Political parties promise meritocracy, but only declaratively. In the first episode, Milena Muk, a public policy researcher at Institute Alternative (IA), explains what changes need to be made in the legal framework and practice so that public sector employment becomes more competitive.
The lack of progress since the change of government in 2020 regarding public sector employment is evident, especially in the most problematic part of the public sector – public enterprises, for which there is still no systemic law regulating this area.
However, as Muk points out, the situation is not much better even when it comes to state administration. For this reason, Institute Alternative issued an Action Call, presenting clear guidelines and deadlines for fulfilling what has so far been only declarative advocacy of parliamentary parties during election campaigns.
In the Call, addressed to the members of the Parliament, and the cabinets of the President and PM of Montenegro, IA outlines recommended legislative activities, such as prescribing the obligation to select the best-ranked candidate, establishing rules for public advertising in all segments of the public sector, as well as prescribing a minimum fifteen-day duration of public advertisements, regardless of the sector in question…
Clear recommendations, along with the timeline of by when they should be implemented, will be subject to monitoring by IA, which will inform the public about the status of their implementation.
“The problems are manifold and often oversimplified in public discourse”, Muk stated, adding that there are also associated issues with poor control – especially in terms of inspection oversight regarding regulations on state officials and employees.
When asked if these problems are being addressed by better legislation, Muk, who is also a member of the Working group drafting the new Law on Civil Servants and State Employees, states that discussions in the mentioned body mostly revolve around reinstating ‘old criteria’ reduced by amendments to the Law in 2021, while more advanced changes to the Law she advocates are vaguely mentioned.
She points out that particularly problematic intention to retain discretionary power not to select the best-ranked; in other words, a norm is introduced where top-ranked candidates are hired ‘as a rule’, but not ‘necessarily’ or always, opening up space for exceptions as we have had so far, which are not a guarantee of meritocracy.
Institutions are doing everything to reduce competitiveness in the public sector
As a clear indicator of a rigged competition, Muk notes that institutions often do everything to deter candidates from even applying to the public competition, and actively work on reducing competitiveness in the public sector.
‘Often, there is a single footnote in some regulation saying, for example, that you do not have the most adequate medical certificate or laboratory results, and when you scratch the surface of regulations, you realise it was the duty of institutions to indicate which certificates are valid and necessary’, Muk highlights.
The transparency of the competition process itself is problematic, as information on candidates’ Q&As is often not accessible to the public.
‘We often point out that hiring through a political party, familial or nepotistic lines does not happen just because someone presents a party membership card, or shows their ‘family tree’ to the minister, but happens mostly within legal frameworks that are so fragile, loose, and prone to abuse that non-competitive hiring is legalised”, Muk concludes.
Justice is (un)attainable, even when the court rules in favour of citizens
Muk notes that in the process of protecting the rights of citizens who believe they have been discriminated during job competitions in the public sector, there is inconsistency and discrimination.
‘Roughly speaking, regulations on state officials and employees, including the local level, apply to about a quarter of the total public sector. This means that the majority of other institutions and companies apply general labour regulations. The average duration of administrative disputes has drastically increased, now lasting over 500 days. Practically, a year and a half, which is not efficient even when the Administrative Court rules in favour of those who initiated the administrative disputes’, Muk states.
An additional problem is that the Administrative Court often does not make so-called meritorious decisions, which means that it does not resolve disputes conclusively but returns them for reconcideration.
“These are ping-pong situations, where first-instance authorities simply learn better how to legalise the initial bad practice”, Muk concludes.
This podcast was created as part of the project Strengthening the demands of citizens to meritocracy, which Institute Alternative implements with the support of the British Embassy in Podgorica. The content of the podcast is the sole responsibility of Institute Alternative and does not necessarily reflect the views of the donors.
