Reason and revolution

Politics is rational activity. That’s why it is important for us from the non-governmental sector, when trying to change the system, and for political parties, when trying to change the face of power, to bring decisions via reasonable dialogue instead of sterile revolutionary noise.

The 1990 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, in interview for BBC this June, addressing the journalist’s remark that some people say that her and the party she leads (the NLD) are naïve and cheated by the Government’s nice words, aimed at keeping the party as the minority within the Parliament, said:

“Nobody is keeping us there against our will. If we can best serve the interests of the people in the Parliament, we will stay there. We have extra-parliamentary activities already for 24 years, and now we spread our activities which include the work in the Parliament”.

Political situation in Myanmar is pretty different that the one in Montenegro.

Aung San Suu Kyi was imprisoned for 20 years. She was freed from house detention in late 2010. The party it leads was allowed to register in January 2011. In 2015, the first regular elections, in which the opposition will take part, are expected. They should lead to the full democratic transition of this country.

Montenegro these days received green light for opening accession negotiations with the EU.

In the first half of this year, with different intensity, the idea to boycott elections and institutions dominated the opposition-inclined public. I doubt that Montenegro would get the start date for the EU talks if the opposition left the Parliament just ahead of such decision being brought.

It is useful for us to recall the experience of neighboring Albania, the agony of the opposition deciding to leave the Albanian parliament and the country’s blurred European perspective. The departing Chief of the EU Delegation in Montenegro recently openly and directly stated the EU’s attitude about boycotting the parliament. He wasn’t supportive of the idea. On the contrary, he criticized it.

Our opposition, but the entire public as well, can testify Montenegrin experience of boycotting the Parliament because of the refusals of public broadcaster to directly broadcast parliamentary sessions. They can also describe our experience of boycotting local elections, although it was selective, brief and limited. On the other hand, the fact stands that no general election has been boycotted since 1990. Not even during the turbulent Nineties.

To be frank, I am not concerned how someone will boycott elections or the Parliament. I don’t believe in that anyway. I just want to highlight the sterility of such idea and discussion.

I want to point out that it is more important for opposition parties, media, people and intellectuals to commit themselves to the only possible way of democratic victory – and those are elections. The ones we usually have, although they are far from perfect, if there are perfect elections after all.

But, more importantly, I want to point to the revolutionary enthusiasm of a part of political opposition and civil society, which has been stepping on the idea of freedom. It usually happens with revolutions. The idea of changes, based on the magical formula “Opposition is leaving the Parliament-street protests-Government’s resignation-technical government-elections-the DPS defeat-Milo going to jail-Montenegro: paradise on Earth”, is imagined as an entrance into the world of political and human honesty, correctness and true beliefs.

Who doesn’t accept or believe in the rationality of such political action, the authors and supporters of the idea suggest, should automatically be labeled as the associate of the regime and mafia. Thanks in advance.

To be frank, for the second time, there are million of reasons in Montenegro for dissatisfaction and civic protests, as I believe that there are as many reasons for Djukanovic to be tried and for the DPS to take the opposition seats. Yet, we talk about something different here – that the dogma, promoted by the revolutionaries, is inconsistent and that it doesn’t deliver results, something clear almost to everyone.

Hence, it is more convenient for us to go to another topic, which is as old as Montenegro’s opposition. It is usually named as “wide anti-regime front”, and supported by the argumentation, which suggests that everyone who is against the widest coalition is also a traitor.

Instead of these slogans, it would be rational to see what the opinion polls say about the potential success of the three or two opposition parties running together in the elections. If anyone, apart from the DPS and the SDP is interested in something like that, at the first place. It would be interesting to hear whether the joint running would mean more votes than the individual running in the elections, whether the effect would be negligent or whether certain degree of the support would be even lost. Answers to those questions should determine the decision about the way of running in the elections.

The second important issue is about the most rational policies of the big opposition parties in comparison with the minor parties. The answer to this question is worth approximately 50,000 votes. Dialogue about these issues should be conducted at this newspaper’s pages as well as the pages of other media, if the intentions are good and goals the same.

Politics is rational activity. That’s why it is important for us from the non-governmental sector, when trying to change the system, and for political parties, when trying to change the face of power, to bring decisions via reasonable dialogue instead of sterile revolutionary noise.

In the end, I want to use this text to encourage all the less visible and less noisy people, committed to democracy and changes while not being seduced by the “magical formula”, to talk freely, without the fear of being labeled as traitors by the opposition and civil society. For such betrayal, they would condemn the great woman of peace and democracy from the beginning of this text.

Stevo Muk

President of the Managing Board

Analysis ”Montenegro and Negotiations About the Chapter 23 – Judiciary and Fundamental Rights” Presented

Analysis of Institute Alternative “Montenegro and Negotiations About the Chapter 23 – Judiciary and Fundamental Rights“ was presented at the press conference on June 19, 2012. Think Tank Fund supported the research.

The aim of the analysis was that, based on the Croatian experiences within the talks about the Chapter 23 and the European Commission’s progress reports on Montenegro, as well as the so far dynamics of the reforms, pinpoint the potential obstacles during the negotiations about this chapter, and to offer recommendations for their prevention.

Conference: The role of Supreme Audit Institutions in Party Financing Control

Representative of Institute Alternative participated in the work of the Second Regional Conference of Supreme Audit Institutions, named “The role of Supreme Audit Institutions in Party Financing Control“. President of the Managing Board of Institute Alternative, Stevo Muk, presented the relations between the State Audit Institution and NGO sector, emphasising possibilities steming from the Strategic Plan of the SAI Development, and describing the cooperation mechanisms between the SAI and civil society organisations.

Conference was organised by the State Audit Institution, in cooperation with UNDP. Representatives of supreme audit institutions from the region, Parliament of Montenegro, parliamentarians’ clubs, and NGOs, also took part in the event.

Financial Independence of the SAI and Implementation of its Recommendations

Questions of the reporter from the daily newspaper Dan:

1. Is there any possibility for an increase of the SAI’s budget?
2. Why the adoption of the changes to the Law on SAI has been postponed?
3. In your opinion, in which way the implementation of the SAI’s recommendations can be improved?

Answers of IA’s associate, Marko Sošić:

The smooth development and strengthening of the SAI is indirectly caused by the ensuring this institution’s independence, and by the change of the legal framework, which defines the way the SAI’s budget is formulated and adopted and other issues with respect to the independence in fund management and independence in human resource management.

The current legal solution allows the Ministry of Finance to randomly change the budget proposal filed by the SAI’s Senate and previously approved by the parliamentary Committee for Economy, Finance and Budget. It thus directly endangers the further development of the SAI.

For example, the budget which the Ministry of Finance approved for SAI’s work in 2012 is 20 percent lower than the budget proposed by the SAI and endorsed by the Committee for Economy, Finance and Budget.

Deliberation about this year’s budget made clear that the Ministry does not pay enough respect to the significance of the SAI, which would be demonstrated if the budget the SAI had asked for was approved. Besides the negligence of the SAI’s position, it appears that such attitude of the Ministry reflects the lack of political will for strengthening the independence and work of the SAI.

We remind that, apart from many other competences, the amendments to the Law on Party Financing assigned the SAI competences and duty to revise the financial reports of political parties. This expansion of competences was not followed by the increase of the budget. As a result, the SAI has to accomplish more while having the same amount of money or less money than in the previous years.

Adoption of the draft amendments to the Law on the SAI is a key prerequisite for the significant increase of the SAI’s budget in the upcoming period.

The draft amendments to the Law on the SAI entered parliamentary procedure in September 2011. The key novelties, brought by the draft amendments, aim at increasing the SAI’s organizational, functional and financial independence from the executive power. Their adoption, however, is hampered after the Committee for Constitutional and Legal Affairs issued negative opinion about the constitutionality of provisions, treating the SAI’s financial independence.

Additional effort is needed for the suitable solution to be found, which would be in line with the Constitution, while simultaneously offering higher level of the SAI’s financial independence from the executive power.

Institute Alternative launched an initiative in front of the Committee for Economy, Finance and Budget and Committee for Constitutional and Legal Affairs for holding consultative hearing on the issue of constitutional and legal framework of the SAI’s financial independence. By bringing to the table experts and representatives of relevant institutions, The initiative tries to build a consensus about the key solutions and create conditions for final adoption of the amendments to the Law on SAI.

The fact is that the draft amendments have been filed by the MPs themselves – members of the Committee for Economy, Finance and Budget. Therefore, they should employ all the mechanisms envisaged by the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure in order to find a solution to the current problem.

The audit subjects should take over the responsibility for the implementation of the SAI’s recommendations. Also, the Ministry of Finance, under the watchful eye of the Parliament, should take the responsibility for horizontal implementation of the SAI’s recommendations in the public sector.

The Committee for Economy, Finance and Budget, in cooperation with the SAI, should organize a thematic session or a consultative hearing to familiarize the audit subjects with the current degree of the implementation of the SAI’s recommendations, which are subsequently adopted as the parliamentary conclusions. This hearing, however, has been frequently delayed since the first half of the 2011.

The law should oblige the audit subjects to report about the activities they undertook in implementing the SAI’s recommendations. Yet, such provision still exists only in the draft amendments to the Law on the SAI, whose adoption is still pending.

The Brief Comment on Strategic Plan of the SAI’s Development

Institute Alternative presented the research report “The State Audit in Montenegro – Proposals for Strengthening the Impact” in 2010. We are pleased that The Strategic Plan of the SAI’s Development for the period between 2012 – 2017 incorporated significant number of our proposals. We also welcome the thorough approach of the SAI during the preparation of this strategic document. Self-assessment and external evaluation were significant efforts which resulted in a good text – the live document, systematizing measures aimed at removing the current deficiencies and problems, spotted by the SAI and its external subjects.

Representatives of other institutions, such as Parliament, Government, and civil society organizations should have also been included in the process of the SAI’s strategic planning, especially because the plan itself includes number of measures whose implementation is dependent precisely on the attitude of the afore mentioned institutions and organizations. In other words, for the SAI’s strategic plan to be implemented, Constitution, the Law on the SAI, the Law on Civil Servants need to be changed. Also the cooperation mechanisms with the Parliament, repression institutions, NGOs, academic institutions etc, need revision. We think that the wider consultations would results in a more concrete Strategy, more sustainable and realistic solutions, and possibly the new energy and innovative approach towards the certain development goals.

Situation With the President of Senate of State Audit Institution

Questions of the reporter from daily Vijesti:

  1. 1. How do you comment information that the Government paid 250,000 euro to the former finance minister in order to help his defence during the trial against him in Italy?
  2. 2. Do you think that Ivanisevic, being a president of Senate of State Audit Institution, can still perform his duty in controlling the Government?

Answers of our associate, Marko Sosic:

The Law on SAI defines that nobody can exert influence over the member of the Senate during the performance of his duties, but also, the members themselves should avoid situations which might harm the reputation of this institution and cause a doubt in its independence and objectivity.

According to the Code of Ethics of civil servants in SAI, servant, or someone related to him or her, cannot participate in business or financial transactions or actions which might harm the public interest or reputation of the institution, or give an impression that they are in the conflict between their personal and public interests. They are also not allowed to use their working position and competences to obtain certain advantages and privileges. The SAI’s employees should protect their independence, by avoiding receiving gifts, expressions of gratitude, and any kind of relations which might influence, endanger, or threaten the audit’s ability to function indepently and to be percieved accordingly. Also, they must not use their position for private purposes, and they must avoid all the relations which include the risk of corruption or which might cause doubt in their independence and objectivity. Within the SAI, no Code of Ethics for the members of its Senate was adopted, although it was recommended by SIGMA. SAI itself recognised this problem, by including it in the Strategic plan for the development of SAI for the period between 2012 and 2017.

If the information from the daily Vijesti is correct, no matter of the amount of money allocated, the intention with which it was given, and no matter of whether it will be compensated by the third party or not, situation in which the president of the Senate is a user of the state’s financial aid might be harmful in terms of the public trust in State Audit Institution, which is, on the other hand, extremely important for the success of its work and influence at the public finances system.

As a person representing and advocating recommendations of this institution, president of the Senate has bigger responsibility in respecting the afore-mentioned rules of Code of Ethics, in their widest sense.

Here, the issue of systemic regulation of the state aid to the state and public officials, which are tried in front of domestic, foreign or international courts, is being opened. This issue is not regulated by the specific acts. On the contrary, it functions at the request to the Government and subsequent approval based on the budget reserves. That’s not the good way and we think that this issue should be regulated exclusively with repsect to the persons who have been finally acquitted.