EU Enlargement – a Moving Target that is Moving Farther and Farther Away

In 2020, none of the six countries of the Western Balkans has made progress in the process of European integration. It is true that they could have done more, but this still begs the question of whether the process itself “is working” if no one is making progress, and many countries have not been making progress for years, decades even. Bad moves on both sides have led to mutual mistrust, which is reflected in reforms.

I remember how negatively Jean-Claude Juncker’s statement resounded, when, in 2014, he was elected President of the European Commission and said that there would be no enlargement of the European Union until 2020. Reactions from all sides were so harsh that he later tried to tone down that statement. Nonetheless, here we are in 2021 and enlargement is nowhere in sight.

German presidency did not live up to expectations

The German presidency of the European Union, despite its best intentions and efforts, failed to provide the expected impetus to the accession of Southeast Europe to the European Union, instead, it only managed to save those relations from serious collapse. That fact alone speaks volumes about how many problems there are below the surface and how much resistance there is in the Member States to the idea of ​​further enlargement. Many actors in the Union do not believe that the Balkans will ever be transformed into serious countries based on the principle of rule of law. They doubt us and we doubt them, in that they will ever “let us in”. In such an environment, it is difficult to sustain Euro-enthusiasm. Yet, it is still the best path for us, of all plausible paths.

We can say for the European Commission and the European Parliament that they sincerely believe in the European dream of unity, solidarity and a united Europe and that they are actively working to make the Western Balkans part of the Union, where it belongs. However, the history of these relations shows that these institutions do not have enough strength to keep the promises they made, because EU Member States are holding the decisions in their hands. It wasn’t only North Macedonia and Albania that faced unfair decisions, but also Kosovo, in relation to its visa liberalisation, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, which still isn’t even granted candidate status. Montenegro and Serbia have been in a standstill for years.

It is no secret that France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, and at least two or three other Member States are restrained on this topic and are counting on each other to slow down the process and make it more difficult. The height of the stalemate is evident in the fact that at the end of 2020, the Conclusions on the Enlargement/Stabilisation and Association Process were not adopted. The conclusions were blocked at the Council of Ministers, although there is nothing special in them and they do not contain any legal obligation – neither for the EU nor for the Western Balkans, but rather have a motivational character and loosely maintain the connection between the Union and us.

New obstructions for Macedonia and Albania

Although our region is accustomed to inconsistencies in the implementation of the Enlargement Strategy, the news of North Macedonia’s latest blockade due to a bilateral dispute with Bulgaria has injected a new dose of hopelessness into EU-Western Balkans relations. Germany in all of its strength failed to “thaw” Bulgaria’s position, and this is very reminiscent of the stubbornness of Greece, which kept North Macedonia under blockade for a decade. These decisions are full of senselessness, irrationality, mostly because the start of negotiations does not really have much significance at all. Montenegro was given a negotiating framework eight years ago and there are no guarantees that it will ever complete the negotiations. The negotiating framework is just a formality, the first step on a long journey we need to take, a journey with no end in sight. In this regard, it is expected that the new Negotiation Methodology will help make the process more substantial and political and not just technocratic, as it has been, for the most part, so far. However, one year after its adoption, it has not been elaborated in detail nor has its implementation begun.

The essence of the blockade of North Macedonia is that each member state can at any time “invent” a new criterion, one that is not relevant to the nature of the negotiations, which should be related to the European acquis, good governance, rule of law, human rights, the quality of democracy. This introduces uncertainty, unpredictability into the process and undermines trust. Blocking an aspirant state on the basis of ad hoc issues, such as bilateral relations and different interpretations of history, culture, identity, has absolutely no place in the “policy of conditioning”. Unless there is an intention for the negotiations to lead nowhere.

Lots of “sticks”, not enough “carrots”

“Deviations” from the planned enlargement policy and established methodology happen continuously, and that fact is quite depressing and it demotivates those who are working on transforming the Western Balkans into a developed, progressive environment. Why? The accession process is difficult and requires our countries to change, to improve, to give up their problematic practices, to restrict absolute power of authoritarian leaders, and in doing so, they actually rightly doubt that they will be justly rewarded for it. The Western Balkans are negotiating according to the strictest criteria so far, compared to all countries that have become members, while some of them have not adopted all the standards themselves.

The EU should have an understanding for this reality and, in addition to the “sticks” with which it punishes countries when they do not fulfill their tasks, there should also be more “carrots” with which they will reward countries when they actually achieve results.

Someone from the EU usually retorts to this argument by saying “but you need to implement reforms for your own sake”. Yes, absolutely. However, anyone who says that does not understand how seductive power is in it itself, as a phenomenon, and how difficult it is to voluntarily give up such a great supremacy that the Balkan rulers have in their hands. Any successful reform is essentially a conscious renunciation, a reduction in the concentration of power, the introduction of rules, predictability, control, balance, the dispersion of force and power.

Of course, we the people are the ones most concerned by reforms, but it is also a fact that the pressure and “demand” for reforms in our countries is low, insufficient, and the political parties of any government and any party wing are fine with the gaps through which they can pursue their interests, parallel to European values. Clientelism and informal practices are a way of life in the Western Balkans. Progressive forces that are pushing forward are outnumbered everywhere. They are rare individuals and small groups you see in the media, civil society, political party fragments and informal citizens’ associations, and the EU needs to recognise this and help such forces by keeping their word. The main reforms are as arduous as fulfilling those New Year’s resolutions we nicely planned, but then somehow in the New Year everything ends up the same as before.

Eternal negotiations

Negotiations are long and ineffective. This is made clear by the fact that years go by and there is no progress. They knew that in the EU when they started working on the new Methodology. It is wrong, even meaningless of some EU Member States to assume that the longer the negotiations, the more ready the country will be once it joins. There is a very simple reason for this, and that is that countries for which membership is far in the future do not put in their maximum efforts to complete their tasks now. Back in 2014, when Juncker said that there would be no enlargement, Montenegro immediately reduced its efforts and that reflected on the progress of the negotiations. Why do something in 2015, when there will be no rewards for a long time to come? It is more important to win the 2016 elections, using state resources illegally.

Criteria for progress are subject to politisation and it goes two ways – one is for the state to move forward with the process because of a political decision to move forward, although objectively it did not truly deserve it, and the other is not to move forward, also for political reasons, although it has made very important steps forward. Both are bad, for the process itself and for trust.

While all this is happening and we are constantly receiving unfavourable signals for the region, the new Montenegrin authorities are saying that there is a real chance that Montenegro will complete the negotiations by 2025 i.e., fulfill all obligations by 2023. It is true that Montenegro is receiving assurances from Brussels that, if it fulfills its tasks, it may become part of the EU. However, such assurances were also given to North Macedonia and Albania. Such assurances have been given to Kosovo regarding visa liberalisation. Nevertheless, it seems that something serious and fundamental needs to be improved in the Union’s relationship with the Western Balkans so that we can really hope for the desired enlargement.

Author: Dina Bajramspahić, Public Policy Researcher at Institute Alternative (IA)

This blog is published as part of the regional blogging initiative “Tales from the Region”, led by Res Publica and the Institute of Communication Studies, in partnership with Macropolis (Greece), IDM (Albania), Lupiga (Croatia), Sbunker (Kosovo), Ne Davimo Beograd (Serbia), Analiziraj (Bosnia and Herzegovina), PcNen (Montenegro), SEGA (Bulgaria) and HAD (Slovenia).

Preparation of Government’s Work Programme for 2021 should be opened for citizens’ proposals

Institute Alternative has been recommending for years that Government’s Work Programme, as the most important act for determining the priorities of the Government’s work, should be opened for public’s suggestions.

This recommendation is now actualised in a letter to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the Government of Montenegro, Mr. Zdravko Krivokapić and Dritan Abazović.

We consider that citizens have the right to give reasoned ideas, proposals and suggestions for Government’s Work Programme in the current year.

We believe that through public call and appropriate deadline for giving suggestions, with additional effort of competent ministries and conversations with proponent, it can upgrade the quality of Government’s Work Programme.

We expect that ministries in the future, unlike previous practice, in accordance with established legal obligations, will publish work programmes and list of their activities that will be at public consultations during the year.

The first prerequisite for consulting the public is planning and informing the public on priorities and obligations, so that expert public and citizens could prepare in time and give quality contribution in making policies.

The Government and ministries should open a dialogue before making important decisions, so that those decisions have bigger legitimacy and public trust. It is necessary to improve medium and long-term planning and coordination of public policies because that is prerequisite for successful solution of complex problems.

It is very important for citizen participation in public policy development that public administration proactively publishes policy briefs, opinions on which they based their plans and decisions, so that everyone who wants can have information for equal participation in public consultations. It is important that with simple language, as less bureaucratic as possible, administration makes an effort to explain complex concepts so that as many citizens as possible are involved and decisions fit the best they can to the specific needs of those concerned.

Stevo Muk
President of Managing Board at Institute Alternative

Political Appointments of Top Managers Go Against Professionalisation Promises

The announcements of distribution of top and senior civil service positions  are opposite to the previously declared opening of the administration, encouragement of the best candidates to get the jobs and the overall professionalisation of state administration.

Institute Alternative has previously pointed out that bidding by names and party affiliation when filling managerial positions, especially those that are subject to public competition, is not in the spirit of professionalisation or attracting the best staff.

According to the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees, the positions of head of bodies and senior management, for example, directors of administrations and their assistants, are filled based on a public competition, in accordance with the previously prescribed procedure which implies the right of all eligible candidates to apply for those positions and to be evaluated only on the basis of their managerial competencies and other qualifications required.

The leaked information sends the message that these and other positions of the public sector are predetermined and agreed in relation to a ‘’party quotas’’. This was the earlier practice of  the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) and coalition partners. For years, we have witnessed the bad consequences of such an approach and the tendency to subordinate party interests to the public interest.

The excuse that positions in a five-year or four-year mandate are not attractive enough for professional staff is not convincing, especially because manager in state bodies has the right to be reassigned to other positions after the expiration of the mandate. There are also legal mechanisms to provide legal security and conditions that will not discourage highly qualified candidates from applying to competitions.

Political parties should improve those conditions and legal security of leadership positions, to allow necessary expertise and continuity of civil service regardless of political change, and to prevent situations with each shift of power, the new government will face ‘’political opposition’’ at the formally professional positions. Otherwise, if information on the political distribution of posts are true, we remain in a vicious circle of party distributions. In addition, as we pointed out in our analysis ’Towards Merit-based Administration, Not a Party-measured One’’, this creates an alibi for each new government to make appointments on a similar matrix under the pretext that the one before did the same.

Milena Muk

Institute Alternative