الاستجواب البرلماني في النظام الدستوري المصري والكويتي: دراسة مقارنة

Abstract EN

Despite the multiplicity of parliamentary oversight mechanisms granted to parliament in the face of the executiv authority, such as questioning, putting up a topic for discussion, proposing a desire, requesting briefing, and fact-finding committee (parliamentary investigation), the parliamentary interrogation is considered one of the most important and dangerous mechanisms of parliamentary oversight.

this is due to what the interrogation carries in its folds of accountability, enforcement and accusation of the government or one of its members.

the parliamentary interrogation is distinguished by the fact that it opens the door of discussion for every member of parliament, where all can participate and not limited to the questioner and the official.

the parliamentary interrogation may result in a vote of confidence in the government or one of its members and forcing them to resign.

the stud showed, by comparing the Egyptian and Kuwaiti systems, the points of agreement and difference between the parliamentary interrogation and other oversight tools.

the constitutions and internal regulations in Egypt and Kuwait require formal and objective conditions for interrogation, how to present I, the system for its discussion as well as the political responsibility and its effects with the presence of legal guarantees to protect the government-and not to misuse it due to the seriousness of the consequences.