Constitutional and Procedural Regulation of Parliaments in Comparative Perspective: North Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina

The aim of this paper is to analyze the role of Parliament as the highest representative body in North Macedonia, emphasizing the importance of its legitimacy and proper constitution for ensuring democratic stability and institutional functionality. The research focuses on the legal, institutional, and procedural framework regulating the formation of the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia. This study applies historical-comparative and legal-political methodologies, including analysis of relevant legal acts, the Constitution, and archival data from previous parliamentary compositions, with special attention to the constitutive session and election of the President of the Assembly. Additionally, a comparative analysis is conducted on procedures for constituting parliaments in Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The results indicate that timely and proper constitution of Parliament, including the election of parliamentary leadership and formation of working bodies, is key to ensuring legitimacy, effective legislative functioning, and strengthening citizens’ trust in the political system. Differences in procedural solutions, such as the role of the oldest member presiding over the constitutive session, quorum requirements, and leadership election rules, significantly impact the perception and functionality of the parliamentary institution. The study concludes that legitimate and timely constitution of Parliament is a prerequisite for stable democratic governance and institutional stability, proposing improvements to procedures for forming parliamentary bodies, increasing transparency and accountability, and applying good practices from Balkan countries to enhance national parliamentary practice.