Budgetary inspection could play the main role in making order in the way money is spent throughout the public sector, scrutinising previous practice but also preventing them from repeating in the future.
In order for the budgetary inspection to function, three steps are necessary:
1. Change the systematisation which will increase the number of inspector from 3 to 6.
The current number of systematised positions is not enough to cover the implementation of the three systemic laws in the entire public sector of Montenegro. Especially having in mind that this is most broadly defined so that in addition to state administration and local self-government it also includes public companies, institutions, funds, regulatory agencies. Investing in supervisory bodies of this type could be a cost in a short term, but their proper action could prevent abuse and misuse, and save the budget.
2. Introduce three departments for three systemic laws under supervision in order to properly cover the entire task of budget inspection.
This inspection is under the jurisdiction of three systemic laws: the Law on Budget and Fiscal Accountability, the Law on Wages in the Public sector and the Law on Local Self-Government Financing. Considering these are three separate areas, an organisational structure is needed and the one that will encourage specialisation of inspectors for the details of these three laws and thus to deal evenly with the inspection of the entire scope of its competencies.
3. Abolish the condition for Chief inspector.
In current systematisation, the position of the Chief budgetary inspector, among other things, requires “5 years of inspection work for the Chief inspector”. As this is a specific inspection, different competencies and three different laws over which it supervises, we consider that this condition does not recognise the specifics of the budgetary inspection and unjustifiably narrows the basis for the selection of possible candidates. During the period from 2016, several attempts were made to fill this position, but without success. Repeating the competition under the same conditions will either give the same result or lead to the wrong personnel situation for this important position in the system of public finance supervision.
We consider that these three steps are a precondition for the functioning of the budgetary inspection and the realisation of its goal of protecting public finances and respecting the three key systemic laws.
The right to freedom of expression in democratic societies should be restricted only when there is an urgent need for it and this restriction should be the exception. In Montenegro there is no law that regulate area of social networks, but that does not mean that citizens are not sanctioned, sometimes justifiably, sometimes unjustifiably, for acting on the internet and these networks. Media literacy must be one of the priorities and it is necessary to include this subject in primary school as well.
These are some of the key conclusions from the yesterday’s Panel Discussion “Freedom of Expression on the Internet: A Common Challenge for Montenegro and the EU”. Discussion was organised by the Institute Alternative (IA) within the “Make Future Together: EU and the Western Balkans from the Youth Perspective” project, funded through the Europe for Citizens Programme.
During his introductory speech, Stevo Muk, President of the Managing Board at IA, pointed out how important is to talk about freedom of expression on the Internet. This especially at the time when we are somehow forced to move some of our activities to online space and perhaps to use Internet and social networks more than would be case in some other circumstances.
”Developing and implementing appropriate policies to address the challenges posed by social networks has become a topic of transnational importance”, stated Muk, adding that this project aims to encourage participation of young people in discussions on issues that directly or indirectly affect them.
Muk also said that Institute Alternative held a closed consultative meeting with young people “Young online”. Topics of the event were positive and negatives sides of Internet and social networks, ideas and potential solutions for regulation of this area. During this meeting various perspectives and views on this issues are highlighted. It is very commendable that young people have recognised both sides of this topic: the importance of freedom of speech and the breadth and pluralism that networks provide, but also the dangers of cyber violence, hate speech and the spread of misinformation.
On behalf of the young participants, the conclusions from the consultative meeting were conveyed by Lazar Vujačić and Milovan Marković.
“Young people think that social networks are good because they enable fast flow and availability of information and communication with other people as well”, said Marković at the panel discussion. Vujačić stated that the bad sides are that social networks affect human psyche, create unrealistic standards through the influence of famous people, create addictions, but also emphasised that social networks are place where untruths spread quickly and easily.
As ideas for regulating this area of social networks, young people stated the formation of an independent expert body at the EU level that would deal with these issues, systematic education on the digital sphere is necessary as well, and that the improvement of media literacy would lead to safes use of social networks.
Siniša Gazivoda, lawyer and expert on freedom of expression, consider that society is not sufficiently familiar with the regulation of the online sphere since it has not been talked about much so far.
“We do not have a law that deals with social networks, but we have an international legal framework that is binding. When we say the right to freedom of expression, it includes speaking on networks. The only law that partly regulates freedom of expression on the Internet is the new Law on Media, which regulates Internet publications for the first time. The Law stipulates the obligation of media portals to act on comments that have unwanted content”, said Gazivoda, explaining that portals are obliged to delete comments below the post on the portal, but not on the social network. He also added that in case that the use of the right to freedom of expression violates someone’s right to privacy, it is necessary to balance which right is more predominant in that particular case.
Marija Vesković from the Human Rights Action presented several cases where citizens were prosecuted for posting on personal profiles on one of the social networks. “In these cases, citizens are prosecuted on the basis of the Criminal Code or the Law on Public Order and Peace. It should be noted that these are private profiles and that in that case citizens do not have a certain degree of responsibility that journalists, for example, can have when transmitting news”, stated Vesković. She added that “freedom of expression allows citizens unverified information, half-truths, rumors”.
“Any prosecution of citizens for the use of freedom of expression has no consequences only for that person, through prison sentences, detention, imposition of high sentences – but this sends a message to all citizens to be careful what they post on social networks. So, we can not talk about democratic society in which individuals are feel free to comment on the actions of high officials, to express constructive and critical views,” Vesković concluded.
Olivera Nikolić from the Montenegro Media Institute said that fake news is transmitted faster than true news because it is more attractive. “We have an inadequate state response to freedom of expression on the Internet and a lack of a more proactive approach to the problem of misinformation. Smart societies have long been making strategies to better deal with the amount of information we are exposed to on social networks, develop skills of critical perception of media content and better management of digital content”, Nikolić said. She added that education from the youngest age is very important. Also, they advocate media literacy to be a subject in primary schools as early as possible, and not only in high schools, as is currently the case.
Milana Bojović from the Institution of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms pointed out that they recognise that there is a great need to talk about freedom of expression on the Internet, but also about the abuse of this right through hate speech, insulting speech and the like. “We are aware of the problem, but also we need tangible solutions to transfer those limitations from the real world to the online space” Bojović said.
Milica Žugić from the organisation Mladi Info that there is still no regulation of what we share from the portal to a social network, and that it is difficult to respect journalistic ethics on the one hand, and on the other hand provide information and provide people opportunity to say what they think.
Dragana Jaćimović from the Institute Alternative, who was also a moderator of the panel discussion, said that it is necessary to include as many actors as possible in the discussions on these topics. This is something that affects all users of social networks regardless of their age or position in society, and it is important to include in education also how to behave in the digital sphere.
This public discussion is organised within the project “Make Future Together: EU and the Western Balkans from the Youth Perspective”, implemented by a network of think tanks from 6 countries in the region (Think for Europe Network – TEN), together with International Affairs Institute in Rome, Bronislaw Geremek Foundation in Warsaw and European Policy Centre (EPC) in Brussels. The project is funded by the European Union through the Europe for Citizens program.
Old question – Do municipalities exist to provide services to citizens or for some people there to receive salaries and parties to buy votes?
The answer was sought in the Relfektor show on TV Vijesti, where Marko Sošić was a guest. There were interesting things, for example:
How did the Municipality of Pljevlja functioned “quite well” without 20-30% of employees due to isolation measures during this year
How will Tivat reduce the number of employees by 55 in one go through reorganisation after the change of government; How the new Government found piles of unpaid invoices worth millions in drawers
How will you pay higher water and utility bills next year due to too many employees; How much money do the municipalities actually have and can the problem be solved by constantly pouring more money into the local level
Institute Alternative (IA) organised consultative meeting with young people from Montenegro. Meeting was organised within the project “Make Future Together: EU and the Western Balkans from the Youth Perspective”. The topic of the today’s “Young online” meeting was social networks, as well as freedom of expression in the Internet.
More than fifteen young people – High School and University students, between 18-24, from different cities participated. Due to the current epidemiological situation in our country, the meeting was held via the Zoom platform.
The meeting was organised so that young people, divided into groups, discussed certain issues and ideas concerning social networks and ways how to regulate this area. In first part of the meeting, young stated that they mostly use social media more during pandemic than in normal circumstances. Thanks to the social media, they are informed about numerous humanitarian or civic actions.
Work in groups was moderated by Dragana Jaćimović, Dina Bajramspahić and Nikoleta Pavićević (IA).
After working in groups, representatives from each group presented and explained their views and ideas with other in the plenary. After presenting views of each group, all participants voted through survey and thus chose what the conclusions of this meeting were.
As a good sides of social networks, young people see that they enable fast flow and availability of information and communication with other people as well. Also, social media are good because they provide entertainment. Through social media small businesses, humanitarian and similar actions are more accessible to us. Positive is also fact that they reduce the space for political spin since information can be verified from several sources.
Aa a bad sides of social networks, young people said that social networks affect human psyche, create unrealistic standards through the influence of famous people and create addictions. Also, fast flow and availability of information can be also classified as bad sides, especially because social networks are place where untruths spread quickly and easily.
The second part of the meeting referred to the ideas of young people, ie. in the ways in which, in their opinion, the area of social network should be regulated and who should be in charge of it. They stated that self-regulation by social networks is not enough, since these companies have their own profit goals and aim to have an increasing number of users and that is necessary to further regulate this at a higher level.
Some of participants thought that this might be a responsibility of one of the ministries of the states , but other participants pointed out that in that case there could be abuse and use of these mechanisms for settling accounts with dissidents.
Young people voted for the idea of formation of an expert body at the EU level, which would be composed of lawyers and IT experts, and which would have its own bodies / agencies in each of the countries.
Young people also believe that systematic education on the digital sphere is necessary, stating that, in addition to media literacy, it is important that users know their rights and the rights of others.
It is very commendable that young people have recognised both sides of this topic: the importance of freedom of speech and the breadth and pluralism that networks provide, but also the dangers of cyber violence, hate speech and the spread of misinformation.
Lazar Vujačić and Milovan Marković were chosen as representatives of young people who will present the conclusions from the meeting to experts in this field and discuss them at the panel „Freedom of Expression on the Internet: A Common Challenge for Montenegro and the EU”.
This consultative meeting is organised within the project “Make Future Together: EU and the Western Balkans from the Youth Perspective”, implemented by a network of think tanks from 6 countries in the region (Think for Europe Network – TEN), together with International Affairs Institute in Rome, Bronislaw Geremek Foundation in Warsaw and European Policy Centre (EPC) in Brussels. The project is funded by the European Union through the Europe for Citizens program.
The relationship between parliament and other branches of government, participation of civil society and the role of the opposition in parliamentary oversight, as well as gender mainstreaming are some of the issues that could be included in the work on the announced Law on Parliament.
These are some of the conclusions from a conference ‘’Towards Better Parliamentary Oversight: What Law on Parliament Can Do’’, organised by Institute Alternative in cooperation with the Parliament of Montenegro and with the support of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Aleksa Bečić, the President of the Parliament of Montenegro reminded that the issue of passing a special law on the parliament has been pending for years.
“Systematic regulation and normative shaping of parliamentarism, as well as clear definition of the relationship between legislative and other branches of power, is something that all well-meaning factors of political and overall social life strive for’’, he said.
“Showing strong belief that the priority of this convocation will be to strengthen the control and oversight role of the Parliament, I expect from all MPs to contribute in shaping normative assumptions and their later implementation with an aim of strengthening oversight of the executive. After all, there is a room for further improvement and regulation of control mechanisms. The first field where we can solve this is Law on the Parliament’’, Bečić added.
Stevo Muk, president of the Managing Board of Institute Alternative, pointed out some recommendations, arising from our many years of work, which could be considered during the preparation of the law.
He emphasised the need for the Law to more precisely define and delineate competencies between branches of power and to provide normative framework of the political system and legal security.
“Also, it is possible to improve obligations to report on conclusions of the Parliament, but also to regulate the reporting on meeting obligations within the accession negotiations with the European Union. For better parliamentary oversight, sanctions should be prescribed for head of state bodies who do not submit information to the Parliament of Montenegro within the set deadlines. These are just some of the recommendations that emerged from our many years of monitoring the work of parliament’’, Muk said. He emphasised that IA will continue work in this area, among other things, within the project ‘’Parliamentary oversight for better governance’’, with the support of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Tanja Dramac Jiries, coordinator of the Western Balkan programme at NED, said that the Parliament should be more than a simple instrument for legalising government decisions, and that it must use its role in controlling the Government, primarily in the name of citizens who choose MPs to represent them.
“European Commission often highlights the need for strengthen control function of the Parliament in all reports on progress of countries who aspire to be EU members. One of the objectives of this project is to contribute to creating new organisational culture of the Parliament’’, she said.
After the introductory discussion, Tara Tepavac from Belgrade-based CRTA (Centre for research, transparency and responsibility), and Uršula Zore Tavčar, general secretary of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia shared experiences of Serbia and Slovenia in regulation of parliament’s work.
Tepavac reminded that Serbia has the Law on Parliament since 2010. She added that this law, among other things, standardised a previously established practice of public hearings.
She pointed out that financial autonomy of the Parliament can be regulated only with special law. Moreover, she added that the practice has shown that some things that are defined by the Rules of Procedure should be regulated by the Law.
“Although the Law regulated the work of the committees, the focus from plenary work did not transfer to the committees and it failed to give them a bigger role’’, added Tepavac.
Zore Tavčar said that Slovenia adopted the Law on the Parliament in late 2019 with the goal of improving financial, administrative and security autonomy of this branch of power: “However, key aspects of parliamentary oversight are regulated by the Rules of Procedure and control mechanisms are often used. There are currently six parliamentary inquiry commissions active in our country, two of which focus on coronavirus control measures and spending”.
She further explained that one session of the parliament in the spring is reserved for discussion of the Ombudsman’s report. “This report is sent to the Government who later submits an opinion. Ministries, whose work falls under the report’s scope, must attend the discussion of the Ombudsman’s report in plenary. They are expected to submit additional information and solutions to the issues highlighted by the report’’, Zore Tavčar explained.
Aleksandar Damjanović, former MP in the Parliament of Montenegro and president of the Committee for economy, finance and budget, considers that there should be a synergy between parallel preparation of the amendments to the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and the Law on Parliament: ‘’Constitutional framework which defines constitutional competencies of the Parliament is such that Rules of Procedure, no matter how elaborate they are, cannot cover everything. It is necessary that the constitutional competencies of parliament are further elaborated by law, because that is the case with other institutions such as Ombudsman, the President, the Central Bank, the State Audit Institution’’.
He reminded that the institute of parliamentary inquiry was also used in Montenegro, but that, when the inquiry committee adopted the report on the privatisation of the Tobacco Factory, in the meantime the parliamentary majority did not want to comment on that report at the plenary session.
“These are deficiencies in regard to something that is not defined by the Law’’, Damjanović reminded.
Ana Novaković Đurović, executive director of the Centre for the Development of Non-Governmental Organisations, explained that the procedure for preparing the laws was insufficiently defined after the proposals were determined by the Government. Although the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament allow for the public participation, procedures are not sufficiently standardised and the practice of consulting the public is uneven. It largely depends on personal relations of members of the respective parliamentary committees and non-governmental organisations. NGO representatives most often participate in the work of the Committee for Human Rights and Freedoms.
She considers that participation of non-governmental organisations could be regulated in a similar way as it was done at the level of the Government. For that reason, CRNVO proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure. She considers that some basic issues should also be better regulated , including the proactive publishing of the minutes from the sessions of parliamentary committees, since they are often not published.
Momo Koprivica, an MP and the chief of working group for drafting amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Montenegro, said that there is a need to find the right normative solution for better regulations of relations between the Government and the Parliament. The ongoing work on the amendments to the Rules of Procedure focuses on key burning issues in terms of parliamentary hearings and legislative procedure: ‘’The agreement was to subsequently form a working group, which will deal with more ambitious objectives and tasks, working in parallel on the new Rules of Procedure and the Law on Parliament’’.
Koprivica highlighted that the problem is that the Rules of Procedure cannot introduce an efficient and effective sanction mechanism if the authorities do not submit the requested information. This can be regulated by the law. ‘’Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure prescribes the obligation of MPs to request explanations and information from a wider circle of officials and administrative bodies.’’
Marta Šćepanović, MP, pointed out that the subject of the law should be rights and duties of MPs along with the oversight role of the parliament and transparency of its work: “I agree that the issue of relations with other branches of power should be better regulated”.
She considers that the status of parliament’s officials should be regulated with a special law, because they are exempted from all existing laws.
Participants stressed the need to improve the status of MPs, especially in terms of professional support for their work, without which parliamentary oversight cannot be sufficiently effective, but also in terms of immunity. The Center for Women’s Rights also pointed out the need to prescribe more equal representation of women in the structures within the Parliament, and to improve the role of the parliament in gender-mainstreaming of public policies, especially the laws it enacts.
During the discussion, it was suggested that the parliament should take over the role of authentic interpretation of the law. The recommendations also centred around the role of the opposition, with the possibility to prescribe that opposition representatives chair specific working bodies, such as committees for security and defence or economy, finance and budget. It is also important to ensure that opposition proposals when defining the parliament’s agenda are taken up.
This conference was organised within the project “Parliamentary Oversight for Better Management” with financial support of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
On Thursday 17, 2020, Institute Alternative will organise public discussion “Freedom of Expression on the Internet: A Common Challenge for Montenegro and the EU”, starting at 11h.
Social media has exponentially increased the space for free expression on the Internet, but it has also created new challenges. They enabled easier communication and connected us, but also opened a space for spreading hate speech and disinformation. Policy-making and implementing appropriate policies to address these challenges has become a topic of transnational importance.
Primarily, aim of this event is to present the opinion of young people on this issue – good and bad sides of the Internet and social media; potential solutions for regulating speech on the Internet; and who should be responsible for taking action in this field.
The panel discussion will focus on whether and how this issue is regulated in our country, what examples we had in practice till now, as well as how we can influence young people to use social media wisely.
Given the current epidemiological situation, the panel discussion will be held online, via the Zoom platform.
After the registration, you will receive all information regarding the event on you e-mail.
The introductory speaker for this event is Stevo Muk, President of the Managing Board, Institute Alternative.
In the first part of the event, we will present the conclusions from the consultative meeting with young people “Youth Online“.
In the second part of the panel, on this topic will discuss:
Siniša Gazivoda, lawyer and expert on freedom of expression,
Marija Vesković, Human Rights Action,
Olivera Nikolić, Montenegro Media Institute.
Discussion will be moderated by Dragana Jaćimović, Institute Alternative.
Draft agenda (Montenegrin version) you may find here.
This public discussion is organised within the project “Make Future Together: EU and the Western Balkans from the Youth Perspective”, implemented by a network of think tanks from 6 countries in the region (Think for Europe Network – TEN), together with International Affairs Institute in Rome, Bronislaw Geremek Foundation in Warsaw and European Policy Centre (EPC) in Brussels. The project is funded by the European Union through the Europe for Citizens program.
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
During the entire mandate of the former Government, workplaces in the Budgetary inspection were vacant.
During his introductory speech, Stevo Muk, President of the Managing Board at IA, pointed out how important is to talk about freedom of expression on the Internet. This especially at the time when we are somehow forced to move some of our activities to online space and perhaps to use Internet and social networks more than would be case in some other circumstances.
These are some of the conclusions from a conference ‘’Towards Better Parliamentary Oversight: What Law on Parliament Can Do’’, organised by Institute Alternative in cooperation with the Parliament of Montenegro and with the support of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Tepavac reminded that Serbia has the Law on Parliament since 2010. She added that this law, among other things, standardised a previously established practice of public hearings.
“These are deficiencies in regard to something that is not defined by the Law’’, Damjanović reminded.