Posted on

The Parliament’s oversight of the executive in 2014

“The Parliament’s oversight of the executive in 2014” monitoring report has been developed within the “Analytical monitoring of the oversight function of the Parliament” project supported by the Budapest-based Open Society Foundations – Think Tank Fund. Throughout 2014, the Institute Alter- native research team monitored all the parliamentary committees’ sessions devoted to hearings or the deliberations on the state institutions’ performance reports. In accordance with our programme goals and our areas of interest, we paid particular attention to the work of four parliamentary committees: on economy, finance, and budget; security and defence; European integration; and anti-corruption.

The report presents the activities of the Anti-corruption Committee, as a special body for monitoring the areas of fight against corruption and organised crime, as well as the activities of the Committee on European Integration, the principal working body monitoring the EU accession negotiations. The work of the remaining committees has been analysed by looking at certain specific issues from their remits. The parliamentary oversight of the security and defence area is covered in a separate analysis.

This report also gives a short overview of the implementation of all the control mechanisms in 2014. Given that we devoted significant attention to researching the Parliament-related measures envisaged by the key strategic documents such as the Action Plan for Chapter 23 (Judiciary and Fundamental Rights) and the Action Plan for strengthening the legislative and oversight role of the Parliament, we also gave a short overview of the key commitments outlined in these documents. In this context, we hosted two special events for the purposes of this project: a round table discussing whether there was a need to adopt a Law on the Parliament, and a panel discussion on the Code of Ethics for MPs. In hosting these events, we received significant logistical support by the Service of the Parliament and the MPs, i.e. political party clubs in the Parliament.

The impact assessment of the control mechanisms available to the MPs has been conducted on the basis of a detailed analysis of the documents available at the Parliament’s website (minutes, parliamentary questions and ministerial responses, performance reports, action plans, etc.). We also sought data through the free access to information requests. The qualitative assessment of the control mechanisms’ practical impact was based on the interviews held in December 2014 with eight MPs and the Secretary-General of the Parliament.

Posted on

Interview for daily “Dan”: Stevo Muk

The president of the Managing board of the Institute Alternative, Stevo Muk, has given an interview for the daily newspaper “Dan”. Topics of the interview range from daily political issues, relations in the ruling party coalition, over questions related to the negotiation process with the EU up to some of findings of Institute Alternative in the fields of the Public administration reform and the Security sector reform. Interview published on August 6th can be read here:

Do you expect the coalition DPS-SDP to fall apart soon?

That coalition has de facto already fallen apart, but it is possible that it formally endures even until next parliamentary elections. Now no actor has the interest to terminate the mandate of the Government and to run for new elections. DPS wants to maintain the stability of the Government towards expected NATO invitation and the new European Commission Progress Report. It is obvious that all actors, DPS, part of the former SDP led by Krivokapić and even Social Democrats led by Ivan Brajović who now have two ministers in this Government have the intention of maintaining the status quo. While the part of the opposition has expected that Krivokapić and SDP set the motion of no confidence to the Government, without any doubt they see keeping their places in Government as the best way to consolidate internal forces, while the management of the political resources as still most efficient modus to achieve success in next elections. I wouldn’t say that the statement by Positive Montenegro that they would support the current Government if SDP left has contributed to that kind of attitude of SDP. In my opinion, it is easier to welcome elections as the part of the Government rather than as a part of the opposition. Also, it seems that Social Democrats have clear pre-election coalition path, while the SDP doesn’t have clear direction which is one the reasons why does it need additional time. For aforementioned reasons, I don’t expect the DPS-SDP coalition to fall apart soon.

Do you think that the clause balance in the EU negotiation process could be activated until the end of the year?

No, I don’t think so. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens next year, if the results in fight against corruption and organized crime stay on the same level. Namely, by the time of next year’s Progress report, the Special Prosecutor’s Office will have worked for more than one year, so there won’t be any space for the further delays in prosecution of cases. Taken that into account, it is possible to expect it activation if our institutions continue to work in this pace. On the other hand, it seems that the European Commission will try to show, in an unusual bureaucratic language, how much Montenegro has formally advanced in its negotiation process in relation to other candidate countries. That’s nothing new to us, but that formal progress means that many Chapters were open, but it didn’t bring any substantial progress and sustainable results in practice. Moreover, it is so obvious that we didn’t make any visible progress regarding two provisionally closed chapters. Additionally, I believe that results in Chapters 23 and 24 do not deserve to be praised at all, if we don’t take into consideration recently finished process of establishing two “new” institutions for the fight against the corruption and organized crime. We, however, consider that it is much more indicative that in last two years almost nothing has been done against the corruption and very little against the fight against the organized crime. It is also reported by others, for example by the U.S. Department of State Human Right Report, new Freedom House Report which doesn’t record a single improvement in any areas, but it records the decline in area of media freedom, and some other that report negatively on other topics, such as money laundering. etc.

Are you satisfied with the transparency of the negotiation process, i.e. does the Government report on all aspects of it?

No, we are not satisfied with the transparency of the process and since its beginning we have objected to the access to information, limited reporting on the realization of measures, the way the key data are being presented and so on. Unfortunately, it seems that problems with transparency, reporting and the coordination are more frequent, starting with Government not allowing full access to the European Commission’s comments on some of key draft laws such as Public Procurement Law, following with classification of European Commission’s Peer review reports with the designation of confidentiality in fields crucial for the fight against corruption and organized crime and the rule of law. Without these and other reports, it is difficult to conduct a debate with the Government which refers precisely to these reports claiming that they confirm the Government’s allegations. What we know from talking to various officials and managers from police, prosecutors, the judiciary is far away from positive results. For example, statistics in judiciary is made up: for example, a case that is returned for a retrial at a lower instance is given a new number, thus formally you have a new case, and in fact this is a case that is being delayed in court procedures for years. A number of measures which are marked as realized, in fact they are not, because the Government is giving it a “green” status even for the start-up of some minor activities, or if the measure is implemented “continuously”, but during the reporting period there was no progress. Rule of law Council is getting more and more competencies regarding the Chapter 23, but not a single civil society representative is a member of the Council, neither does the Council inform the citizens about its work.

How do you assess hitherto public administration reform?

It was not done a lot in the area of public administration reform even after twelve years and two cycles of reform. We still have the problem with the politicization of public administration at all levels, which is particularly evident in the recruitment and promotion. Also, the administration is still cumbersome, and we have a surplus of people to unnecessary jobs, while we record the deficit with jobs that are essential for the provision of services, monitoring and control, the development of regulations and public policies. At the moment, the new Strategy for the period 2016-2020 is in the stage of preparation. The Ministry of Interior has decided that only three days after the first meeting of the working group for preparation of the new Strategy, put the draft for the public hearing agenda. I was appointed as a member of this working group as a representative of the NGO, but I left the meeting after I told them that I find this way of working unacceptable. Besides me, the representatives of the Union of Municipalities and the Human Resources Management Authority have also objected to that kind of work dynamics, but the Ministry of Interior did not give up of their intention, which I find deeply wrong. The public debate on such an important document during the August, it is known to all, is not a good way of involve the public. In addition, the Ministry of Interior, with the exception of one round table, doesn’t plan any other major and important meeting and discussions with key service users and stakeholders for public administration reform. Needless to mention, creative methods or the usage of IT are lagging behind.

Do you think that there is political will in the Government to properly implement the new electoral legislation?

I think there is only a part of the problem in the new electoral legislation, but it is sad indicator that it cannot be changed and implemented in responsible and timely manner. Our key problems with the regularity of the elections are the widespread practice of abuse of state resources, the practice of buying and selling votes, as well as a wide range of different pressures, blackmail and influence that come from the government will not be easy to resolve with the new legislation. These practices known to all, kept in recordings of DPS leadership discussions, must be made observed in advance, before the election and during the election, through investigation led by the Special Prosecutor’s Office and special units of the police. That is the only way to prevent the repetition of such actions. Is it realistic that these issues are going to be addressed by the police whose human resources structure is created by the ruling party? Unfortunately, not. I believe that among the police, the National Security Agency and other state bodies, there are still many of those who work for the interest and the electoral result of the DPS rather than for the equal treatment of all actors in the elections. The opposition should find the lowest common denominator with regard to the electoral rules and practices to meet the coming elections.

Posted on

Police, Politics, Reforms and Corruption

Dina BajramspahićThe most numerous part of our state administration are police officers and it is a particularly demanding challenge to organise them in order to function effectively and to achieve the expected results. Particularly if we bear in mind the legacy of the ’90s, which has left extremely serious consequences on this institution as a result of a serious disruption of the expertise of employees in the police, its redundancy, declining professional standards for the job and employment in the police. Additionally, suspicions of corruption and connections of some police officers with the organised crime, make the situation further complicated.

When it comes to oversight of the police, the important progress has been made in recent years, and also in the field of parliamentary oversight, internal and civil control and control of the independent institutions. Not all supervisory authorities are equally successful, on the contrary, but when, for example, police officer sneezes into evidence material, the disciplinary proceedings against him are being automatically initiated – unlike most other Montenegrin state authorities which still cultivate the culture of covering up errors and misuses of their officers. (The example of perseverance in such conduct is the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, which consistently hushed up the affair “Cigarillos”). However, police hasn’t significantly progressed in what is essential: the efficiency in combating crime, especially organised and economic crime and corruption.

The most recently obtained data show that the Police now has 4203 employees, which means that it has already achieved the planned reduction of the number of employees from the government’s plan of internal reorganization of the public sector from 2013. “The catch” is that the Government’s projection of reduction is not justified by any serious analysis, nor assessment. The number of “4287 until 2017” is random, so it is impossible to arguably say which number of police officers would be optimal. Therefore, it is more than likely that the Government and the Police have to reassess the number of employees and their organisation regarding the criterion of its efficiency.

Earlier this year, we have partnered with organizations from the region in the network POINTPULSE within the project whose aim is to contribute to the transformation of the police in the Balkans into the professional police service that enjoys trust and respect of its citizens.

Among other things, in the end of July, we have presented the results of a survey on the integrity of the police, made according to the same methodology in order to be comparable, in four capitals in the region, Podgorica, Belgrade, Sarajevo and Pristina.

In addition to IA, the Network is consisted of Belgrade Center for Security Policy (BCSP), BIRN Serbia, Center for Security Studies from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovar Center for Security Studies.

The study has pointed to a kind of a paradox. The citizens of Montenegro have a relatively high confidence in the police, 58% of them, which puts this state authority in a second place, after the educational institutions, but, at the same time, 56% of citizens believe that corruption is widespread in the police.

When it comes to the citizens’ perception in whose interest the Police Administration works, only one third believes that the police act as they should, as a service of citizens. All the remaining respondents say that they act either in the Government’s interest or as the mean to cover and protect political parties, and 11% estimated that its line of action is to protect people who work at the top of Police Administration.

The majority of citizens, 70 percent of them, believe that politics has an impact on operational work of the police, completely and excessively, while the remaining 27 felt it has less or no impact at all.

What is particularly worrying and has long-term serious consequences on the quality of police work is a question of recruitment of new staff. Taking in account the opinion of citizens, the picture is not positive at all, because only one third of the respondents believe that employment is conducted in accordance with the law – through open competition. Even 48% of respondents say that recruitment is being conducted primarily through acquaintances, i.e. with the help of friends and relatives, or through political connections (41%), etc.

Yet, it’s not all black. Montenegrin police has received very high marks from the public when it comes to the effectiveness of public security in general (72% of citizens consider it effective), as well as school safety, traffic safety, protection of life and property of citizens. However, citizens consider the police inefficient when it comes to combating corruption in general (68%), catching the perpetrators of economic and organised crime and combating corruption in its own ranks.

The question of integrity of police officers should not be understood narrowly, in the context of corruption in the form of giving and receiving bribery. Much worse than that is the disrespect of professional police standards, passivity and inaction ex officio. Over the years, various Šarić and Kalić lived peacefully in our country and no one ever found it important to deal with them. And today there are many of those. An important issue for our further research is whether the state of Montenegro has done enough to encourage our officers to tackle the difficult challenges that are ahead? Whether they have fulfilled all the prerequisites to ensure that individuals from police opened tricky questions and gather evidence against dangerous criminal groups and Montenegrin potentates? Mild penal policy against the frequent attacks on police officers does not speak in favor of it. But this is only one of the indicators, we will deal with the others in the following months.

Dina BAJRAMSPAHIĆ
Public Policy Researcher

Text originally published in the section ,,Forum” of daily Vijesti

Posted on

Candidates are unsatisfied with the testing procedures and violation of the rankings

Testing procedures and violation of the rank lists for appointing civil servants and state employees are the most common causes of dissatisfaction of the candidates for the job in state authorities, according to the complaints submitted on our website “Moja uprava”.

On the website mojauprava.me, launched by the Institute alternative (IA) within the project “State Administration in Montenegro – Equal for All!” and financially supported by the U.S. Embassy in Podgorica, 14 complaints have been submitted so far.

The candidates often express their dissatisfaction for not being appointed for the position even though they were top – ranked candidate after testing procedure. Also, the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees stipulates that only the top – ranked candidate can be appointed for the position. Only exceptionally and with special explanation, the head of authority is allowed to decide to appoint another candidate after the interviews have been conducted.

However, the cases of the candidates that have submitted a complaint on mojauprava.me show that the explanations of the elders are not convincing enough.

Namely, the elders’ explanations often refer to applying criteria reserved for skills assessment and forming rank lists as oral interview criteria, favouring candidates who have already worked at the state authority or have made a better impression.

These cases correspond with the findings of our Monitoring report Recruitment and Promotion in State Authorities, which points to too broad interpretation of the elder’s discretionary right not to select the top – ranked candidate.

Other complaints addressed to our organization mostly refer to irregularities during the testing procedures, or incorrectly scored tests, the overage grade during studies and professional and working skills of the candidates.

Candidates also warn of privileging some of the candidates by the officials who prepare practical tests for testing competences for performing a given job.

“You can do the general part of the testing procedure perfectly, but when it comes to special part, it is very difficult to pass, because you don’t know what to study or what literature you should use (the state authority won’t provide that information), but the one for whom the position is being kept (and 98% of public announcements are “setup”), knows questions, and even answers, in advance, considering that the officers for personnel affairs are preparing the questions”, states in one of the complaints.

IA has prepared a guide for the candidates for the job in state authorities, 2 000 copies, which will be distributed to all interested candidates, with the assistance of the Human Resources Management Authority.

The finding and results of our one – year long project “State Authority in Montenegro: Equal for All” will serve as a basis for advocating amendments to the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees, which were planned for the last quarter of this year.

Posted on

Conference: “The NGOs’ experiences in the European integration process of Montenegro: Achievements and Challenges”

Jovana Marović, the research coordinator at the Institute alternative (IA) has participated today at the conference“The NGOs’ experiences in the European integration process of Montenegro: Achievements and Challenges”, organised by the Center for Development of NGOs.

Jovana was the speaker at the first panel “Experience of the NGOs in the working groups for the preparation of the negotiations”. Stating that NGO representatives in working groups have selective access to information, she assessed that they have an unequal position because of a lack of transparency, and that they encounter a numerous obstacles when trying to inform themselves on the implementation of the Action Plans. Sessions of the Rule of Law Council are closed, while the sessions of the Working Groups discuss only technical details of the reporting process, and not the real issues. Another problem, she said, is that the comments from the European Commission (EC) on key draft laws and proposals, the reports of the expert missions of the EC and changes in the negotiating structure are not being published.

“The Government still has something to hide, i.e. channels of communication now enable the Government to hide some important information related to the integration process from the NGO members of the Working Group, as well as from other interested and expert public” said Jovana, alleging that some of the comments on legislation are not available, not only to NGOs, but also to MPs.

The part of Jovana’s speech can be seen in the video below:

Besides Jovana, the panelist were Boris Marić from the NGO Center for Civic Education, Nataša Kovačević, NGO Green Home, Miodrag Radović, Secretary of the Negotiating structure and the panel was moderated by Ana Novaković, Executive Director of the Center for Development of NGOs.

The Center for Development of NGOs organised the conference in cooperation with the Association of human rights and media freedoms – Censorship Plus.

 

Posted on

The institutional position of the European Parliament – between weak competences and voter apathy

The research paper authored by our research coordinator Jovana Marović “The institutional position of the European Parliament – between weak competences and voter apathy“ was published in the Yearbook of the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade. The article explains to what extent the weakness of this directly elected body contributes to the low turnout at the elections, alongside with the ubiquitous democratic deficit within the Union. It explains the key attributes and competencies of the European Parliament, and provides an overview of its strengthening during the integration process. The special focus is on the Treaty of Lisbon and to what extent this reform attempt strengthens the autonomy of the Parliament. The main thesis is that the power and position of the European Parliament have not improved significantly: weakness and, still, limited visibility of EP, are important reasons that citizens identify the elections for the European Parliament as a „second – rate national competition“, and as such they are not interesting to them.

The article can be downloaded here (only in Montenegrin).