There is almost no person who would not try to justify their actions, for which others do not understand or see any meaning, by referring to actions or behavior “out of principle.” This has been absent from our politics for a long time!
The recent (non-)statements of MPs on the initiative to dismiss the President of the Parliament of Montenegro, Andrija Mandić, and on the law confirming the Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Tourism and Real Estate Development between the Government of Montenegro and the Government of the United Arab Emirates confirm that the principle has definitely lost its meaning of an absolutely valid and verifiable truth. For Montenegrin MPs, the principle does not represent a kind of rhetorical platitude that attempts to justify some form of action or even to justify the direct and public execution of some hidden interest. Moreover, since last Tuesday, dubious justifications or confusing explanations are no longer necessary in public decision-making. It is enough for overpaid, and often inactive, MPs to simply not show up during a certain decision-making in the Parliament of Montenegro, to be outside the hall or to leave the session during the vote, as well as to abstain during a disputed vote.
If we analyze this situation carefully, then our politicians have indeed assigned themselves the status of persons who do not have their own beliefs or at least are not allowed to express them publicly. Simply put, to paraphrase Nikola Tesla, then these representatives of ours might accidentally and unwillingly be the founders of some good decisions, but they are definitely the founders of some “new” and only known principles.
According to the title question, currently in Montenegro neither citizens nor MPs know who supports whom and why, or who votes for whom or not. If by any chance we were to ask our citizens' representatives to present to us the principles that guide them during decision-making, or (non)voting, they would certainly not be able to explain it. Although, according to Article 85 of the Constitution of Montenegro, “an MP shall decide and vote according to his/her own convictions” and according to Article 86 of the Constitution of Montenegro, “he/she shall not be held criminally or otherwise liable or detained for expressing an opinion or voting in the exercise of his/her parliamentary function”, why do MPs not explain their positions in public? Why do their actions defy examples of generally accepted parliamentary practices? How is it possible that within a coalition or parliamentary group we have MPs who vote differently or some of them do not want to vote? Where does the inconsistency between the actors that make up the political majority in Montenegro come from?
It is possible that our MPs would like it best if, like their party colleagues from the Government of Montenegro, they had the opportunity to express their views on important issues via WhatsApp groups. By the end of April this year, the Government held 146 sessions, of which 104 were in electronic format, often at night and on weekends. An analysis by the Institute Alternative pointed to a possible abuse of the Data Secrecy Act, because the Government, in the 15 months of its mandate, declared as many as 118 agenda items secret, while also hiding the names of those decisions from the public. The materials and audio recording from the Government session at which the Draft Law on Ratification of the Agreement with the UAE was decided were declared to have the level of secrecy "confidential" and only after the expiration of the five-year period will the public have the right to access them!
Since the sessions of the Parliament of Montenegro, unlike the sessions of the Government, are still open to the public for the time being, our citizens' representatives should be expected to demonstrate openness to dialogue and questions from journalists during the discussion of the agenda items, to properly prepare and present their arguments, and thereby prove their responsibility. When we already emphasize the necessity of public action and behavior of our MPs, it is also astonishing how quickly and easily our media suppressed the incident from December last year when journalists were chased out of the plenary hall after the President of the Parliament, Andrija Mandić, concluded the session.
Perhaps all of the above could be explained to some extent through the prism of internal party interests and leadership ambitions, but the now established lack of coordination, not only between the ruling parties, but also between their members in parliament, irresistibly points to the possibility of dangerous and harmful scenarios. Namely, in accordance with this confused and unprincipled parliamentary practice, it is very certain that some of the MPs in the upcoming period will “on their own”, and with the “understanding” of the party that brought them there, give their vote of support (or not) for some of the decisions that will be in direct contradiction with European integration and security in the country. These “unprincipled sleepers” will serve as a justification for considering new foreign policy priorities, for further deepening the already existing parliamentary crisis and making highly controversial economic decisions.
In the end, perhaps we are asking too much of our MPs - we are asking them to be what they are not! It is clear why they are delaying the reform of electoral legislation. It is obvious that they do not want the introduction of open lists because for most of them it would be the end of their political careers. They know that in an open list system, party leaders must nominate influential, well-known and respectable citizens on their lists who can gain the support of the electorate, and not just loyal party apparatchiks with obscure biographies.
The current parliamentary convocation is playing a tragic role directed by its party leaders, and its current engagement irresistibly resembles an unseasoned dish with which it seeks to satisfy the material hunger of its shadowy patrons, but we will all feel that bitter taste, and some of its decisions will leave us with an eternal urge to vomit.
Bonus video:
