Posted on

Strengthening the influence of the Parliament: The hearings should have the impact

Although they are more frequent lately, control and consultative hearing do not create the needed impact due to the fact that the most of their conclusions remain unrealized, said Stevo Muk, the president of the Managing Board of the Institute Alternative, during today’s conference on the role of the Parliament.

More specific conclusions from the hearings are needed, as well as implementation and impact in reality. It is necessary that the opposition uses their right of mobility of two hearings to the full extent in all Committees during the year, which they were not practicing by now, said Muk at the conference “How to improve the oversight function of the Parliament?”, organized by the Institute Alternative with the support of Think Tank “Open Society Foundation”.

He reminded that the institutions are not obliged to report on the realization of the Parliament’s recommendations, as well as there is not any kind of political responsibility if the committees do not adopt the reports on their work

“There is no procedure for examining complaints submitted by citizens and the current structure of the working bodies in parliament is not optimal in relation to the scope of their competence,” said Muk, recalling that IA offered specific recommendations for improving the oversight function of the Parliament.

The keynote speaker, apart from the President of the Managing Board of IA, was Ranko Krivokapić, the President of the Parliament of Montenegro, who emphasized that even though the Parliament didn’t have enough efficient conclusions after the hearings, the fact that the hearing were conducted goes in favour of the transparency of its work as well to the evolution of the parliamentarism.

“The political elite has to be aware that it has the responsibility which is not solely legal”, said Krivokapić, emphasizing the importance of the role of the NGO sector in Montenegro, where there are still no conditions to fulfill fundamental public and state interests.

Aleksandar Damjanović, the Chairman of the Committee on Economy, Finance and the Budget, said during the first panel that the existence of certain committees, which rarely convene sessions, should be considered. He also said that one MP should not be the member of more than two committees.

He and Marta Šćepanović, the MP from the Democratic Party of Socialists, one of the speakers at the conference, have supported the idea advocated by the IA earlier, to enable the live stream of the committee sessions.

Rifat Rastoder, the Chairman of the Committee on Political System, Judiciary and Administration, has emphasized that the MPs do not consider the politics as a serious work, while the sessions of the Parliament remind him of the multiparty discussions.

Predrag Bulatović, the Chairman of the Anti-corruption Committee, pointed out the challenges this body has faced in the process of the oversight over the fight against the corruption. He reminded the audience that the representatives of the Prosecutor’s office earlier had the attitude that their presence at the Committee meetings is not obligatory.

“Now their respect this legal responsibility and that is one step forward”, said Bulatović, emphasizing, however, that the Anti-corruption Committee and the Committee on European Integration are the only committees which have the deficit of the opposition representatives.

The ratio in these bodies is 8 representatives of the parliamentary majority as opposed to 5 representatives of parliamentary minority, while this ratio is more balanced in other committees.

Jovana Marović, the Research Coordinator in the Institute has emphasized that the Parliament has been using its role in the fight against the corruption through the work of the Anti-corruption Committee, through the usage of the control mechanism as well as the monitoring of the negotiations between Montenegro and the European Union.

She also reminded that, more than two years after the establishment of this body, the Anti-corruption Committee has not succeeding in answering the question posed by IA in one of its papers – Is this working body the cure or the placebo for the corruption on the country.

Marović underlined that the public should be informed about the contribution of the Parliament to the negotiations with the EU.

“Since the Action Plan for the Chapter 23 will be the only strategic document about the contribution of the Parliament, some kind of consultative hearing in the Committee on the European integration should be organized on quarterly basis, or, alternatively, the joint meeting with the Anti-corruption Committee, where the Minister of Justice and the Chief Negotiator would report about the progress on the implementation of the plan, potential problems in the realization as well as about the challenges in the process of negotiations and fight against the corruption”, she added.

Slaven Radunović, the Chairman of the Committee on the European integration, has pointed out the gap between the legislative framework and the political will for it implementation. “If there was a political will in Montenegro, we would not have had any problems even with the old legislation.”

Svetlana Rajković, from the Ministry of Justice and the negotiator for the Chapters 23 and 24, said that the capacities of the state bodies for the fight against the corruption are limited, but that there is some progress in this field.

“We can pass the best laws, but as long as all of us individually, as citizens, don’t believe in them, they are not going to be applied”, said Rajković.

Posted on

Ethics and public administration: Principles with no support

In spite of the fact that Montenegro has established codes of ethics for local and national civil servants and state employees, the mechanisms that would ensure their efficient application are lacking.

In its work thus far, the Ethics Committee for monitoring the application of the Code of Ethics of Civil Servants and State Employees has received one complaint in relation to the behaviour of a civil servant and one initiative for receiving opinion on the implementation of the Code of Ethics. Contact-points have been appointed and tasked to inform the Committee of all complaints about Code violations submitted directly to state authorities. However, no such complaints have been reported.

The Ethics Committee has failed to meet its obligation of convening at least once a month, and it is also facing the issue of not paying its members’ remunerations. The procedures for appointing Committee members are not sufficiently developed, and its primary role is an advisory one, given that it does not have the possibility of launching a disciplinary procedure in cases when it identifies violations of ethical standards.

The work of specific ethic committees at some institutions (e.g. Customs Administration, Police Administration) is better organised, which can be noted in those bodies’ results. The Police Administration’s Ethics Committee has reviewed 570 cases of Police Code of Ethics violations in eight years. In just the last three years, the Committee has found 59 instances of violations of the Code.

On the other hand, just 15 out of 23 Montenegrin municipalities have established Ethics Committees for monitoring the implementation of the local codes of ethics for civil servants and state employees. Similar to the national level, no complaints have been reported on by the local committees.

An ethical code that would cover appointees at senior management positions in state administration who are not civil servants or state employees is yet to be adopted. All this suggests that, broadly speaking, there are still no basic preconditions in place for a successful implementation of ethical standards in Montenegro. These preconditions would comprise certain competences and autonomy of the bodies in charge of monitoring the implementation of ethical standards, promotion of codes of ethics, guidelines for solving concrete ethical dilemmas, facilitated possibility of submitting ethical violation complaints, and transparency in follow-up on complaints.

Posted on

SELDI Forum in Brussels

Key results, findings and recommendations formulated during the two-year project within the SELDI network (Southeast Europe Leadership for Development and Integrity) were presented at the Policy forum, held on 24th and 25th of February 2015. The Forum “Good Governance Agenda for Southeast Europe: the Role of Civil Society” was attended by the representatives of the European Comission, European Parliament, civil society as well as the members of the coalition. On behalf of Institute Alternative, the Policy forum was attended by Dina Bajramspahić and Jovana Marović.

The project of SELDI network will continue in the next two-year period during which the 17 members of the coalition will continue to develop anti-corruption mechanisms in specific areas especially vulnerable to the corruption.

Related news:

Posted on

Conference announcement: “How to improve the oversight function of the Parliament?”

Institute alternative, with the support of Think Tank Fund, is organizing the conference: “How to improve the oversight function of the Parliament?” in hotel Ramada, on Friday, 27 of February 2015. at 11 AM. At the conference will be discussed the question of usage of the control mechanisms available to MPs as well as obstacles for more active political control of the Governance’s work and the contribution of the Parliament to the negotiations with the EU.

The keynote speakers at the Conference will be Stevo Muk, President of the Managing Board of Institute alternative and Ranko Krivokapić, the President of the Parliament of Montenegro.

The speakers for the first panel “Towards a more effective use of the oversight mechanism of the Parliament” will be:

  • Aleksandar Damjanović, the Chairman of the Committee on Economy, Finance and the Budget
  • Marta Šćepanović, the MP from the Democratic Party of Socialists
  • Rifat Rastoder, the Chairman of the Committee on Political System, Judiciary and Administration

The speakers for the second panel “The Parliament and fight against corruption/the negotiation process within the Chapter 23” will be:

  • Predrag Bulatović, the Chairman of the Anti-corruption Committee
  • Slaven Radunović, the Chairman of the Committee on the European integration
  • Svetlana Rajković, from the Ministry of Justice and the negotiator for the Chapters 23 and 24
  • Jovana Marović, the Research Coordinator in the Institute alternative

For all further information, you can contact Jovana Marović at phone number 067/231-327 or at e-mail address: jovana@institut-alternativa.org.