Posted on

Conference on the role of thinks tanks in the policy making process

Our Milena Milošević participated at the conference held in Belgrade with the topic of the role of independent think tanks in the process of policy making, in the time of democratic “regression” of the governments in the region and manipulation of information.

Milena said that the most responsible actors – governments, to which we address the greatest number of recommendations, still do not understand work, role and importance of think tank organizations.

In the process of creating recommendations for better public policies that we address to governments we are faced with their twofold agenda:

  • The first is official, pro-European agenda created by the need to comply with EU standards, which implies civil society active in creation, monitoring and evaluation of public policies
  • The other is unofficial, less formal and more dependent on strong personalities of leaders who can actually benefit from the delays in the EU accession process and have never accepted European values that they supposedly promote.

As evidence of these claims, Milena has provided some information on the situation in Montenegro:

  • The government adopted a new law that was supposed to strengthen links between expert NGOs and sectoral policies of certain ministries. However, on a discretionary basis, ministries crucial to the progress of EU membership negotiations did not organize consultations with civil society organizations and did not include any of the key pillars of the EU accession in funding priorities;
  • The Law on state administration, in the part regulating public debates, was paradoxically amended without a public debate. Initially, the amendments aimed at prohibiting public debates on laws and strategies regulating security and public finances areas, after which additional amendments retained a certain space for civil society participation in policy-making in these areas
  • Members of expert non-governmental organizations in official coordination and supervisory bodies are more often used to provoke discussion on key issues rather than to reach a consensus on specific problems based on evidence gathered and assessment of situation.

„I think that the most important thing that our organization currently does is development and participation in regional cooperation with other organizations from the Western Balkan, as well as participation in regional initiatives for supervision of state institutions’ activities,“ said Milena.

This is most important because it speaks about links between non-governmental organizations and the European Union, other donors and international actors, as well as links with other parts of civil society, especially the media. Civil society and international community often adopt our suggestions and take over and advocate our recommendations, which is also one of the ways to influence governments.

“Unfortunately, this means that we still need to seek support for our recommendations outside the state in order to be more influential. We all know that it would be more desirable to ensure sustainability of local think tanks, to reduce dependence on donors and increase local ownership over our initiatives, which we try to provide through joint cooperation with media and non-governmental organizations,” said Milena. Despite this undesirable situation, it is positive that we can map “reform champions” which most often come from independent supervisory institutions.

The conference was organized as a final event within the project “Raising capacities and advocacy potential towards more substantive involvement of civil society organisations of Visegrad group and Western Balkan countries”, supported by the International Visegrad Fund.

Institute Alternative Team

Posted on

Call for Application to CSOs for Joining Our Administration Network

Institute Alternative invites interested NGOs to join the network „Our Administration“.

Our Administration Network currently consists of 13 civil society organisations: Institute Alternative, Bonum, Natura, New Horizon, Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro, Centre for Civil Education, Center for the Development of Non-Governmental Organisations, Women’s Rights Center, Association of Youth with Disabilities of Montenegro, Active Zone, Association for the Development of Civil Society, NADA, Adria. The goals of the Network are to participate in independent monitoring of public administration reform and further strengthening of the Montenegrin civil society to participate in the reform process.

The call for joining the network “Our Administration”  is open to a limited number of non-governmental organisations  dealing with issues of accountability, transparency efficiency of public administration, service provision, that is, in the broadest sense areas of good governance and public administration reform.

As one of our goals is to achieve an added value in our regular monitoring of public administration and to contribute to the creation of the equal opportunities for all, we especially encourage NGOs dealing with gender equality, protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities, protection of labor rights to apply to join the Network.

Members of the Network will have the opportunity to attend workshop on monitoring public administration reform during the 2018, as well as to attend meetings of the Network to discuss further initiatives and activities.

Network “Our Administration” was created within the framework of the project “Civil Society for Good Governance: To Act and Account” funded by the European Union within the Civil Society Facility and the Balkan Trust for Democracy (BTD) project, the German Marshal Fund (GMF) project, and is implemented by the Institute Alternative, Bonum, Natura, New Horizon and the Centre for Investigative Journalism.

If you are interested to join the Network that wants to build an administration equal for all, please send us your application. Application should include a short motivation letter to join the Network and references of the organisation.

Applications with the required documents should be sent to Aleksandra Vavić, the e-mail address aleksandra@institut-alternativa.org by 5 February 2018. You can contact the same e-mail if you have any additional questions.

After the deadline, the project team will make a decision on accession of new members of the network “Our Administration” and notify the organisation via e-mail.

Important! The deadline for applications has been extended until 9 February.

Posted on

Opposition’s path

stevo-300x217After the 2016 parliamentary elections, opposition has more MPs in the Parliament of Montenegro than ever before in the modern history of Montenegro. Distribution of votes is such that opposition’s seat share is closer to its vote share (least dispersed votes) than ever before. It is now supported by a significantly more balanced identity structure of voters. The biggest issues dividing opposition voters are left behind.

Political trends underline increasingly present possibility that opposition parties in the Parliament of Montenegro have 42 MPs. An open question is: Will this happen at the next parliamentary elections or will this chance be lost? To a large extent, this depends on the good political will and readiness of opposition leaders and management to take on the responsibility and risk of exercising power, on the ability to find the smallest common denominator of the opposition through dialogue and compromise instead of insisting on differences. Also, the response depends on the readiness to build a pre-election and post-election political compromise, on the political maturity of all to accept the decisions Montenegro made in 2006 and 2017.

Boycott of the parliament was a legitimate response to manipulations during the election day, but it could not deliver results without accompanying political strategy and action. By the end of 2017 and early 2018, the DPS was welcoming the return of the DF to parliament, the party it, at the same time, accuses of attempting a coup and high treason, while the rest of opposition could not agree on what, how and with whom to do. Entire 2017 has been wasted in already seen futile quarrels of opposition parties, with the result of shift of votes from one opposition block to another, without much damage to the DPS. Sometimes it seems that, to opposition parties, winning over opposition is more important than winning over the regime. As long as this continues, balance of power between the government and opposition will remain unchanged.

The general demand of the opposition for fair elections is fruitless. History shows – no major opposition party in 27 years of multiparty system has boycotted parliamentary elections. Knowing that opposition has no courage for a united boycott of the unfair elections, the DPS is refusing dialogue on fair elections, and prolonging processes, thus breaking already weak unity of the opposition and presenting it with a fait accompli.

While in the opposition they do not know what, how and with whom, DPS does its job. It skilfully stirs up ideological, political and other differences, spreads new fears of foreign and internal enemies, opposition, NGOs, independent media. Since mid-2017, in line with the key issues identified by citizens (unemployment, low wages/pensions, crime), the Government (the DPS) runs a pre-election campaign on “fighting crime” through raids of objects and suspicious persons, followed by media coverage with video footage and propaganda reports of pro-government media. The DPS is running a quiet action for pacifying independent media and NGOs, and an open action to take over the public broadcaster RTCG. All other levers of electoral technology, political and economic resources, are still entirely theirs.

The opposition must relieve itself of the burden of non-transparent post-election policy. The voters have the right to know what kind of government they vote, instead of the “necessarily unclear concept” long used at the expense of the opposition. The international community wonders what kind of government and what kind of politics a plethora of opposition parties can produce once it comes in power.

Opposition parties, especially pro-independence and civic ones, are faced with the question “Who will you join in a coalition after the elections?” with the goal of depriving them of the logical answer “With every other opposition party!” If the answer to this question really is what the DPS suggests to civic opposition and Democrats – “you can go with everyone but the DF”, then the change of government in Montenegro is impossible. Such a conclusion is reached following election mathematics that shows that in the winning scenario in which the opposition has 42 MPs, the share of DF, according to election results and public opinion polls, must be at least 12 seats. Hence, everybody saying he/she wants to change the government but does not count on the DF, in essence, and by the objective consequences of his/her attitude, works against the change of regime.

The thesis that Montenegro, in year 2020, is not prepared to form a government in which a political group that (largely) opposed the independence and NATO membership would participate, fourteen years after the independence and three years after joining NATO, puts into question democratic principle of the cnage of regime and the possibility of all legal political contestants to participate in the government. In this way, the DPS is privileged, whose call to all opposition parties is considered legitimate and welcome, but at the same time a potential call from the opposition to form a coalition with the DF is considered heresy. Such a thesis is identical to the argument of the Positive Montenegro from the time when it supported the government of Milo Đukanović in the parliament, with the difference that in 2020 this approach would be much less credible. Especially given that in the society, in the opposition, and notably in the overall political spectrum, the overwhelming majority are those who indisputably accept the state of Montenegro, and consider NATO membership a given fact.

As follows, the framework for political compromise is clear – Montenegro is an independent state and a NATO member state. Within this framework, clever policy is capable of finding a compromise, after all and in spite of all. It is time to remove a heavy load from the back of all opposition parties.

In general, the opposition must remain open to any potential reformist political current in the DPS and to authentic and relevant minority parties (the Bosniak Party and relevant Albanian parties). The overarching political platform for the opposition must be commitment to EU integrations, reforms that will speed up negotiations with the goal of becoming EU member as soon as possible. The opposition program must focus on economic and social issues.

The possible “road map” of the opposition includes solidarity, communication and multi-level cooperation (political and operational, national and local); non-aggression pact; combining methods of parliamentary and non-parliamentary fight; defining conditions for participating in parliamentary elections (regardless of forms and levels of pre-election association) which, apart from the recommendations of the OSCE ODIHR, include “clearing” voters register; highest guarantees of impartiality of the institutions for the control of elections and of the public broadcaster; efficient oversight over discretionary budget costs, etc.

In the political part, of paramount importance are clever association of opposition parties, prevention of votes dispersal, pooling resources, forming and promoting coalitions – better sooner than later (the importance of time factor is best illustrated by the result of late and unexplained coalition Key in the 2016 Elections); support to the best-placed opposition candidate in the first round of presidential elections; a common strategy in both rounds compared to the DPS candidate. In the Podgorica elections, the opposition can try desirable models of cooperation through broadest joint pre-election activity, practicing a common mechanism for fighting electoral irregularities and other forms of achieving synergy.

It remains to be seen whether the opposition leaders will continue their ten-year-long game of Chinese whispers or assume historical role and responsibility of bringing Montenegro into a society of democratic states where the change of regime is possible. The greatest responsibility lies with the largest political groups, the Democrats and the Democratic Front. It is up to the Democrats to work with other civic parties, open for a broad coalition and lead the process, and up to the DF to help build bridges with the rest of the opposition and accept the described framework for discussion and agreement. The sooner the better. Time is running out.

Column is published in the Forum section of Vijesti portal

Posted on

Parallel Funds for Granting One-off Social Assistance: Millions at the Government’s Discretion

In 2017, nearly two million euros were allocated from the state budget for one-off social assistance. Of this, only €700.000 were allocated to the most vulnerable cases. Almost twice as much was spent on employees in state institutions and ministries through non-transparent procedures. Social cases, thereby, can count on one-off assistance through social work centres in the amount of five, ten or twenty euros, while employees in the state administration receive 500, or even several thousand euros.

Another four million were distributed for various forms of assistance by the decisions of the Government’s Inner Cabinet and the Commission for Allocation of Funds from the Budgetary Reserve, documentation on which was declared secret.

The budget for 2018 envisages a similar sum for granting one-off assistance to employees in the state administration. Experts call for termination of this practice.

The Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare confirmed to the Centre for Investigative Reporting of Montenegro (CIN-CG) that in the last year it proposed €700.000 for payment of one-off social assistance to the most vulnerable population categories and that this was accepted. They wash their hands for the rest of the amount.

“It is not under the authority of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare to define which state bodies can pay out one-off financial assistance, nor determining the amount of one-off assistance for employees,” stated the department.

Several CIN-CG collocutors stress the vast space for abuse of this money which is allocated without adequate control and in a non-transparent procedure. Therefore, experts say that funds of this kind should be abolished, system centralized, the Law on social and child protection respected, and the money directed to those who are indeed in a state of need.

The Law on social and child protection stipulates that through social work centres, one-off social assistance is granted to persons in a state of need due to difficult material, housing or health condition. The Law on budget, however, also provides money for this type of assistance to employees in state institutions and ministries.

In the state administration and institutions, 39.300 employees are on the budget, with an average salary of €593 in November. Sector collective agreements stipulate that one-off money is provided solely for the death of an employee or close family member, for longer and severe illnesses, for acquisition of medicines, for health rehabilitation and for eliminating consequences of natural disasters. Each ministry and state administration body should adopt bylaws, rulebooks regulating this area, but, according to CIN-CG findings, managers often give themselves right to decide which of their employees are in need of money.

Also, the problem is that ministries and institutions are free in assessing what they consider to be social assistance, so for somebody training abroad, printing books, home canning etc. fall in this category. It is also controversial that all these institutions control themselves on how they spend this money. “Determining priorities in certain areas, the way and legality of budget spending is solely under the authority of the budget user,” as the Ministry of Finance informed CIN-CG.

In addition, the budget review shows that the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, which should have overall authority for granting this type of assistance, in the previous years had significantly less money budgeted for these purposes than, say, the Ministry of Education, the Pension and Disability Insurance (PIO) Fund and the Ministry of Interior. Thus, in 2015 and 2016, the Ministry of Education had more than €1 million available for these purposes, while the Ministry of Labour in the same period had only €345.000.

The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour did not submit data, pursuant to the Law on free access to information, on how they spent this money. This secrecy is contrary to the proclaimed strategic commitment of the Government to greater transparency in public finance management. It is plausible that these cases are the reason why 57% of citizens believe that public money is generally or not at all spent for proper purposes, according to a research conducted last year for the Institute Alternative.

The Human Rights Action (HRA), which contributed to this research, appealed earlier to help children in social need, weary and ill people who live on the street, or in inhumane poverty conditions. According to UNICEF, more than 15.000 children in Montenegro live in poverty. According to MONSTAT data, about 60.000 people in Montenegro live below the poverty line, which is €186 per month per person. The PIO Fund records that 29.5 thousand pensioners receive less than €180 and more than 3.500 less than €100. Montenegro has about 22.000 beneficiaries of social assistance and more than 50.000 unemployed persons. Data from the Tax Administration show that 12.000 employees are insured for a minimum pay of €193.

The HRA reminds that minimum amount of social assistance is not enough to survive: “Family financial support – MOP, basic social assistance benefit for a family of five or more members from 2010 to present has only increased by less than €7 and amounts to €120.7, while, according to the latest MONSTAT data, the minimum consumer basket has exceeded €800 in 2015, since when it is no longer calculated.” Martina Markolović, a HRA social worker, warns that the 2014 UN Committee’s recommendation to increase social benefit contributions, in order to provide adequate standard of living for the socially vulnerable, has not been implemented which will certainly be noted this year when the Committee will once again consider Montenegro.

Ivana Bogojević, from the Institute Alternative, explains that one-off social assistance is not allocated from social assistance funds, but from funds intended for individuals, in accordance with the Rulebook on Uniform Classification of the Accounts of the State and Municipal Budgets of Montenegro. She considers such budgetary classification to be contrary to the provisions of the Law on social and child protection, which defines following forms of material assistance: financial support, personal disability allowance, care and support allowance, funeral costs, health protection and one-off financial assistance. Bogojević points out that the situation at the local level is similar, meaning that granting of assistance is subject to weak control and will of individuals.

“All municipal rulebooks regulating allocation of one-off social assistance, in emergency situations guarantee discretionary right of municipality president to grant these funds,” she explains.

Bogojević concludes that such records, at both national and local level result in false financial reporting, covering of actual spending on social assistance and unrealistic perception of the needs of socially vulnerable categories of population.

Former Minister of Labour and Social Welfare in the Government of Electoral Trust, Boris Marić, assessed for CIN-CG that the practice of granting one-off social assistance could be characterized as legally problematic, ineffective and with an improper level of discretion, creating a space for manipulation. He points out that the Law on social and child protection provides for centralization of this assistance within the state administration.

“This means that the funds allocated for this purpose should only exist in the part of the line ministry’s budget, which would adopt a by-law and regulate more precisely criteria for granting one-off financial assistance. Complete distribution should go only through qualified subjects, meaning centres for social work,” explains Marić.

He claims that at one time he found the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare in a rather chaotic state and tried to do all that was possible for one-off financial assistance system not to be a covert form of financing political parties.

“The question arises whether this collision only eluded careless decision-makers, or has the system been set with ambiguity intentionally for the benefit of executive authorities in power for decades. As we had the opportunity to get acquainted with the way in which the funds in the form of one-off social assistance have been allocated, and for which needs, for me, there is no dilemma that it serves as a mechanism to feed clientelistic network and thus earn political points, or better said, votes,” said the former Minister of Labour.

Also, lawyer Sergej Sekulović told CIN-CG that solutions from the Law on social and child protection point out to the centralization of the non-recurring social assistance system.

“Article 37, paragraph 2 clearly stipulates that this right (on a one-off social assistance) is realized in accordance with criteria and procedure prescribed by the competent state administration body; while in paragraph 3 it is stated that the amount of assistance is determined by the social work centre depending on the needs of an individual or a family and material resources of the state,” explains the lawyer.

This should mean that the Ministry of Labour sets the criteria and the procedure with a bylaw (rulebook), and the centres for social work determine the facts, make a decision and determine the amount of assistance.

Earlier, HRA also urged for review of the public interest in existence of parallel funds that enable certain citizens to improve their material situation, health and print books.

This non-governmental organization in January last year appealed to the Prime Minister Duško Marković and Supreme State Prosecutor Ivica Stanković to review legality of spending €4.25 million on “one-off social assistance” paid out by the Government and other budget users as assistance for health treatment, education or improving material situation in the period from January 2014 to present.

These requests were not met.

 

 

Social assistance for church, travels, exhibitions…

Two state institutions, the Fund for Minorities and the National Museum of Montenegro, during 2015 and 2016, gave employees more than €70,000 in the form of one-off social assistance, for improving financial situation, shopping in markets, 8. March, New Year’s Eve, home canning, adaptation of living space…

This can be seen from data obtained by CIN-CG in cooperation with HRA based on the request for free access to information.

The Fund for Minorities, in 2015 and 2016, allocated all employees one-off social assistance for the purpose of improving their financial situation, with the exception of Fund Director Safet Kurtagić who was excluded from the decision in 2016. For home canning, they provided one-off assistance in the amount of €1.500 for eight employees, while only €3.000 was given in two cases for health treatment of employees’ close family members.

The National Museum, apart from adapting housing, transport, home canning, shopping in markets and holidays for employees, also provided one-off social assistance to the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, individuals for travels, exhibition costs, etc.

Further to HRA’s request, none of these two institutions has submitted internal acts on the basis of which they allocate one-off social assistance, and both of them, in the disputed decisions, refer to, inter alia, their statutes.

From the provisions of their statutes, only thing visible is discretionary right of the director to allocate money based on his or her own assessment or the assessment of the Board of Directors (Council) of the institution.

Further to CIN-CG request, Fund for Minorities has not clarified which basis were used for providing one-off social assistance to all employees for improving their financial situation.

Director of the National Museum, Pavle Pejović, claims for CIN-CG that disputed payments for one-off social assistance were made from the Museum’s own funds, and not from the budget money.

“Those €100.000 that we make over the budgeted amount, by the Council decisions we allocate in a way to help someone from the collective,” said Pejović.

In spite of this logic, that all costs are covered by public purse, while potential earnings are a surplus that can be spent as they please, the data obtained by CIN-CG based on the Law on free access to information, show that Pejović’s explanation does not stand. Money paid out, for example, to church, for transportation, exhibitions, 8. March, sports clubs etc, according to these decisions is paid out of the budget in the form of one-off social assistance.

Pejović confirmed to CIN-CG that they do not have a special rulebook. Also, he informed that it is only since last year that they are obliged by a collective agreement to pay the money only to their employees, whereas earlier they could give it to anyone they deemed necessary.

 

Budget reserve under the cloak of secrecy

According to the State Audit Institution report, in the period from October 2016 to October 2017, by the decisions of the inner Government Cabinet and the Commission for Allocation of Funds from the Budgetary Reserve, some €4 million worth of assistance have been paid out from the budgetary reserve for improving financial situation, health treatment, education and other forms of assistance.

For improving financial situation, the Commission awarded €2.089.000, and the inner Cabinet €621,850. With decisions of the inner Cabinet, €463.817 were paid out for health treatment assistance to physical persons, and additional €43.100 were paid out by the Commission. Further, the Cabinet approved €45.250 for education assistance, and the Commission €22.200.

In the category “other forms of assistance”, pursuant to the Cabinet’s decisions €490.800 was paid out for compensation of natural disaster damages and €212.692 for housing needs, book publications and similar. The Commission for Allocation of Funds from the Budgetary Reserve allocated €19.800 in this category.

In most cases, it is not known to whom and where the money went. In response to the Institute Alternative request to obtain this documentation, the General Secretariat of the Government stated that it “contains information considered protected that may be disclosed only for the purpose prescribed by law or with the prior consent of the person whose personal information is requested.” The inner Cabinet, by rule, is made up of Prime Minister, Vice-Presidents and, if necessary, minister from the department on which a decision is being made. Also, all three Vice Presidents of the Government, Rafet Husović (President of the Commission), Milutin Simović and Zoran Pažin, Interior and Health Ministers Mevludin Nuhodžić and Kenan Hrapović, Minister without Portfolio Marija Vučinović and Deputy Secretary General of the Government, Nikola Dedeić are members of the Commission for Allocation of Funds from the Budgetary Reserve.

 

Prosecution investigates only the Ministry of Education

For the time being, spending of funds intended for one-off social assistance is not under the focus of the State Prosecutor’s Office. The Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica, pursuant to CIN-CG inquiry, confirmed that only one proceeding is ongoing with the goal of determining whether officials of the Ministry of Education approved unlawful payments in the course of 2014.

“In this case, preliminary investigation is under way so we cannot provide further data,” the prosecution said.

In January last year, the New Serb Democracy, published documents showing that the Ministry of Education led by Slavoljub Stijepović in 2014 granted individuals from €300 to €1.000, with the justification that it was a one-off assistance due to difficult material situation.

In this way, among others, the former chief economist of the Central Bank, Nikola Fabris, obtained one-off financial assistance. He stated that the money was intended for book printing, and that it was not social assistance.

Stijepović said that it was “a technical mistake, as there were several decisions in which rationale was not aligned with the purpose and application of the assistance, because they were not drafted by lawyers.” Recently, examples of abuses of local social work centers’ funds have also been published. According to the data of the coalition “Zdravo Berane”, Milijana Vučeljić, spouse of the former President of the Municipality of Berane, Vuk Golubović, in 2012 received from the Social Work Center €350 as food assistance, although her monthly earnings were €1.071.

 

Social card does not include one-off assistance

Social card is an information system of social care, which, by connecting nine state registers with social work centers, was supposed to relieve citizens of the obligation to collect a pile of certificates for realizing their social rights, but also to ensure that assistance was provided for those who really need it.

However, the Institute Alternative, during presentation of the social card analysis last year, warned that this information system does not cover allocation of one-off social assistance. This means that there is no integrated record of recipients of this assistance in the social card either, so the introduction of the system does not prevent abuses in the least transparent area of social benefits, as concluded by the Institute Alternative. The former Minister of Labor and Social Welfare in the Government of Electoral Trust, Boris Marić, also warned about this, concluding that the complete system of one-off social assistance must be under the umbrella of information system at the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare.

According to information from the beggining of November, about 350.000 decisions were issued through the social card.

 

 

Authors: Maja Boričić, Ana Komatina

 

The article was produced as part of the project “Civil society for Good Governance: To Act and Account!”, implemented by Institute Alternative, Bonum, Natura, Novi horizon and Centre for Research Journalism, and financed by the European Union within the Civil Society Facility, and the Balkan Trust for Democracy project, the German Marshall Fund USA (GMF) project. The contents of the article are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the donors.

Posted on

Civil society calls on the Government not to restrict public discussions

The EU-Montenegro Civil Society Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) has called on state institutions to reconsider the adoption of provisions that would seriously restrict the conduct of public discussions.

Milena Milošević, our researcher, participated at the meeting of the Civil Society Joint Consultative Committee of the European Union and Montenegro at the end of December.

During the meeting she presented our key findings and suggestions for improving public administration reform, including citizens’ participation in decision-making.

She reminded that the Government prepared draft Amendments to the Law on state administration at its sitting of November 16, 2017, although these were not planned by the Strategy on the Public Administration Reform.

The proposal provides that no public discussion will be conducted “when the law, i.e. the strategy regulates issues in the field of defense and security and annual budget; in emergency, urgent or unforeseeable circumstances; when a matter is not differently regulated by law”.

The proposed legal amendments were also drafted without a public discussion.

“With regard to the Law on Amendments to the Law on Public Administration, the JCC urges the Montenegrin authorities to reconsider adoption of provisions that would seriously restrict the good practice of conducting public consultations,” as stated in the Declaration adopted by this body at the last meeting held on December 19, 2017 in Brussels.

The proposal of the Amendments to the law on state administration is currently in the parliamentary procedure.

Željko Aprcović, MP, has tabled an amendment proposing that instead of explicitly prohibiting the conduct of public discussion in the aforementioned situations, it should be left to the proponents to assess whether public discussion is necessary or not.

“The proposed amendment, however, allows a public discussion to be conducted in aforementioned situations, whereby its conduct is not obligatory for authority drafting a law or a strategy,” as written in the explanation of the amendment.

However, this norm neither would substantially open decision-making process on budget or security regulations affecting all citizens, as the competent institutions would arbitrarily decide whether or not to involve citizens in the process of adopting certain laws or strategies.

Therefore, the Institute Alternative once again appeals to the Parliament not to adopt the amendments to the law, which have been prepared without citizens’ participation and which significantly reduce the scope of their influence on decision-making.

Complete Declaration of the EU-Montenegro Civil Society Joint Consultative Committee is available here.