Posted on

Jovana Marović on EU accession negotiations for Dan

Journalist’s questions:

How the candidate country negotiates with the EU for membership? Is there really something to negotiate about?

How many years the negotiation process could take?

Answers of IA’s research coordinator and member of the Working Group on Chapter 23, Jovana Marović:

Negotiations of the candidate country with the European Union for membership in this supranational community include a complete harmonization of national legislation with the acquis. So, there is no negotiation about whether certain EU rules have to be adopted and implemented. Each state is obliged to fully harmonize legislation with the acquis in order to become a member. However, certain rules may be subject of negotiation for the interim period (after EU) which is necessary for the state to adopt and implement specific legal regulations. Although the EU may grant transitional periods for certain regulations, these periods are very time-limited and must not affect the functioning of the EU internal market.

It also should be highlighted that the negotiations under chapter 23, Judiciary and Fundamental Rights, are particularly demanding. In this chapter the harmonization of legislation with the acquis is accompanied with additional conditions that are reflected in the concrete cases in the field of fight against corruption and human rights violations.

The European Commission will, on the basis of the previous progress reports of Montenegro and, primarily, the report of compliance of Montenegrin legislation with the acquis, submit Montenegro opening benchmarks for Chapters 23 and 24. Benchmarks will most likely involve the need to adopt action plans for judicial reform, the fight against corruption, etc. Completion of these obligations from the action plans depends on the set deadlines, and also real commitment to fulfill these obligations. The European Commission will closely monitor reforms even after the temporary closure of certain chapters. It is clear that, without full compliance of benchmarks chapters could not be opened or closed.

In practice, it is possible to accompaniment requirements, especially on the closing benchmark within a given chapter. Closing benchmarks are complicated set up. It also depends on the duration of negotiations and it can happen that, within this period, a regulation could change on EU level. (For example: One of the criteria for closure of chapter 23 in Croatia was the requirement to improve the efficiency of the judiciary. Closing benchmarks that were defined in 10 requirements first were supplemented with 22 additional conditions, and in the end the number of conditions reached number 80).

With the compliance of the criteria, chapter is closed temporarily, because there is no final closure until the all chapters are closed.

It is unthankful to talk about any deadlines and potential years of joining the EU, especially when one takes into account that the duration of the negotiations depends only on the tempo of the acquis and additional requirements adoption. In this direction, limited administrative capacities for the implementation of the acquis may represent the barrier, and, in particular, the lack of political will to implement reforms.

Although there are estimates that the process in Montenegro could be shorter than for example in Croatia, it should not be ignored the possibility that the lack of progress under Chapter 23, as well as a fundamental violation of human rights, can block the whole process of negotiations.

Montenegro is entering the most challenging phase of the accession process. Progress within this phase depends on the speed of the fulfillment of requirements that will be set by Brussels.

Jovana Marović

Research Coordinator in the Institute Alternative

Posted on

Who Still Cares For the Committee’s Conclusions?

Supreme State Prosecutor and Administration for Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing didn’t fulfill the obligations, envisaged by the conclusion from the February’s control hearing, conducted by the Security and Defence Committee. They failed to meet the deadline for submitting information about the activities they undertook in examining allegations about the corruption during and after the privatisation of Montenegrin Telekom.

Security and Defence Committee conducted a control hearing of Supreme State Prosecutor and director of Administration for Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing on February 14. The two were questioned about the so far activities of the competent authorities on the case.

Following the control hearing, the Committee adopted conclusions which, among other things, demanded from the participants of the control hearing to inform the Committee about the activities on the Telekom case by May 2012. The afore mentioned insitutions neither respected the deadline nor they requested the necessary information.

Committees’ conclusions, which are adopted after the control hearins, are usually downgraded to the abstract encouragement of the authorities to undertake activities already asigned to them by the Constitution and relevant laws. The February’s conclusion is among the rare conclusions which consisted additional obligation for the subjects of control hearing, precise deadline for meeting this obligation and relatively clear definition of the requested information.

However, the current attitude of institutions is unacceptable and it demonstrates the lack of responsibility of representatives of executive power in front of the MPs. Neglecting the obligations defined by the parliamentary working bodies is an insult for MPs, working bodies’ members, and the entire parliament. Apart from reminding on this obligation, members of the Security and Defence Committee should demand from the Supreme State Prosecutor and director of the Administration for Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing explanation for not obiding their request and clearly condemn such behavior.

On the other hand, the non-existence of efficient mechanisms for the monitoring of the implementation of the adopted conclusions represents the shortfall of the Parliament and its working bodies, and it endangers the efficiency of parliamentary oversight.

Marko Sošić
Public Policy Reseacher

Posted on

Public policy school – 2012

Motivated by the fact that the formal education system in Montenegro does not offer sufficient knowledge and skills in the study of public policy, Institute Alternative started in February 2012 realization of the Public Policy School. Program was realized in collaboration with the Centre for Monitoring (CEMI), with the support of the Commission for the allocation of revenue from gambling. The aim of the School is to contribute to the quality development of public policy in Montenegro by strengthening the capacity of stakeholders in policy development. School also has the goals to raise the level of understanding of the policy development among key stakeholders, and strengthening communication and cooperation among participants from various sectors, institutions and organizations.

The first generation of 30 participants has had the opportunity to attend the five modules. The first four modules included a series of lectures and practical work (workshops), while the fifth training module provided tehnics of effective practical policies writting.

Professors from the University of Zagreb, Belgrade and Podgorica, and other eminent experts and activists, practitioners of public policy presented to students the public policy cycle (creation, implementation and monitoring process).

Program was completed with diploma award presented by the IA’s president of the Managing Board Stevo Muk, on 11 July 2012.

Posted on

Non-Governmental Organisations To Monitor Implementation of Reforms Within the Chapter 23

Upon the initiative and under a coordination of the Centre for Development of Non-governmental Ogranisations, the coalition of NGOs for monitoring the negotiations about the Chapter 23 was established. The long term goal of the coalition is to bring tangible improvement of standards of living of Montenegrin people.

Coalition is consisted from organisations, experienced in the fields covered by the Chapter 23: Centre for Development of Non-Governmental Organisations (CRNVO), Centre for Civic Education (CCE – CGO), Juventas, Human Rights Action (HRA), Centre for Monitoring and Research (CEMI), Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM), LGBT Forum Progress, Institute Alternative, European Movement in Montenegro, NGO Women’s Safe House, SOS Phone For Women And Children Violence Victims Niksic, Centre for Women’s Rights, Roma Scholarship Foundation, Montenegro’s Association of Youth With Disabilities, Centre for Anti-Discrimination “Equista“, and NGO Anima.

The coalition members have gone thourgh several months long trainings about the issues covered by the Chapter 23, about the monitoring and reporting methodologies and creation of communication strategy, having as a role model the Croatian coalition of NGOs for monitoring negotiations about the Chapter 23, which was the first coalition of that kind in the region. Also, they had an opportunity to talk to the most significant figures in Croatian civil and public sectors, as well as to the representatives of the EU Delegation in Croatia. Trainings and consultations are part of the project, jointly realised by the CRNVO and Centre for Peace Studies from Zagreb. The key result of the project is the Coalition’s establishment.

We welcome opening of the accession negotiations between the EU and Montenegro, and we announce that we will closely and continuously, during the entire negotiation process, monitor implementation of reforms in the fields composing the Chapter 23 – judiciary, fundamental human rights and freedoms, and anti-corruption policies. We will regularly inform the local and international public about all the deficiencies and improvements with regard to these issues. We will also advocate changes of legal, institutional and implementation framework, aiming at the long term improvement of human rights in the country and at establishment of the rule of law.

We also think that the Government of Montenegro should not repeat the mistakes of certain EU member states, whose membership talks were marked by the high level of secrecy. By contrast, Government should, since the very beginning of the accession negotiations, continuously inform people about the process and the reforms’ impact on the people’s every day lives.

Therefore, we urge the Government to respect the transparency principle, highlighted in its many strategic documents, and provides a timely information about the opening and closing benchmarks, the reports about implementation of obligations defined by the benchmarks and negotiating positions for the Chapter 23 but other chapters as well.

Coalition is open for all the NGOs, eager to share its knowledge and experience and thus contribute to the essential changes in the areas of human rights, fight against corruprtion and judiciary reform in Montenegro, while simultaneously sharing the current members’ values.

Posted on

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

Posted on

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.