Parliament” electronic platform, launched in 2022 by the Parliamentary Secretariat during the previous legislative session. Many will recall how then Speaker of Parliament G.Zandanshatar enthusiastically championed the system, promoting it as a breakthrough for democratic engagement. He proclaimed that, in alignment with the Constitution’s principle that “the Mongolian people shall directly participate in state affairs and exercise this right through their elected representatives,” the new platform would allow citizens to engage in the lawmaking process, submit petitions and complaints, and even vote on draft laws. He famously declared, “You, the citizens, have become the 77th member of parliament.” The system was also said to give Mongolians living abroad, often excluded from political discourse, an opportunity to contribute to national decision-making.
According to the speaker, if a citizen’s petition received the legally required level of public support, it would be recognized as valid and addressed in a timely manner. The platform was framed as a step toward a more democratic, transparent, and consultative parliament. However, in practice, “D-Parliament” has fallen short of these lofty goals. Despite its promise, the platform has not meaningfully empowered citizens to influence government decisions or claim their constitutional right to participate in governance. The Parliamentary Secretariat, which oversees the system, along with the MPs responsible for responding to submissions, have largely disregarded public input. As a result, the tool meant to elevate citizen voices has become symbolic rather than functional, with real public participation still sidelined. The “D-Parliament” platform offers citizens three key services aimed at enhancing public participation in governance. First, users can engage directly with proposed laws and resolutions by voting on individual articles and provisions, sharing their perspectives and suggested solutions. Second, the platform allows people to express opinions and pose questions on policies and decisions put forward by the government. For instance, when the prime minister recently addressed parliament on initiatives such as increasing educational funding and opening savings accounts under the National Wealth Fund, citizens responded with questions and feedback via the platform. The third and most significant feature is the ability to submit public digital petitions. This tool gives individuals a chance to raise issues, seek solutions, or bring matters of public concern to national attention. In a political landscape often marked by detachment and unresponsiveness outside election cycles, this mechanism provides an important channel for citizens to make their voices heard. Since its launch, the platform has seen a flood of petitions on issues ranging from environmental pollution and traffic congestion to tax burdens, social insurance concerns, and questionable land allocations, so much so that the system has at times been overwhelmed. Despite this strong public engagement, the response from parliament has been underwhelming. In the three years since the platform's introduction, only one petition has been fully resolved. The rest remain stagnant, demonstrating a stark contrast between the platform’s intended purpose and its actual impact on legislative action. Under the current rules, if a petition gathers 33,000 signatures, a working group is established to examine the issue. At 70,000, it is forwarded to the relevant standing committee. Reaching 100,000 signatures prompts parliamentary resolution or the drafting of a related bill. Petition initiators can choose which of these thresholds they aim to meet. Over the past three years, six petitions have surpassed the 100,000-signature mark, with more than 500,000 citizens participating overall. These included proposals to reduce personal income tax and social insurance contributions, raise the VAT refund from two percent to five percent, increase financial support for mothers with young children, and repeal the controversial law allowing foreigners to use and own land for 100 years. Of these, only the latter petition resulted in action: a draft law prepared by a working group led by former Member of Parliament Ts.Tserenpuntsag was successfully passed by parliament. The remaining petitions have been left in limbo, often met with vague responses such as: “The issue has been forwarded to the Standing Committee,” “It was sent to the relevant ministry,” or “The working group is coordinating with citizens and stakeholders.” These reactions underscore a troubling gap between public engagement and political follow-through. Of the six citizen’s petitions that have surpassed 100,000 signatures, four are directly related to tax burdens and social insurance contributions. This clearly reflects the pressing financial strain these obligations place on the public. In 2025 alone, citizen B.Batbileg’s petition to reduce social insurance contributions and R.Shinegerel’s petition to lower the personal income tax rate to one percent have both met the threshold and were subsequently transferred to relevant parliamentary standing committees and working groups. Yet, as with previous efforts, there is little evidence that these initiatives are being taken seriously by lawmakers. The official responses follow a now-familiar pattern: “Transferred to the working group assigned by the speaker of parliament to review implementation of tax legislation and provide recommendations” or “Forwarded to the Standing Committee on Social Policy for review and resolution.” These vague hand-offs offer no assurance that citizen demands will result in action, nor do they inspire confidence that the cycle of inaction will not repeat itself.
Beyond the top-tier petitions, many others have also met significant thresholds of public support, 33,000 and 70,000 signatures, as defined by law. In early 2025, two such petitions garnered considerable backing: over 66,000 people called for the cancellation of the vehicle tax hike in Ulaanbaatar, and an equally strong movement opposed the decision to reconstruct the Naransevstein port in the Gobi desert. However, despite the high level of engagement, neither petition has made meaningful progress. The port issue has been handed off to a working group with no visible outcome, while those responsible for the vehicle tax increase claim they lack the authority to reverse the City Council’s decision, suggesting that only a finding of procedural illegality could justify intervention. This raises a fundamental question: if the national legislature is powerless to address decisions made by local self-governments, why does the D-Parliament system accept petitions on such matters in the first place? Citizens are understandably frustrated and critical of a system that allows their votes and voices to be collected, only to be ignored or dismissed under bureaucratic pretexts. This frustration is not limited to city administrators, it extends to the members of parliament themselves. If lawmakers cannot or will not respond meaningfully to citizen input, then they should cease promoting the illusion of participatory democracy through the “digital parliament” system. Don’t waste the time and goodwill of thousands of engaged citizens. Don’t let their demands disappear into silence. In the end, continued inaction threatens not only the credibility of the D-Parliament platform but also the very trust that citizens place in democratic institutions. Without accountability and follow-through, public participation will wither and with it, faith in the system itself. Submitting or supporting a petition on the “D-Parliament” platform is not as simple as reacting to a Facebook post or signing a traditional paper petition. To initiate or endorse a petition, citizens must log in through secure state digital systems such as “E-Mongolia,” “Khur,” or “Dan,” and confirm their identity with a digital signature. This process requires access to digital infrastructure, a certain level of digital literacy, and valid personal credentials including an email address and digital ID. As a result, many individuals, particularly those without smartphones, internet access, or technical skills are excluded from participating. Those who do sign petitions have made a deliberate, often time-consuming effort to be heard and to help resolve issues that matter to them. This raises an important question: once a petition is submitted, how far must it travel through how many bureaucratic layers and procedural hurdles before it actually lands on a lawmaker’s desk? And how much value is placed on the collective voices behind it? For context, a petition signed by 30,000 people represents the population of about ten average soums. A petition with 100,000 verified signatures carries the weight of a small province. It is a substantial and meaningful show of civic engagement. Yet despite their rhetoric about building a transparent, digital, and participatory Parliament, many lawmakers continue to ignore these voices. Citizen participation remains underappreciated and underutilized even as the government promotes the illusion of openness and accessibility. If the political system truly values democratic engagement, then 100,000 verified signatures should not be treated as background noise, it should be a call to action. Dismissing such efforts only deepens public disillusionment and widens the gap between citizens and their representatives.
