Remote Democratic Strategist Jobs (NOW HIRING)

Terms of Reference for consultancy assignment
Remote Consultancy - Development of (Thematic) Indicators for Parliamentary Public Debt Oversight, linked to the IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments.
Joint consultancy assignment by Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) - remote
1. Background and context
Across many regions of the world, governments are facing increasingly complex public debt portfolios at a time of constrained fiscal space, rising borrowing costs and growing demands for investment in public services, climate resilience and economic development. A growing number of low- and middle-income countries are either in debt distress or face a heightened risk of debt distress.
At the same time, concerns have increased regarding the transparency of public borrowing, the governance of debt management, contingent liabilities, state-owned enterprises, and the accountability of executive decision-making.
Public debt is therefore no longer solely a macroeconomic or technical matter. Decisions concerning borrowing, debt management and fiscal sustainability have profound implications for democratic governance, public accountability and the relationship between citizens and the state. The way governments contract debt, disclose information, manage fiscal risks and account for borrowing decisions directly affects democratic legitimacy and public trust.
Parliaments occupy a central constitutional position within this governance framework. Through legislation, approval of public finances, oversight of executive action, scrutiny of audit findings and engagement with citizens, parliaments contribute to ensuring that public borrowing serves the public interest and remains transparent, accountable and sustainable. Effective parliamentary oversight can strengthen fiscal discipline, improve transparency, encourage informed public debate and reduce opportunities for corruption or politically motivated borrowing.
Yet parliamentary oversight of public debt remains uneven across jurisdictions. In many countries, legislatures have limited access to timely and disaggregated public debt information, insufficient analytical capacity, unclear legal mandates or inadequate procedures for scrutinising borrowing decisions, debt management strategies and associated fiscal risks. Existing parliamentary assessment frameworks capture many aspects of democratic governance but do not always provide sufficient depth to assess the specialised institutional arrangements, procedures and practices required for effective oversight of public debt.
Recognising this broader need, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), together with an international consortium of parliamentary development organisations, developed the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments. These indicators provide a comprehensive framework through which parliaments can assess their institutional performance across a broad range of democratic functions, including representation, legislation, oversight, transparency, integrity, administration and financial scrutiny. The framework is designed to support parliamentary self-assessment, institutional reform and democratic strengthening.
The breadth of the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments is one of their principal strengths. However, by design they cannot provide detailed guidance on every specialised area of parliamentary practice. Consequently, the Indicators project envisages the development of thematic sets of indicator frameworks that draw upon existing dimensions while providing additional guidance, examples and supplementary indicators for specific parliamentary functions. Parliamentary oversight of public debt represents one such thematic area.
Over the past years, Westminster Foundation for Democracy has developed the Public Debt Management Assessment Tool for Parliaments (PDMAT), recently updated as PDMAT 2.0, to assess parliamentary oversight arrangements relating specifically to public debt management. It measures effectiveness across 67 indicators and nine dimensions. The indicators are drawn from established public financial management (PFM) frameworks, including the World Bank's Debt Management Performance Assessment (DeMPA) and Debt Reporting Heat Map, the Public Expenditure Financial Accountability (PEFA) framework, and the International Budget Partnership's Open Budget Survey.
In parallel, the National Democratic Institute (NDI) has developed the Debt Transparency and Accountability Checklist, focusing particularly on transparency obligations, public participation and civil society engagement in public debt governance. The checklist outlines 13 transparency and accountability principles and 59 good practices.
Additionally, in partnership, NDI and WFD co-published a series of primers for parliaments on public debt management covering issues such as legal frameworks, oversight, and emergency contexts. The International Budget Partnership's new 2025 Open Budget Survey Debt Accountability Module draws from both the NDI checklist and the NDI-WFD primers.
Together, these initiatives provide a significant body of methodological work that complements the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments. They also demonstrate the growing international recognition that effective parliamentary debt oversight extends beyond formal legal mandates to include institutional incentives, political dynamics, evidence-informed decision-making, public engagement and accountability relationships across the wider fiscal ecosystem.
This consultancy seeks to build upon these complementary initiatives to produce a dedicated set of Thematic Indicators on Parliamentary Public Debt Oversight, aligned with the methodology and governance arrangements of the IPU-led Indicators for Democratic Parliaments.
The Indicators on Parliamentary Public Debt Oversight will constitute a stand-alone set of thematic indicators, drawing upon relevant dimensions contained within the existing IPU Indicators framework while incorporating carefully identified supplementary dimensions where necessary. It will also integrate lessons emerging from PDMAT country assessments, relevant elements of the NDI Checklist, and contemporary thinking on fiscal governance and democratic accountability and, as appropriate, political economy analysis.
The final product will be designed as an accessible, practical and evidence-based assessment instrument suitable for use by parliaments, parliamentary administrations, parliamentary development practitioners and other democratic governance stakeholders. It is expected to become part of the growing family of thematic resources associated with the IPU-led Indicators for Democratic Parliaments and will be prepared for publication through an interactive digital platform.
2. Objectives of the consultancy
The overall objective of this consultancy is to develop a comprehensive set of thematic indicators for public debt parliamentary oversight that enables parliaments to assess, benchmark and strengthen their oversight of public debt within the broader framework of democratic parliamentary performance.
More specifically, the consultancy will:

• identify and consolidate all existing dimensions and assessment criteria within the IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments that relate directly or indirectly to parliamentary oversight of public debt, referencing and building upon an initial mapping exercise developed by NDI;
• identify genuine gaps in the existing IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments framework and develop supplementary indicators, dimensions and assessment criteria and supporting guidance where additional content is required;
• develop a coherent thematic structure that organises the existing dimensions within the IPU Indicators and the supplementary indicators, dimensions and assessment criteria into an integrated assessment framework centred on parliamentary public debt oversight;
• integrate relevant methodological approaches developed through WFD's PDMAT 2.0, the NDI Checklist and other internationally recognised frameworks;
• incorporate links to timing of oversight activities with respect to the budget cycle;
• distinguish, where appropriate, between internationally recognised minimum standards and more advanced or aspirational parliamentary practices;
• develop practical guidance for each criterion with respect to evidence collection, assessment methodology and interpretation of findings;
• identify, as appropriate, good practice examples from around the world to support users in understanding and applying the indicators to their contexts;
• identify, where necessary and appropriate, key political economy perspectives that can assist users in understanding how institutional incentives, executive-legislative relations, fiscal governance arrangements and broader political contexts influence parliamentary oversight;
• prepare the public debt parliamentary oversight indicators and practical guidance for publication within an interactive digital environment, ensuring accessibility, usability and compatibility with the Indicators framework.

The consultancy is expected to produce a set of thematic indicators, with practical guidance notes, that combines methodological rigour with practical usability across a range of contexts. The emphasis should be on supporting institutional learning, parliamentary reform and evidence-based dialogue rather than producing a compliance or ranking instrument.
3. Methodology
The methodology for this assignment will build upon the governance principles and development process established for thematically-focused indicator frameworks under the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments, while adapting them to the specific institutional and policy requirements of parliamentary oversight of public debt. The consultant is expected to adopt an iterative and consultative approach throughout the assignment.

• Phase 1: Review the IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments and update draft mapping of dimensions relevant for the Public DebtIndicators framework

Based on the initial mapping already conducted by NDI, the first phase of the assignment will comprise a review of the IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments to identify all dimensions, sub-dimensions and assessment criteria relevant to parliamentary public debt oversight.
This exercise should go beyond dimensions directly related to budget oversight and include institutional features that influence parliamentary capacity to oversee borrowing and debt management. Attention should be given to oversight, transparency, committee systems, parliamentary administration, legislative procedures, public participation, research capacity, integrity mechanisms, access to information and follow-up to audit recommendations.
For each selected dimension, the consultant should prepare a brief rationale explaining its relevance to public debt oversight, whether it should be included in the Debt Oversight Indicators, and indicate the types of evidence that would normally be expected during an assessment. The overarching aim will be to balance comprehensiveness of coverage with ease of use for end-users.

• Phase 2: Identify gaps in IPU dimensions and integrate other existing public debt oversight assessment methodologies and research

Building upon the initial mapping exercise, the consultant will review existing methodologies developed by WFD, NDI and other organisations to identify concepts, indicators and guidance for integration into the Public Debt Indicators framework.
Consideration should be given to:

• WFD's Public Debt Management Assessment Tool for Parliaments (PDMAT 2.0);
• NDI's Debt Disclosed: Civil Society Transparency and Accountability Checklist;
• World Bank's Debt Management Performance Assessment (DeMPA) and Debt Reporting Heat Map,
• the Public Expenditure Financial Accountability (PEFA) framework
• International Budget Partnership's Open Budget Survey and Debt Accountability Module
• INTOSAI guidance on public debt audits and oversight
• other internationally recognised PFM and oversight assessment frameworks;
• relevant standards and guidance produced by IFIs and SAIs;
• comparative parliamentary practice.

Most of the relevant indicators and dimensions have been researched already in WFD and NDI publications related to public debt oversight; and the consultant will be able to rely on these, supplementing with additional materials.
Finalise a mapping matrix, identifying cross-references to existing debt-related indicators within the IPU Indicators for Democratic Parliaments, and supplemental indicators, dimensions, criteria and other concepts identified from the review of other assessment methodologies and research. Combined, the mapping matrix will form the basis of the Public Debt Parliamentary Oversight Indicators framework. The mapping matrix (and ultimate framework) should address, among other oversight issues:

• Legal foundations for parliamentary public debt oversight, including quantitative and qualitative controls
• Parliamentary ratification of debt agreements
• Parliament's role in fiscal risk oversight
• Transparency requirements and procedures
• Access to information from the executive
• External audits and parliament's relationship with the SAI
• Public participation and civil society engagement
• Oversight of emergency borrowing
• Parliamentary committees and public debt oversight processes and powers
• Relationship with and role of parliamentary budget office and other technical support
• Oversight of domestic borrowing
• Oversight of contingent liabilities and guarantees
• Oversight of financial and debt obligations of state-owned enterprises
• Parliamentary monitoring of debt-related SDG commitments
• Depth of integration of public debt oversight across the entire annual budget cycle

Political economy considerations may be flagged for discussion in text boxes or guidance supplementary to