Legislative activity of the current convocation in figures
The current convocation of the Parliament of Montenegro has a historic role to play in the EU integration process, the final stage of which depends, among other things, on harmonising Montenegro’s legislation with EU regulations and the requirements of the European Commission. Below is an overview of statistics on the legislative work of this convocation, based on Institute Alternative’s database, which is updated in real time, meaning that all data are fully aligned with the data published by the Parliament of Montenegro.
Overview of the structure of draft laws submitted to parliamentary procedure during the 28th convocation (since October 2023), by their current status – how many laws have been adopted, how many are in procedure, and how many have been withdrawn or rejected. For each status category, the overview clearly shows how many draft laws were submitted by the Government and how many by MPs.
The pace of legislative activity has changed over the course of the convocation, but there is a clear trend towards more intensive submission of draft laws to procedure by the Government, as well as an increase in the number of adopted laws.
A significant number of draft laws have been submitted by MPs, both from the ruling majority and from the opposition. A worrying development is the admission by MPs from the majority that they are submitting certain laws to procedure although these have been prepared by the Government. In doing so, procedures for public consultation, impact assessment and inter-ministerial coordination are bypassed — procedures that would be mandatory for the Government, but which MPs are not required to conduct when proposing laws.
Draft laws submitted by the Government are often submitted without a public debate having been held, although this is an obligation under the Law on State Administration. The statistics to date show that more than half of the laws reached Parliament without a public debate having been held. Under the Law, a public debate is not mandatory when a law regulates matters in the field of defence and security or the annual budget, in extraordinary, urgent or unforeseeable circumstances, or in the case of minor amendments to laws that do not regulate an issue in a substantially different manner. In this context, it should be noted that new laws account for more than 40% of the adopted acts, while the remaining acts are amendments to existing legislation.
It is exceptionally rare for MPs to provide even a moderately developed explanation of whether the draft law they are proposing will have an impact on the budget, or of the likely cost of its implementation. Draft laws submitted by MPs are, therefore, presented with almost no indication of the financial implications of their implementation. Most laws proposed by MPs contain only a so-called “cursory” cost assessment, which amounts to little more than the repetition of standard phrases, such as that “additional funds from the Budget are not/are required for the implementation of the law”. An unclear and incomplete financial impact assessment does not, however, constitute an obstacle to the adoption of a draft law. Where the financial impact assessment is limited to a statement that funds need to be secured in the budget for the implementation of the law, and where the Government’s opinion has not been submitted by the time the draft law is considered by the Committee, it is not possible to determine the fiscal impact on the state budget.
Under the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, the Government is required to submit an opinion on draft laws submitted by MPs within 15 days from the date on which the draft law is received into parliamentary procedure. The data show that the Government rarely provides opinions on MPs’ proposals, and even when it does, these concern only proposals by MPs from the ruling majority, while opposition proposals are ignored.
The analysis and database were prepared within the framework of the project “Fostering Public Debate and Improving the Quality of Public Discourse in the Legislature,” implemented by Institute Alternative with the support of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The analysis is the sole responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of the National Endowment for Democracy.