Everything could have been different. The government and local governments, in consultation with citizens, are discussing issues of economy, tourism, investments. "What are we going to do with the largest sites suitable for further development of tourism? How - independently or by looking for investors? How big (long, wide and high)? How to harmonize with nature protection? What about infrastructure (water, electricity, road)? How to find investors?" After these questions were answered in Montenegro, the agreement of key stakeholders was achieved and a framework plan was prepared, the tender process could begin, after which investors from the UAE or a third country would be approached.
None of the above happened. The government was obviously introducing the planned investor through a back door, where he was not allowed to enter, and thus opened a big door, with great suspicion. The continuation of the government's story is another in a series of evidence of chronically poor public relations, attempts to fascinate, confuse, fool, and anesthetize the public. The agreements with the UAE were signed without reaching an agreement, even within the ruling parliamentary majority. That is why what Alabar announced seemed better and more responsible than what Prime Minister Spajić told us. But the very fact that the media goes to Alabar, to get to the truth, speaks of the Government's unacceptably bad attitude towards its own citizens.
The initial position of the Government and its President is not incomprehensible. Tourism development is a strategic economic sector for Montenegro, and for too long there has been no investment in locations that have the potential for large projects. We elect politicians to do something, and to bring economic progress with their work. Politicians want success, victories that they can show their old and future voters. The Government wants to do big things, to implement big projects, to work with large investors. Spajić simultaneously acknowledges the inefficiency and slowness of the administration in dealing with the tasks that such investments entail, and on the other hand, does almost nothing to systematically correct this. The Government prepared a Draft Law on Strategic Investments at the end of last year, but after a public debate it was not established as a proposal and sent to the Parliament for adoption. Instead of a law that would speed up the administration's actions, we received agreements with the UAE that stipulate exceptions to the rules established by national legislation.
However, the legal system cannot be suspended because of a single project, no matter how large, significant, and potentially beneficial it may be. Just as it is unacceptable to increasingly suspend the process of making decisions about the public interest, which has its own rules and a certain achieved level of transparency, public participation, organized civil society, and citizens.
Sometimes it even seems that Spajić fails, or even does not care, to align his decisions and practices with the already achieved level, at least of formal rules, which even the previous government respected. In this way, he justifies and supports the position of the opposition and structures close to them, embodied in the slogan "This government is bad, if not worse than the DPS government".
I am against the status quo, or I am equally far from those who want everything to remain "wild beauty" and from wild investors who do not care about rules and nature. I believe that it is in the interest of further economic development to develop serious tourist capacities in several large locations on the coast and in the north, in a transparent and competitive procedure, in accordance with the laws governing nature protection, and in accordance with the infrastructure that must be developed in a timely manner.
The list of projects that the local or national public has rejected, stopped, or postponed is too long. We have been left without new large sources of hydropower for decades, without at least four collectors. We don't want a collector in our town, we don't want a landfill in our municipality, we don't want infected cows to be buried in our village, but in the neighbor's. And so on, mostly to our own detriment.
I don't want the generations after us to debate these same topics, to curse previous generations who couldn't agree and provide lasting and sustainable solutions.
Now that we have a serious warning from the European Commission that the implementation of the agreement could take us further away from the EU, it seems that the Government and Parliament must make additional efforts to keep investment cooperation within the constitutional framework and EU rules.
We are faced with several possible scenarios.
First - the agreements were reconfirmed in the Parliament, and then, through a transparent, comprehensive dialogue of all stakeholders, the best solutions for protecting the interests of Montenegro are sought, after which the concretization of projects at selected locations begins. This implies a serious analysis of the economic justification of the selected investment model, including infrastructure costs, as well as compliance with environmental protection standards.
Second scenario - the procedure continues without analyzing the economic justification of possible investment models, everything is decided within a narrow circle of people, ignoring rules and procedures that can contribute to quality, the investment is implemented despite opposition, but in the end the economic benefit goes to a narrow circle of actors, to the detriment of the state, local community and nature.
Third scenario - agreements are confirmed, but the decision-making process continues as before. Criticism, disagreements, divisions and obstruction continue, leading to the collapse of agreements and investments.
The fourth scenario implies that the Government and Parliament adopt a Declaration that nothing will be built, and that "wild beauty" will be our future, ecological, economic and any other.
If the Parliament confirms the agreement in a repeated vote, there are no restrictions on the Constitutional Court ruling on the constitutionality of the disputed agreement. The opinion, which has been heard in the public, that the Constitutional Court cannot assess the constitutionality of the law on the ratification of an international treaty between Montenegro and a third country is wrong because the Constitution states that "Ratified and published international treaties and generally accepted rules of international law are an integral part of the internal legal order, have primacy over domestic legislation and are directly applicable when they regulate relations differently from domestic legislation". Such opinions are not in accordance with the aim of the aforementioned norm of the Constitution, nor with the spirit of the entire constitutional text, and the competences of the Constitutional Court.
If such opinions were correct, then Montenegro and a third country could sign a treaty that would oblige their citizens to walk on their hands, or stipulate that the death penalty can be imposed and applied for acts committed by citizens of the signatory states. The government signs the treaty, the Parliament ratifies it, and the Constitutional Court has no right to assess its constitutionality? That would be absurd, and that is why it is necessary to read what the actors in the process of preparing and adopting the Constitution of Montenegro wrote about the goals of this norm, as well as the opinion of the Venice Commission on the draft Constitution at the time. And it says there that the goal of this norm was to raise and expand the level of protection of human and minority rights, and not to limit rights or suspend the legal order and the rule of law.
Whatever the future of our (dis)agreements, it is important that this and every future government do much more to ensure that public administration is more prepared, flexible and efficient in implementing small and large projects and investments. Also, instead of underestimating the public, the government should offer dialogue as a prerequisite for agreement in society on development paths. Without openness, honest dialogue based solely on facts, decisions that affect the entire country cannot be made.
The author is the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Institute of Alternatives
Bonus video:
