The Principality of Montenegro was a sovereign state with an absolutist form of government that did not apply the classical model of separation of powers (Article 105: The Council of Ministers is at the head of the civil service. It is directly subordinate to the Prince-Lord). The Nicholas Constitution of the Principality of Montenegro did not establish the supremacy of the legislative branch over other branches of government (Article 94: Every conclusion submitted by the National Assembly to the Prince Gospodar shall be followed by the Master's decision, and, if possible, during the duration of that parliamentary session), while despite the establishment of an independent judiciary and the pronouncement of justice "in the name of the Prince Gospodar", it was preceded by "the approach of His Majesty the Master for judicial matters" during the Saturday, which was designated "as the day when the Master received and heard parties, sometimes in the palace, sometimes in the hall of the Grand Court and the State Council in a discussion with the judges. In doing so, Prince Nikola did not change court judgments, but only recommended that the Grand Court re-take the case, re-investigate the matters or supplement the investigation if justice required it" (Dr. Čedomir Bogićević "History of Montenegrin Judiciary").
However, our first written constitution (although the adoption of the “Stega” in 1796 legally regulated part of the basic social relations that are regulated by the constitution in modern society) constructed a modern political community and, in addition to the traditional forms of decision-making up to that time, established the “constitutional rights of Montenegrin citizens” that prescribed individual forms of action in the economic, social and political spheres (and the Code of Prince Danilo from 1855, which had provisions of a constitutional, civil, criminal and procedural nature, dealt with the position of “čojek”). The adoption of the Constitution of the Principality of Montenegro, on a symbolic level, confirmed the historical (and legal) continuity of Montenegrin unity and, unlike earlier and then constitutional experiences in Europe, its aspiration was not directed towards a clearer limitation of the monarch’s power. With this constitution, King Nikola confirmed the thesis from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Social Contract" that "the strongest is never strong enough to be the master, unless he turns his strength into right and obedience into duty," and therefore comparisons with the Serbian Sretenje Constitution from 1835 are very inappropriate.
And, the established equality before the law, or “public and private rights of Montenegrin citizens”, if we take into account the provisions from the introductory part “Form of government, Prince Lord, State area and State religion”, are in a certain way overshadowed by the intention of the constitution-makers, which wanted to express the successful fight against centuries-old attempts at subjugation, but also their own statehood and sovereignty that was accompanied by national emancipation. That is why even now, after 120 years, this imposed (imposed by the ruler) the constitution in its essence reflects the authentic Montenegrin spirit and is significant for its products that it brought about as our first attempt at constitutionalism (normative regulation of basic principles and values within a state community).
The order that Nikola Mirkov tried to maintain by “giving” this constitution had serious socio-economic shortcomings that were studied in detail in his works by the academician and first rector of the University of Montenegro, Prof. Dr. Mirčeta Đurović. It is evident that the economic (under)development of Montenegro during the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries caused numerous dissatisfactions, but the consequences of various international trends are also noticeable in internal relations.
Under these foreign policy influences, two significant processes are taking place in the Balkans!
In the first, the great powers advocate the concept that state issues in this post-Ottoman part of Europe can be resolved according to the principle by which they were resolved in Western Europe, on the so-called “national principle” or the “nation-state” principle. In the second, during the same period, winds begin to blow on the Balkan windward side, carrying with them the spirit of civic enlightenment and new philosophical and political views.
In the first case, it is indicative (and confirms this thesis) that during the process of adopting the Constitution for the Principality of Montenegro, two political camps emerged, which would engage in sharp political conflict throughout its entire period of validity, until 1918. The reasons for these political (and constitutional) confrontations could not have been related to the constitutional provisions themselves, because at the time this conflict began, the content of the future constitution was unknown to either party. Accordingly, it is obvious that the reason for this conflict can be found in the very motive for adopting the constitution and what it symbolized at that time - the establishment of the modern Montenegrin nation!
Of course, this conflict represents the ideological starting point for almost all of our political stratifications during the 20th century, as well as for the current divisions among citizens in Montenegro. The experiences of many countries teach us that in relation to the constitution, and what it represents for citizens, we have those who have a strongly negative attitude towards it and can achieve their goals only after its violent overthrow, as well as those who showed determination during its adoption and whose perseverance goes towards its implementation, preservation, but also appropriate changes.
In another case, the St. Nicholas Constitution had one of its own provisions, the flaw of which we are still experiencing today. Although Prince Gospodar, as a former and very gifted French high school student, was well aware of the ideas of the Enlightenment and the philosophical teachings of Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau and Diderot on the separation of church and state, he would still establish a “state religion”. To make the absurdity even more pronounced, the Law on the Separation of Church and State, which shaped the modern French Republic as a secular and religiously neutral state, was adopted just a few days before the Montenegrin constitution - on December 9, 1905. However, in addition to freedom of conscience and the guarantee of the free performance of religious rites with the neutrality of the state (Article 128: “All recognized religions have the free and public performance of religious rites in Montenegro”) “on St. Nicholas Day 1905.” constitutional provisions were promulgated that defined the connection between civil authorities and religious organizations, but that is why Article 40 of the same supreme legal act unequivocally stated, and in reality applied, the Westphalian principle - the Principality of Montenegro sovereignly and without international influence exercised control over "spiritual authorities of all recognized religions in Montenegro". Is something like that possible in today's Montenegro, which is a candidate for full membership in the EU?
Bonus video:
