Nearly 40 participants gained knowledge on the introduction of a gender perspective within all phases of budget process, practical examples and tools for achieving gender sensitive budgeting.
Training ”Gender Equality and Public Policies: Basics of Gender Sensitive Budgeting” was organised by the Institute Alternative on 27 and 29 October, 2020.
Purpose of the training and its main aim was to capacitate those who work on preparation, adoption and implementation of budgets, both on central and local level, as well as representatives of civil society, to be able to conduct gender budget analysis and create measures which will contribute to gender equality and gender-mainstreaming of existing budget programs.
Budget is the most important policy instrument of government, because without adequate funding no policy will be effective. Therefore, gender sensitive budgeting is used to design a budget that contributed to reduction of inequality of women and men, and allows active addressing of specific gender issues.
”Training was well designed. Online way of presentation has no disadvantages, on the contrary, this method of training could be more practiced even later, when the measures introduced due to corona virus stop. Material which I downloaded is really useful and is being read, because preparation of this year’s budget requires application of gender sensitive budgeting, and we are at the stage when we process the statements collected from units through explanations. I hope that there will be opportunities for the same training to be organised once again, because I am interested in attending it”, is the comment of one of the participants of the training.
Višnja Baćanović, expert in this area, led the training with a combination of theoretical approach and practical group work of participants, which included work on specific examples such as budget allocation for sports at the local level, gender budget analysis and defining of measured for achieving gender equality within budget programs.
Those who work in Budget Directorate and Directorate for Economic Policy and Development (Ministry of Finance), local secretariats for finance officials from municipalities of Berane, Kolašin, Bijelo Polje, Tuzi, Golubovci, Bar and Danilovgrad, representatives of Parliamentary Committee on Economy, Finance and Budget, as well as representatives of CSOs, Ombudsman institution and other institutions and organisations – have successfully completed training on gender sensitive budgeting.
”Budgeting is at the core of activities that are being conducted in public sector. In my opinion, it is necessary to organise trainings for introducing gender mainstreaming in all of the phases of strategic planning, action plans and reporting”, it is stated in the anonymous evaluation survey filled by the participants of the training.
Training was conducted within the project ”More Than Quotas: Gender Mainstreaming and Public Policies in Montenegro”, implemented with financial support of the Ministry for Human and Minority Rights.
Recently, public attention has been focused on the issue of whether the current Prime Minister violated the Constitution by refusing to resign the position of an MP. Furthermore, the question was also raised whether he breached the Law on Prevention of Corruption by such act, considering that he made a written ‘’promise’’ that he would not be active as an MP during the transition period.
Members of the Government are not prohibited from being candidates on the electoral lists in the parliamentary elections. Constitution did not prohibit president and members of the Government from obtaining a status of Member of the Parliament (MP). It did prescribe the so-called (parliamentary) incompatibility of the functions of MPs and members of the Government. This constitutional provision aims to prevent the same person from performing function of an MP and a member of the Government during his or her term of office, which lasts four years under regular circumstances and shorter or longer under irregular circumstances.
Such controversial temporary legal and real situation is not a novelty in our constitutional and parliamentary system. We have already witnessed the same situation of persons simultaneously serving as members of both Parliament and Government, in the period after their status as an MP was confirmed until the formation of the new Government. But, this time we see a specific opposite novelty that, due to the political circumstances, a member of the Government wants to continue to perform function of an MP after the end of his Government mandate . Earlier, we had a situation in which an MP, after being elected for a member of Government, resigned from the Parliament.
Incompatibility of these functions emanates from the constitutional norm on incompatibility, not from the obligation prescribed by the Law on Prevention of Corruption. Constitution is older than the Law on Prevention of Corruption, both by legal force and by the time of its adoption and implementation.
Constitution stipulates that term of office of the Government ends ‘’with the termination of the convocation of the Parliament’’ (Article 101). Convocation of Parliament, which elected the current Government, ended after the mandates of the new MPs had been confirmed. From that day on, according to the Constitution, Government ‘’continues to work until a new one is elected’’. In other words, president and members of the government are in ‘’acting position’’ since September 23. They are not members of the government within the full Constitutional mandate.
From the day of verification of the mandates of the new MPs to the day of the formation of the new Government, we have a temporary situation during which the same person performs duties of a member of the Government and of an MP. This situation differs from the incompatibility during regular circumstances, as it is described in the Constitution. Transition period may last up to 90-days during which the new Government must be formed. However, it can take even longer in case of organising new elections, which would prompt establishment of another Government. Government continues to perform its constitutional function within the undefined scope of work, which was not described in more details by the Constitution or a special law. Constitution stipulates that a Government whose term has expired ‘’continues to operate until a new Government is established’’. While this constitutional provision aims to ensure smooth basic functioning of public administration and to ensure constitutional role of the Government, i.e. to prevent institutional blockade and legal uncertainty, the fact is that institute of ‘’work until a new government is established’’ is not specified by laws or bylaws (Decree on Government). This should be done as soon as possible.
Such situations should be subject of an appropriate regulation that would determine the rights, duties and restrictions of the Government upon the termination of its full mandate, until the formation of a new one. Handover of duties should also be regulated, since it is currently completely undefined in our legal system.
For example, just one formulation similar to the one from Serbia’s Law on Government would help to better understand limitations of the scope of competencies of government during this transition period. Serbian law clearly defines ‘’competencies of Government and member of Government after the end of the Government’s term’’. It specifies that the Government whose mandate had expired ‘’can perform only current affairs and cannot propose laws, other general acts or regulations to the Parliament, unless their adoption is subject of a legal deadline or it is required by the needs of the state, defence interests or because of natural, economic or technical disaster’’. Another dilemma was specified, which also caused public attention in the days after elections in our country. Government cannot appoint senior civil servants in state administration bodies, while it can only appoint or agree on appointment of acting directors or members of managing and supervisory boards of public organisations established by the Republic of Serbia.
Provision of the Law on Prevention of Corruption, which urges public official performing two public functions to resign from one of them within 30 days, does not emanate from the constitutional provision on incompatibility. It is a general, principled norm, which applies to all double (and multiple) public functions. Additionally, it is a norm regulating ‘’obligation to resign’’ within the law chapter on ‘’restrictions in performing public functions’’. Therefore, that actual situation does not necessarily represent a conflict of interest.
Considering this context, I believe that the legally ”safer” solution was for the Prime Minister and members of the Government, who intend to continue performing their functions as MPs, to resign from their Government positions within 30 days since verification of their mandates as MPS. This act would satisfy the formal obligation prescribed by the Law on Prevention of Corruption while Government could still perform its constitutionally defined functions. However, this would only mean formal compliance with the provision of the Law on Prevention of Corruption because President and members of the Government would have to continue their work until the formation of the new Government, as prescribed by the Constitution. That additional period would have to be ‘’covered’’ by submission of asset and income declarations.
In the end, it is fair to say that incumbent Prime Minister made an effort to introduce this constitutional and legal mess, caused by the failure of him his party and the Government to adopt precise regulations, into some framework of lawful functioning. Although this Government is not expected to propose laws (despite the fact that it is not explicitly forbidden to do so neither by the Constitution nor by other regulations ), it is possible that an MP Marković votes on the bill proposed by the Government headed by him, if he does not renounce such right. Such possibility should not be left to the free will of the incumbent Prime Minister or to some minister-and-MP-to-be. It can be avoided in the future by temporary replacement by another MP from the same electoral list.
Finally, there is no constitutional conflict of interest when an MP votes for himself as president or member of the Government. Otherwise, election results would be annulled. MPs are elected to serve their mandates in the Parliament, primarily by voting, and their first obligation is to elect a new Government. At the same time, during this temporary ‘’twofold situation’’, vote of an MP for the new Government should be the limit for simultaneous performance of the two functions.
Author: Stevo Muk, President of Managing Board at Institute Alternative
Answers of our Dina Bajramspahić to DN ”Vijesti” questions regarding: current situation in judiciary, difficulties to reach an agreement and achieve qualified majority, announced voluntary resignations of the heads of the judiciary, blockade of the Judicial Council and Constitutional Court.
First of all, let me just say that the announcements of the resignations of certain officials in the judicatory are good news. It is best shown by the stagnation within negotiations that we have reached satiation in judiciary, as well as lack of ideas and lack of energy to pull the processes forward. There was no reaction from Judicial and Prosecutorial Council to the fact that, in the Report of the European Commission, chapter 23 was assessed notably worse than chapter 24, which concerns organised crime.
I believe that this transitional period should be used by all os those who are, in any way, compromised – to resign, whether it’s about outrageous legal interpretation that two and three are same, or it is about even more serious violation of ethic, laws and doing harm to justice. That would be an important contribution to change for the better.
I don’t think the vacuum, that would be created by resignations of staff from judiciary, would cause any major disruptions, because for several years the judiciary is in acting positions state. Decisions made by two Judicial Councils have questionable legitimacy, as well as decisions of the Constitutional Court. The resignations of judges and prosecutors can lead to a backlog of cases, but that is something we know pretty familiar with and maybe what is needed for a long term recovery.
The problems in judiciary arising from a number of paradoxes are not easy to solve. First of all, the system is small and closed, which derogates the quality of the work. In closed systems, colleagues learn from each other and thus acquire some wrong practices. That is why we need new, open-minded people who will question these habits, re-examine them, change them. That will bring more courage and integrity to the work, which is lacking because for a long time because the system was under strict control and discipline was nurtured as the main value and key for getting promoted.
However, the problem is that even being so small, this system is much bigger than it should be, and Montenegro already has a much larger number of judges per capita than what is European standard. The new Government should know that the rationalisation of the judiciary is also their obligation, on which chapter 23 depends because of the benchmarks. Rationalisation should be seen as an opportunity for the best ones in the judiciary to stay, according objective, precise and professional criteria and evaluation of professional performance.
Outflow of judges and prosecutors will create the possibility for these systems to gradually change and improve. Instead of accumulating of judges, according to European standards, there should be more advisors and associates, experts, interns, developers of IT technology to support the judiciary, those who will modernise processes, speed up the procedures and invest in infrastructure projects so that there can be more trails at the same time.
I think that the new Government will make mistake if it rushes and tries to solve the problems in the judiciary with big moves and ad hoc twists. High-ranking judges cannot be produced overnight, because that would mean that political staff can be easily “infiltrated” into the system. The problems in the judiciary will not be solved by simply removing some people who are close to some politics, and appointing by those closer to the opposite politics. The new Government faces the risk of replacing staff close to the leaving Government, with staff close to itself. If that happens, a serious chance of creating an independent judiciary would be wasted. It must be ensured, when one day, the new Judicial and Prosecutorial Council are completed, there is no impression that they are under the political influence of the new ruling elite.
This is why we have defended challenging constitutional solutions during all these years, because they are preventing arbitrariness and unilateralism of anyone. It would be insane for each new government, every four years, to form and disband the entire judicial system. That is why even today we believe that two-thirds majority is the only way to force every government to be serious and force it to suggest good staff solutions that is acceptable to wider groups of citizens representatives. Agreement is the key to professionalisation. Judicial reform must overcome any political power. We must realistically perceive that even the change of government will not quickly and easily cure political elite from particracy habits and needs to reward their officials with high positions. Therefore, the Constitution forces them to propose to the Parliament names that they have nothing to complain about.
And here we come to another important thing – the implementation of the Constitution. Everything else is frivolous. What kind of country does not respect its own Constitution? It is not a legal, but rather the question of political culture. Public pressure must be created on the new opposition not to be stubborn, but to unblock the judiciary in the public interest. This is the general public interest and it is very important for every citizen, including their supporters. I think that level of maturity is necessary and possible. All MPs, both parliamentary majorities and parliamentary minorities are paid with citizens money to solve these problems and should be constantly held accountable. Judiciary is not just governments problem, but a social problem of public importance, a burning issue and all parties must make an effort to solve it.
The new government needs to establish a dialogue in the Parliament regarding these topics as soon as possible, to create a platform, offer competent people and to create environment in which it will be very uncomfortable to keep Montenegro blocked in the negotiation process.
If the insisting on Constitution was stoped (although there is no chance for that in this mandate of the Parliament), human resources management in the judiciary would also turn into prey apportionment – which is unacceptable.
Finally, we should recall that all laws about the judiciary were created under the strict control of the European and Venice Commission and have largely received support. Based on application of these laws, Montenegro received temporary benchmark for chapters 23 and 24. Judiciary did not come to a dead-end due the bad legal solutions, but because good laws are not applied. New people in the judiciary will have responsibility to apply them, especially in the area of selection and promotion of judges and prosecutors, accountability (ethical, disciplinary, criminal), evaluation, etc. These are also temporary benchmarks that is monitored by the European Commission with great attention.
Within regional WeBER 2.0 project, we published Call for proposals for the implementation of the Small Grant Facility for support to civil society monitoring of public administration reform at local level.
The Call for proposals is in the total amount of 225.000 EUR. In Montenegro, four projects worth up to 8.000 EUR will be supported.
Deadline for submission project proposals is 1 November 2020. More information about Call you may find on this link.
Institute Alternative (IA) created opportunity for five graduation students to make their first work experience dealing with public policies in our team of researchers.
Professional Training Programme is designed for all graduates with no work experience in certain level of education, which are registered by Employment Agency of Montenegro. Programme lasts for nine months and its recognised as work experience in duration of one year.
If you have a personal interest towards the topics in area of:
Rule of law
Security and defence
Public finances reform
Public administration reform
And if you are:
Political scientist, (International relations department)
Our engagement in these areas consists of pointing out problems, opening issues of public interest, monitoring process of reforms and giving recommendations for improvement. Through the recommendations we affect decision makers in order to improve policies important for the life of citizens of Montenegro. We monitor important processes in society and fight for changes that will ensure better, more responsible, more transparent work of state bodies that will work in the interest of their citizens.
President of the Managing Board at the Institute Alternative (IA), Stevo Muk, and Ana Đurnić public policy researcher at Institute Alternative, held a meeting with Jelena Perović, the new Director of the Agency for Prevention of Corruption.
IA representatives expressed their dissatisfaction with the decision making of the former management in cases that IA initiated in Agency, especially in the field of conflict of interest, as well as expectation that bias decision making will not stand in the way of Agency’s efficiency. It was concluded that in terms of legislation in the areas that Agency deals with, there is room for improvement, and that they are not as bad as their application has been so far.
The Agency’s decisions in the cases initiated by IA so far, which we are currently reviewing in Administrative Court, are a chance for the new management to make a change from the politicised behaviour of the previous one.
IA representatives addressed several recommendations to the Director’s future work regarding the improvement of public official’s income reports control, conduction of analysis of compliance of regulations on conflict of interest with the Law on Prevention of Corruption, proactive disclosure of opinions which Agency provides at the request of public officials in case of suspicion of a conflict of interest regarding limitations when preforming public functions.
At the meeting, the practice of Offence Courts which do not publish judgements concerning public officials who violated the Law on Prevention of Corruption was problematised, and we have recommended to the Agency to publish misdemeanour warrants issued directly on the same basis.
As conclusion of the meeting, Director Perović said that she will get acquainted with the cases and initiatives by the Institute Alternative, so communication and cooperation will continue accordingly.
The meeting took place on October 14, via ZOOM app, and on behalf of Agency beside Director, meeting was attended by Dušan Drakić, Head of Sector for implementation of control measures in financing of political entities and election campaigns, and Goran Durutović, Head of Department for Education, Research Campaigns and Analytics.
More information on individual cases initiated by the IA to the Agency is available below:
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
