Representatives of six civil society organizations signed the founding act of the „Balkan Security Platform” in the library of the Belgrade Center for Security Policy on March 7, 2016.
The main objectives of the Balkan Security Platform are:
to increase the role of civil society and citizens by strengthening external oversight of the security sector in the Balkans;
expansion of the civil society network to strengthen cooperation in analyzing, monitoring and advocating good governance of security policy and security sector reform;
empowerment of citizens, institutions, regional initiatives and partners across Europe to apply tools which ensure security sector reform;
ensuring greater commitment to integrity in the Balkans.
This initiative is the result of the cooperation that started seven years ago, which is marked by constant activities to improve research methodologies and to develop a broader impact on security cooperation in the region.
The question rightfully arises: What are the results of our work and have we been able to influence the decisions of the Government? A sincere answer would be as follows: Our results are thin and we’ve failed to achieve any significant impact. Why is it so? Here is the answer based on a recent example.
Eighteen months has already passed since the Council for Development of NGOs operates in the present composition. The Council which is tasked with, inter alia, “providing opinion to the Government on draft legislation governing the institutional and normative work of NGOs, with the aim of creating an enabling environment for their development and operation”. I was appointed as a member of this body upon the proposal of a group of NGOs, as one of 11 NGO representatives sitting side by side with 12 Government representatives.
The question rightfully arises: What are the results of our work and have we been able to influence the decisions of the Government? A sincere answer would be as follows: Our results are thin and we’ve failed to achieve any significant impact. Why is it so? Here is the answer based on a recent example.
We suggested that the Ministry of Finance should provide us the document it prepares in the process of adoption of the Law on NGOs. The Council members – civil servants from the ministries voted AGAINST! We suggested that the Ministry of Interior should provide the Council with the Draft Law on NGOs, following its submission to the European Commission for an opinion. The Council members – civil servants from the ministries voted AGAINST! We suggested that the Council for Development of NGOs should deliberate on this new version of the Draft Law on NGOs. The Council members – civil servants from the ministries voted AGAINST! In conclusion, the NGO representatives voted IN FAVOR of all three proposals, the Government representatives voted AGAINST.
This is how the latest session of the Council for Development of NGOs looked like. This is how the “cooperation” between the NGO representatives and the Government representatives in the Council looks like.
The argument that the Council is the body which needs to receive all the information relevant for its work so it could be able to re-evaluate and discuss it prior to advising the decision-makers didn’t help. Recalling that the previous debate on the Draft Law on NGOs was held seven months ago didn’t help either. Nor the recollection that we are requesting the debate on the Law on NGOs, and not on the Law on Administrative Fees (although the treatment of NGOs under this Law could be discussed as well).
Eight Government representatives attending this session voted as one against all three proposals. This was another attempt of outvoting the NGO representatives aimed at formulating the opinions of the Council solely by the votes of the Government representatives. In other words, so that the Government representatives could advise the Government that it is always right.
At the beginning of the session in question, I stated that it’s been a year since the strategy of exhaustion, obstruction, and marginalization of requests of NGOs is being pursued. This strategy is being implemented by the Government representatives who wish to transform the Council into the “Government’s commission for justification of the decisions of the Government”.
How this Strategy looks like when put to work clearly shows the procedure NGO representatives need to follow if they wish to place an issue on the Council’s agenda. Namely, the Government representatives in the Council stubbornly insist that it is necessary for at least three NGO representatives to jointly sign a proposal and file the original in the Archive of the Government in Podgorica. During an hour-long debate at the Council, I had to draw the route of three members of the Council from three different Montenegrin cities which are obliged to travel and “collect” signatures and then physically carry them to Podgorica.
In other words, the Government representatives have been refusing to acknowledge the possibility of submitting the proposals by the NGO representatives via e-mail for a year and a half now. Bearing in mind that it’s 2016, their stance on this issue could easily appear in the “Believe It or Not” section, especially since the entire communication between the President of the Council, the Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs, as well as among the members of the Council takes place via electronic list (e-mail). Now, everything that is permitted to them (from the Government) is forbidden to us from the NGOs. Discrimination at work.
In the end, we had to put a stop to this nonsense (or at least try). We requested that the proposals submitted in accordance with the Rules of Procedure are put on the agenda, but also that the Council urgently adopts the interpretation that members from NGOs are allowed to submit amendments to the agenda via e-mail. They heard us only when we unanimously threatened to leave the Council session.
One of the most important debates, in the ocean of absurdity, conducted in the present composition of the Council, was the one on the draft document entitled “The Analysis of the Institutional Framework for the Exercise of State Administration Competencies in Connection with the Development of NGOs”. The two groups of representatives outvoted each other during this session as well. At the end, the document was not adopted because there was no majority vote for either side. Consequently, the voice of the Council on this issue remained silent before the Government.
Unfortunately, the Council was not able to deliberate in a timely manner on reports on the implementation of obligations related to development of civil society within Chapter 23, since the reports were submitted to the Council only after being adopted by the Government. This practice hindered the possibility of proposing conclusions and recommendations to the Government, therefore, the debate on this issue never occurred.
Now, we are trying to ensure that the last year’s Performance Report of the Council is not only the collection of bleak, bureaucratic statements copied from the minutes of the sessions. We want the report to encompass answers to the questions like: How many proposals came from members of the Government? How often did the Government representatives speak at the sessions? How many proposals for amendment of the agenda were rejected? What are the topics we failed to cover and why?
For instance, the state Budget Bills for 2015 and 2016 and the amounts allocated for NGOs were not discussed at all. The Ministry of Finance is blocking and obstructing our work in different ways, thereby continuing the old practice from the era of the previous Council. Failure to provide us the precise information on the fate of the Law on Games of Chance is only one example of these obstructions. About the so-called Civil Society House some other time.
Stevo MUK
President of the Managing Board
Text was originally published in the ,,Forum” of daily Vijesti
The kick-off meeting within the project “Monitoring and Evaluating the Rule of Law in the Western Balkans – MERLIN WB” took place from March 6-9, 2016, in Belgrade. The project is funded by the European Fund for the Balkans (EFB) within the framework of the Think and Link Programme. Institute Alternative will work together with European Policy Institute (EPI) from Macedonia, Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCSP) from Serbia, and GONG from Croatia on mapping the key issues in the area of rule of law in the region.
Expected results of the project are the following:
Defining a common framework for assessment of regional priorities in the areas of democracy and rule of law;
Defining a common framework for the exchange of best practices and mechanisms for monitoring implementation of reforms within Chapter 23 “Judiciary and Fundamental Rights” and Chapter 24 “Justice, Freedom and Security”;
Formulating options for improvement of specific areas.
The European standard of representation of women in the police force is 30 percent, and according to the information available in Serbia, women currently make up 23 percent of employees, 18 percent in Macedonia, 14 in Kosovo, 13 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 10 in Albania and nine percent in Montenegro, it was pointed out at the conference of the POINTPULSE network.
Women in police do not have the same opportunities for career advancement and there are still many prejudices which they face at the work place, it was said at the conference “Women in the Police: the Case of the Western Balkans”, which was organized on March 8th 2016 by the regional network of civil society POINTPULSE.
A big problem is the fact that women in police forces in the region are under-represented in management positions, as well as in operational and uniformed police posts.
Researcher of the Belgrade Center for Security Policy Aurelija Djan points out that women are formally given the possibility to join the police, but there is still a division between “male” and “female” jobs.
“Currently in the police, men generally perform duties that are related to a high level of physical and mental endurance, as well as the application of coercive measures and the work of the special units. On the other hand, women are assigned to administrative, legal, financial and analytical activities”, said Djan.
The situation is very similar in Bosnia and Herzegovina, said researcher Mirela Hodovic of the Center for Security Studies in Sarajevo.
“Police organizations emphasize that the conditions for men and women are the same, but in practice there are differences. Police work is still seen as a male profession, and women find it difficult to come to leadership positions. Men have much greater authority in the police and they are more trusted, which is why women need much more energy to make progress”, said Hodovic.
Policewomen in Albania face the same challenges as in the rest of the region, but research by the Institute for Democracy and Mediation in Tirana has shown that a significant factor is the lack of tradition for women to develop a career in the police.
“We should launch a campaign which will point to good examples of women in the police force that succeeded and that could be a model that other women need to look up to”, said Institute for Democracy and Mediation researcher Besjana Kuci.
In the recent history of Macedonia there were two female ministers of the Interior, as well as more high-ranking functions occupied by females.
“They could have significantly contributed to the public perception of the role of women in the police and inspire women to develop a career in the police, but we did not use this advantage. For example, in the first international peacekeeping mission in 2005. a policewoman was deployed, but is was not presented at all as a positive example that could attract more women to the police”, said Andrej Bogdanovski, researcher from Analytica from Skopje.
Researcher of the Kosovar Centre for Security Studies in Pristina Plator Avdiu said that the call for the non-administrative position in the police attracted only 5% of applications from women.
“The problem is that women do not see themselves in this position. This is due to the different stereotypes that prevail in a negative context, so women see work in the police service as a threat to private and family life”, said Avdiu.
Dina Bajramspahic, researcher of the Institute Alternativa from Podgorica, said that the key problem is that the problems of gender equality in the police is viewed in isolation from other problems in the police service.
“In order for women to be able to work and fulfill their professional duties in the police force, it is necessary not to pursue a policy of sameness. It should not be acceptable only for women to meet the male perspective on what a police officer should be, but in contrast feminine values should be respected in the same way and that should be an added value to the functioning of the police. It should be a contribution to moving the concept from the police force in the police service”, concluded Bajramspahic.
Regional network of civil society organizations POINTPULSE is organizing a panel “Women in Police: Perspectives from the Western Balkans” that will be held on the International Women’s Day, Tuesday, 8 March, at 10h in the Media Centre in Belgrade (Terazije 3).
The aim of the event is to encourage discussion on addressing gender issue within law enforcement agencies in the Western Balkans.
The discussion will be held in Serbian, Montenegrin, Bosnian and English language. Simultaneous translation will be provided.
These questions will be address at the event:
To what extent are women represented in police service, and which ranks and tasks women usually have?
What are good practices for attracting women to choose police career?
What are main challenges for women in career development and is there any institutional framework for addressing gender issue within police?
Speakers at the panel are as follow:
Andreja Bogdanovski, Researcher, Analytica from Skopje;
Aurelija Djan, Researcher, Belgrade Centre for Security Policy;
Mirela Hodović, Researcher, Centre for Security Studies from Sarajevo;
Dina Bajramspahić, Public Policy Researcher, Institute Alternative from Podgorica;
Sotiraq Hroni, Executive Director, Institute for Democracy and Mediation from Tirana;
Plator Avdiu, Researcher, Kosovo Centre for Security Studies (KCSS) from Pristina.
Moderator will be Jelena Zorić, Journalist from the regional television N1.
For participation at the conference, it is necessary to confirm your attendance by Monday, 8 of March 2016 the latest. Confirmations of attendance can be submitted either via telephone +381113287226 or via email at office@bezbednost.org. Additional information on the conference can also be obtained through the contact points provided above.
Follow POINTPULSE activities and this disucssion (#policeWOMEN) on:
Panel discussion is organized within project “Western Balkans Pulse for Police Integrity and Trust (POINTPULSE)”, supported by the EU Union via Civil Society Facility Programme (EuropeAid/136-034/C/ACT/Multi). The contents of this project are the sole responsibility of the POINTPULSE network and views expressed are not necessarily those of the EU.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
The question rightfully arises: What are the results of our work and have we been able to influence the decisions of the Government? A sincere answer would be as follows: Our results are thin and we’ve failed to achieve any significant impact. Why is it so? Here is the answer based on a recent example.
