Everything could have been different. The Government and local self-governments, in consultation with citizens, could have discussed issues of the economy, tourism, and investments. ‘What should we do with the largest sites suitable for further tourism development? How should we approach this—independently or by seeking investors? How big should such projects be (in length, width, and height)? How do we align this with nature protection? What about the necessary infrastructure (water, electricity, roads)? How do we reach investors?’ After these questions were answered in Montenegro, a consensus reached among key actors, and a preliminary plan prepared, the tender procedure could have started, and only then could an investor from the UAE or any third country have been selected.
None of this has happened. The Government evidently introduced a preselected investor through the back door—where they should not have entered—and in doing so opened wide the door to major doubts. The continuation of the Government’s actions is yet another example of chronically poor public communication, and repeated attempts to fascinate, confuse, distract, or numb the public. Agreements with the UAE were signed without achieving consensus, even within the ruling parliamentary majority. This is why the statements made by Alabar seemed more credible and responsible than those given by Prime Minister Spajić. But the very fact that the media had to turn to Alabar to learn the truth speaks to the Government’s unacceptable attitude towards its own citizens.
The Government’s and the Prime Minister’s starting position is not incomprehensible. For Montenegro, tourism development is a strategic economic sector, and for too long there has been no investment in locations with potential for major projects. We elect politicians to do something—to deliver economic progress through their work. Politicians want success, achievements they can show to current and future voters. The Government wants to undertake big endeavors, implement big projects, and work with large investors. Spajić openly acknowledges the inefficiency and slowness of the administration in handling the tasks required for such investments, while at the same time doing almost nothing to systematically fix these issues. At the end of last year, the Government drafted the Law on Strategic Investments, but after the public consultation it did not adopt it as a proposal nor send it to Parliament for approval. Instead of a law that would accelerate administrative procedures, we ended up with agreements with the UAE that introduce exceptions to the rules established by national legislation.
However, the legal system cannot be suspended because of a single project, no matter how big, significant, or potentially beneficial it may be. Nor is it acceptable that the process of decision-making on matters of public interest—already operating with a certain level of transparency, public participation, and involvement of civil society and citizens—is increasingly being bypassed.
At times it even appears that Spajić not only fails, but is not particularly interested in aligning his decisions and practices with the already established, at least formal, standards that even the previous government respected. In this way, he reinforces and validates the opposition’s stance and related narratives embodied in the slogan, ‘This government is bad, if not worse than the DPS government.’
I am against the status quo—I am equally distant from those who want everything to remain ‘wild beauty’ and from reckless investors who disregard rules and nature. I believe that further economic development requires building serious tourism capacities on several major sites on the coast and in the north, through transparent and competitive procedures, in compliance with environmental protection laws and with the necessary infrastructure developed on time.
The list of projects rejected, halted, or postponed by local or national publics over the decades is far too long. As a result, we still have no new large hydropower sources, and not even four basic wastewater treatment plants. We don’t want the plant in our town, we don’t want the landfill in our municipality, we don’t want diseased cattle buried in our village—let it be done in the neighboring one. And so it goes, mostly to our own detriment.
I do not want future generations to still be debating these same issues, cursing previous generations that could not agree on sustainable and lasting solutions.
Now that we have received a serious warning from the European Commission that implementing these agreements may take us further away from the EU, it seems clear that both the Government and Parliament must make additional efforts to ensure that investment cooperation remains within constitutional limits and EU rules.
Several scenarios lie ahead of us.
First scenario – the agreements are reconfirmed by Parliament, followed by a transparent and inclusive dialogue involving all interested actors to determine the best solutions for protecting Montenegro’s interests. Only then would the process move toward concrete project development on selected sites. This requires a serious analysis of the economic justification of the chosen investment model, including infrastructure costs, as well as full compliance with environmental standards.
Second scenario – the process continues without analysis of the economic viability of different investment models, decisions are made within a narrow circle of people, rules and procedures that ensure quality are ignored, and investments proceed despite opposition, ultimately benefiting only a small group of actors at the expense of the state, local communities, and nature.
Third scenario – the agreements are confirmed, but the decision-making process continues as before, leading to ongoing criticism, disagreements, divisions, and obstruction, ultimately resulting in the collapse of both the agreements and the investment.
Fourth scenario – the Government and Parliament adopt a Declaration that nothing will be built and that ‘wild beauty’ will remain our future—environmental, economic, and otherwise.
If Parliament confirms the agreement in the repeated vote, nothing prevents the Constitutional Court from reviewing its constitutionality. The opinion heard in public—that the Court cannot review the constitutionality of a law ratifying an international agreement between Montenegro and a third country because the Constitution states, ‘Ratified and published international treaties and generally accepted rules of international law shall be part of the internal legal order, shall have supremacy over domestic legislation and shall apply directly when they regulate relationships differently from domestic legislation’—is incorrect. Such interpretations are not in line with the purpose of that constitutional provision, nor with the broader constitutional framework and the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction.
If such opinions were correct, Montenegro and a third country could sign a treaty obliging their citizens to walk on their hands, or prescribing that the death penalty may be imposed and carried out for offenses committed by citizens of the signatory countries. The Government would sign the treaty, the Parliament would ratify it, and the Constitutional Court would have no authority to assess its constitutionality? That would be absurd. This is why one must read what the drafters of the Constitution wrote about the goals of this provision, as well as the Venice Commission’s opinion on the draft Constitution at the time. There it is stated clearly that the goal of this provision was to strengthen and expand the protection of human and minority rights, not to restrict rights or suspend the legal order and the rule of law.
Whatever the future of these (dis)agreements may be, it is essential that this and every future government do much more to ensure that the public administration is prepared, flexible, and efficient enough to implement both small and large projects and investments. Likewise, instead of underestimating the public, the Government must offer dialogue as a precondition for building societal consensus on development pathways. Without openness and honest, fact-based dialogue, decisions affecting the entire country cannot be made.