Two years of the 27th convocation of the Parliament: The neglect of obligations behind the facade of parliamentary supervision

Votes of no confidence in the 42nd and 43rd Governments, decisions to launch parliamentary investigations, and weakening of party monopolies – although these speak in favour of a more significant role of the Parliament of Montenegro, they have not reflected qualitative and sustainable progress in the parliamentary control of the executive.

A more detailed illustration of the Parliament’s work during the previous two years indicates a weak performance of control activities and the neglect of very important obligations by Members of the Parliament (MPs).

Two years after the constitution of the 27th ­­­­convocation of the Parliament, we do not have a draft Law on the Parliament. The work on this important regulation was renewed at the beginning of July 2022. Five meetings of the working group were held, but the public has not been informed yet about potential developments in the regulation of the work of the Parliament.

The Parliamentary committees in the current convocation have proposed a total of sixteen reports deriving from control ­­hearings. Only five reports contain specific conclusions after an organised hearing. In all the other cases, MPs mainly deemed that they could not propose conclusions having in mind that these matters are of concern to other bodies, or that the discussion was conducted based on the documentation marked with a level of secrecy.

This means that besides the discussion about certain topics, the hearings did not have wider implications either for the strengthening of parliamentary supervision or for the systemic action of MPs vis-à-vis certain areas of governance. Otherwise, the fact that they used secret data during the discussion would not be an obstacle to, for example, proposing a way to systematically improve performance of certain institutions.

The fact that over 90% of MPs (76 out of 81) participated in initiatives for a vote of no confidence in the Governments in the past year speaks best of the turbulent parliamentary life in Montenegro. Two initiatives in the span of only six months (February-August 2022) were successful and resulted in a vote of no confidence in the 42nd and 43rd Governments of Montenegro. The fact that, during half a year, this mechanism of control of the executive branch was successfully used twice, in comparison to several failed attempts in 2010, 2012 and 2016, speaks of the strengthened role of the Parliament.

The consideration of reports on the situation in certain areas or on the work of institutions is not being used enough to strengthen the control role of the Parliament. This is best illustrated by the example of the Security and Defence Committee, which, out of seven reports submitted by the Police directors from 2018 to this day, considered only one report on the results of the fight against organised crime and corruption, and the last one in mid-2019.

It is commendable that for the first time, after seven years, the decisions to commence two parliamentary investigations were adopted:

  • To gather the information and facts about actions related to the work of State bodies and other subjects regarding the Možura wind power plant project;
  • To gather the information and facts about actions of the Ministry of the Interior – the Police Administration and the National Security Agency on September 4 and 5, 2021 in Cetinje.

However, the inquiry committees for conducting parliamentary investigations in these cases have not been formed yet.

In principle, the standing parliamentary committees have been passive. The best indicator for this is the fact that certain committees had not held a single session in the first five months of 2022, such as the Committee on Human Rights and Freedoms and the Anti-Corruption Committee.

Some hearings were not held even several months after the decision to hold them had been made. Thus, the control and consultative hearings of the representatives of the Agency for Prevention of Corruption before the Anti-Corruption Committee regarding the rulings of the Administrative Court for the officials of the former regime and the relationship between the Agency for Prevention of Corruption and the prosecution in the realisation of the European agenda in Chapters 23 and 24, were not carried out. Initiatives for their organisation were adopted on October 27, 2021. The Anti-Corruption Committee is also the most passive committee, with only six sessions held and one joint session organised with the Committee on Political System, Judiciary and Administration in two years.

Although the commencement of the 27th convocation of the Parliament was marked by significant strides in terms of transparency, through broadcasting committees’ sessions and improving the webpage, there are noticeable shortcomings in this matter as well. For example, the chronology of the discussion during plenary sessions is available only ending with the session held on July 27, although several important sessions of the Parliament were held after that. Furthermore, the report on the work of the Parliament for 2021, as well as the semi-annual report on legislative and oversight activities of the Parliament of Montenegro for the period between January 1 and July 1, 2022, have not been published.

The Institute Alternative will continue to remind MPs of their legal obligations and to advocate for more consistent and sustainable use of parliamentary supervision mechanisms.

Milena Muk

Institute Alternative

MPs do not care about the reports on crime

Directors render accounts, but no one is controlling them

Although the Police Administration directors have regularly sent, with short delays, semi-annual reports in the area of corruption and organised crime since 2018, the Parliamentary Security and Defence Committee considered only one.

This is written in the documentation submitted to the Institute Alternative, which asked the Parliament and the Ministry of the Interior – Police Administration to deliver to them whether the directors of the public service have respected the obligation to submit reports to the competent Committee once every six months.

The Police Administration Director has had this obligation since 2018 with the entry into force of the amended Law on Internal Affairs. Such a provision has also been envisioned by Article 16 of the improved legal text from July 2021.

According to that Article, police directors should send reports to MPs twice a year – no later than June 1 and December 1.

IA asked the Parliament and the Ministry of the Interior to provide them with copies of the reports prepared since the introduction of this obligation. IA asked for the dates when these reports were submitted to the Committee in order to check whether the police director complies with the Law.

For the purposes of the analysis, they also asked for the number and dates of the sessions to determine whether the Committee considers the submitted reports, and how much time passes between submission and consideration.

Dragana Jaćimović, a Project Associate in the Institute Alternative and a member of the Working Group for Chapter 24, said that MPs do not use—at all or sufficiently—the legally established mechanisms of parliamentary oversight.

“The absence of consideration of the police director’s reports on the results in the fight against organised crime and corruption is the best example of this practice. The Security and Defence Committee has shown passivity in its control function during its multi-year mandate, having in mind that this report has been considered only once, immediately after the introduction of the obligation of the semi-annual reporting by the police director in 2018,” she stated.

Jaćimović explained that this obligation was introduced to strengthen the control role of the Parliament in the area of fight against organised crime and corruption, which in this case the MPs, members of the Committee, have not used.

“We see that the police director, i.e., Police Administration directors, regularly ‘render accounts’ for their work in this area to the competent Committee, but the control role of the Parliament is absent because no one controls those accounts. Considering that the report’s content is marked by a level of secrecy due to the area it covers, the public is not familiar with the way the report looks, or what kind of information it contains. The Committee members are the ones who have the mandate to check it, influence the quality of information submitted and determine whether the results achieved in the previous six-month period were satisfactory. This is especially important considering the recent allegations about the ties between the members of organised criminal groups and the security sector and judiciary. Thus, it is important that the Security and Defence Committee schedule a session and consider the latest report, which was submitted at the end of May this year”, Jaćimović emphasised.

The quality of the report, i.e., the results in combatting organised crime and corruption, can be the basis for the dismissal of a police director.

“If the Security and Defence Committee does not accept a submitted report, it can inform the Minister of the Interior, who can initiate the procedure of dismissing a police director before the end of the period for which he/she was appointed. The Committee can also request the dismissal of a director, whereby the Government is obliged to dismiss him/her from his/her duties within 30 days,” stated the IA Associate.

According to the data submitted by the Parliament to the IA, it can be observed that the heads of the Police Administration have respected the legal procedure when submitting the seven reports, and only in two cases, the report was submitted with a delay of several days compared to the legal deadline.

Security and Defence Committee, as seen from its session’s minutes, has considered only one report so far – the one for the first half of 2019, when results achieved in the second half of 2018 were also considered.

IA did not receive a copy of the reports because the document is marked with a level of secrecy.

Author: Biljana Nikolić, Vijesti Journalist

The text was originally published in Daily newspapers Vijesti, as well as on the Vijesti portal.

Geopolitics, State Capture and Peak Corruption. What is Next for Anticorruption in the Western Balkans?

Geopolitics, State Capture and Peak Corruption. What is Next for Anticorruption in the Western Balkans?

The Kremlin’s war in Ukraine has come to dominate the agenda in Europe in a very urgent way. It has forced the EU to scramble to action for reinvigorating enlargement in the Western Balkans. The European Commission stepped up its internal governance support efforts through the adoption of the European Democracy Action Plan and the revamped Rule of Law Mechanism. The US government included anticorruption as a key pillar of its national security strategy and launched the Summit for Democracy aimed at safeguarding democratic resilience.

It is against the background of a very difficult time for anticorruption in the Western Balkans that the Southeast Europe Leadership for Development and Integrity (SELDI) has made its regular in-depth diagnostic of corruption and governance gaps in the region, the findings of which are presented in this report. SELDI’s methodology combines a unique measurement of the actual proliferation of corruption and state capture vulnerabilities with an assessment of the anticorruption infrastructure that is designed to reduce them. The chapters of the report present the dynamics of corruption and state capture levels, developments in national anticorruption polices and legislation, institutional practices of anticorruption oversight bodies, linkages between corruption and the hidden economy, and the role of civil society and international cooperation in anticorruption.

International and Regional Cooperation: Transcending Borders in the Fight against Corruption

International and Regional Cooperation: Transcending Borders in the Fight against Corruption

International and regional cooperation is a powerful tool for effectively addressing the problem of corruption. Corruption is an intricate issue that requires exchanging experiences and good practices between countries. Numerous areas and activities are part of international cooperation, such as corruption monitoring, practice exchange, verifying asset declarations, educational activities to raise public awareness, protection of whistleblowers, conflicts of interest, and many others. Most Western Balkan countries have signed and ratified the main international

conventions against corruption. Yet, their legal frameworks and practices are still not fully harmonised with international standards, which require further reforms in this field. The current policy brief explores the positive impact of international cooperation and support, the challenges that cross-border anti-corruption networks face, and the risks of intransparent distribution of donors’ funds.

Institute Alternative Turns 15!

Institute Alternative (IA) has remained committed to its mission of strengthening democracy and good governance through research and policy analysis.

During fifteen years since its establishment, the IA has launched and implemented 105 projects aimed at reforms of public administration and judiciary, enhancement of transparency and accountability of public finances, parliamentary oversight, better social policy and democratic control of security sector with specific focus on police.

We were established primarily as a think tank, to provide evidence about public policies through research and monitoring and to advocate for their better implementation. Such approach of our organization would not be possible if development of our capacities had not been supported by the Open Society Foundation through the “Think Tank Fund“ during our formative years.

We have published 146 studies, reports and analyses and communicated almost 1500 recommendations to the decision makers. We have participated in 29 working groups for drafting of laws and strategies, while providing contribution to Montenegro’s EU integration efforts through participation in the working groups for chapters 23 (judiciary and fundamental rights), 24 (justice, freedom and security), 5 (public procurement) and 32 (financial oversight). We have further communicated our recommendations through memberships in the Council for Public Administration Reform and Council for Cooperation Between the Government and NGOs. Since December 2021, president of the IA’s Managing Board has been appointed member of the Prosecutorial Council.

We have launched four specific online platforms. My Town is a pioneering endeavour of citizen friendly presentation of budgets of local governments. My Administration serves as an address for citizens to report problems in their encounters with public administration. We have also unlocked thousands of pages of non-searchable data on public finances through “My Money” platform.

In 2019, we have also launched a page on public enterprises, which provides overview of key information about companies majority-owned by the state. Key indicators of the work of these companies are collected via numerous Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, given the fact that neither the Government, as their founder, nor the companies themselves proactively publish basic information. This page presents the transparency index for each company as well as data on revenues, expenses, managerial structure, employees and salaries.

Institute Alternative has provided suggestions and comments aimed at improving 15 strategic documents and 26 national and local legal acts, including systemic laws in the areas of judiciary, public administration and public sector salaries. Through our events and publications, we were among the first ones to launch debate and offer normative solutions for better relationship between different branches of power through anticipated laws on Parliament and the Government.

In parallel to our research work, we have been committed to building capacities of other civil society organizations, civil servants and politicians. Our Public Policy School saw a total of 114 participants through its six generations. In 2018, we have organized our first Open Budget School for 27 participants from non-governmental sector and the media. The next edition of this School was organized for political parties and parliamentary staff, gathering a total of 20 participants.

Our trainings of gender mainstreaming of public policies have been attended by 120 participants from public administration and civil society. The trainings enhanced professional capacities of target groups to integrate gender perspective in procedures of drafting the laws, strategies and of designing the IPA projects, with an ultimate aim of closing the gender gap.

Our total budget, since establishment, amounts to ‎2.627.466 EUR and it is primarily comprised from funds provided by more than 20 international organizations and foreign embassies. The share of public funds, provided by the Government of Montenegro is 8 per cent, and it amounts to 210.008,30 EUR. In the same period, we have paid a total of 436.652,22 EUR of taxes and contributions to the state, that is more than a double of the amount we received from public funds.

We cooperate with more than 40 organizations within the regional networks and with more than 100 organizations in Montenegro. We are especially proud of our membership within the Think for Europe Network (TEN), which gathers our likeminded partners from the Western Balkans and is committed to the approximation to the EU standards in key governance areas, as well as of our membership in the Balkan Security Platform.

Our organization currently has 9 employees, but a total of 50 people has contributed to our work during previous fifteen years. We remain grateful for their share in our organizational growth.

The IA Team