This report monitors the performance of the government and parliament during the period of the Israeli aggression up to 15 April. Based on systematic monitoring and analysis conducted by Public Works studio (in cooperation with Legal Agenda and Gherbal Initiative)  of parliamentary draft laws and government decisions, it highlights a clear gap between the scale of the crisis and the nature of the institutional response.

The findings show that parliamentary activity remained limited, with only a small number of initiatives directly addressing the impact of the war. Most draft laws were either indirectly related or disconnected from urgent priorities such as housing protection, emergency financing, and social support. As a result, legislative action did not evolve into a framework that matches the scale of displacement and economic collapse. 

On another hand, government responses were characterised by partial and fragmented measures. While the war situation was frequently discussed in governmental sessions, particularly in relation to displacement and emergency assistance, these discussions did not translate into a comprehensive policy approach. Instead, responses remained temporary and sectoral, relying on limited administrative measures and external financing, without mobilising available internal resources in a structured way.

At the same time, there was a notable shift towards a security-oriented approach in the government’s response. This was not matched by parallel social or economic policies capable of addressing the pressures generated by mass displacement, rising housing insecurity, and weakening living conditions.

The report also notes that wartime conditions coincided with the adoption of dangerous decisions unrelated to urgent needs, including regulatory and sectoral measures that were adopted without clear connection to emergency priorities. This raises broader concerns about governance and prioritisation during periods of crisis.

Overall, the report concludes that the response of both government and parliament has remained reactive and partial, reflecting a continued reliance on business-as-usual governance rather than an integrated approach centered on people’s needs and the scale of the ongoing crisis.