The outcome of the Agreement for fair and free elections primarily depends on the very top of the government, according to the president of Demos, Miodrag Lekić. In an interview with Monitor, he also stated that the Agreement is potentially possible, by fulfilling all the demands of the opposition forces that participated in the dialogue.
Part of the public denies the right to external interventions in the Public Service. They say from the house itself - "We do not want a public service of the central committees". Your comment?
I don't know if these supposedly democratic cries from the valley of tears of those who serve the ruling party should shake anyone, but it sounds really grotesque.
You see, the demand for an independent and professional Public Service has two sides. One relates to the current context of preventing abuses of power in the electoral process.
The second and essential one is the possibility of a great democratic victory in the interest of all citizens and the country. An integral part of this democratic initiative, and what we requested in the Agreement, is the urgent adoption of three already prepared laws - on broadcasting services, on media, and on electronic media.
The alternative to this initiative is the continuation of this court kitsch, organized by party and interest groups around the prime minister. The same composition of obscure figures - the whole of Montenegro knows this - gives informative imputations both to the court tabloid and to those vulgar ones who slander this country, which Đukanović brought from Serbia with the help of his political friends from that country.
I repeat, this is not about an attempt for court journalism to change bosses, that after serving the ruling party, it now serves the parties from the opposition. Citizens who finance the Public Service need objective information, not production of reality. It would be normal for journalists from the Public Service to support this public and democratic initiative. Otherwise, they would be voiding their right to freedom of thought and professional autonomy and integrity.
I repeat, we are fighting for a just cause - that's why there is no Electoral Confidence Agreement, and I say this on behalf of Demos, without guarantees that the DPS will end the 25-year editing of the RTCG as one of the most important mechanisms of its manipulative and undemocratic rule.
Since the ruling elite, for their own reasons, hold on to the American influence, which is supposedly valuable, I will remind you that the political theorist, the fourth president of the USA, James Madison, the "father of the American Constitution", wrote: "People's power without the information of the people is a prelude to tragedy or farce." . This was said at the beginning of the 19th century, and the local government in the 21st century, as a "success story" on the road to "Euro-Atlantic integration", is sparingly not providing citizens with a system of objective information.
Can we expect joint action of the opposition, because it seems that the opposition parties are more concerned with how to defeat each other than the government?
I am trying to find an answer avoiding two repetitions and equally unacceptable clichés - the first, that the opposition is the main culprit for the state of society - and the second, that just because it is the opposition, it should be critically untouchable.
In a country with deeply disturbed values, a largely criminalized society, the opposition has an even greater responsibility to offer itself as a serious and credible alternative.
The condition for such a scenario is opposition cooperation, or at least a minimum of cooperation, let's say for a start not attacking each other, which does not prejudge the way of going to the elections - independently, together or in several columns.
Unfortunately, there are examples, I hope they are in the minority, of a low level of political awareness and culture that leads to intolerance, even a provincial understanding of politics, as an opportunity to primarily prank someone from the opposition camp, and to make political and partial jokes about it.
Such actually help the authorities, unknowingly or knowingly.
Personally, I will continue to advocate for opposition unity, even if it was about defining the minimum of opposition unity. Demos remains open to cooperation with anyone who is active in opposition and seriously on the political scene.
On Friday, when this issue of Monitor is printed, the end of the negotiations is expected. Do you expect that the Agreement for free and fair elections will be signed and that the government will give the opposition control over the most important levers of the electoral process?
The outcome will primarily depend on clear answers from the top authorities. The agreement is potentially possible by fulfilling all the demands of the opposition forces that participated in the dialogue.
Aware of the opposition's responsibility, it was difficult to refuse the initiative offering institutional control of the election process. The opposition has been advocating for such control for a long time. The initiative is strongly supported by the EU, and its high representative regularly attends the parliamentary dialogue.
The sense of responsibility led us to try to define election control. The same sense of responsibility obliges us not to allow the very possible tricks of the government to continue electoral fraud this time by other means. We will certainly not allow that.
Media and ANB are disputed points of negotiations. The arguments of the authorities, as well as part of the public, regarding some of the opposition's demands is that politics should not interfere with personal solutions when it comes to the public service and ANB. What exactly is the opposition looking for?
It is very interesting that the authorities put ANB and the Public Service in the same package when it comes to the rigorous rejection of democratic influence and control over these, at first glance, different activities.
Montesquieu still wrote that power, especially uncontrolled power, narrows. The final consequence, and that happened to us, is the privatization of the state.
There must be no points in society that should not be democratically regulated and publicly controlled. This also applies to ANB and Public Service. There is no democratic solution, and very precisely - there is no Agreement between the opposition and the government without the control of the ANB and personnel changes in the Public Service as a condition for their politically neutral and professional action.
If the negotiations succeed, is it acceptable for Demos to enter the government of electoral confidence, since the URA announced that it will not, and we know that there will be no DF, Democrats?
At this moment, I would limit myself to the possibility of reaching the Agreement, after which, if it is adopted, we should officially talk about personnel solutions. I repeat, we are dealing with opposition cadres with the exclusive mandate to control the regularity of the electoral process in some five months.
In principle, I believe that, in the case of the adoption of the Agreement on the achievement of conditions for fair and free elections, the entire opposition should participate in this control process. This would partly show the unity and maturity of the opposition, which is so much sought after by the citizens. Therefore, it would be about participating with a targeted mandate in an atypical government and institutions, with intensive coordination with the joint headquarters of the opposition parties, which would act maximally actively and unitedly.
Demos is ready for us to take responsibility together, as it will be able to make its autonomous decision on everything based on the real facts that have arisen.
Do you think that this government could really ensure the implementation of fair and free elections, since it is not the first time that the government cedes control over some mechanisms such as state television?
We are well aware that forcing the DPS to hold regular, fair elections can be like chasing the wind.
Due to the wide repertoire of election frauds of the DPS, which as a joint party effort probably culminated in the Snimak affair - the degree of mistrust is high. So big that one has to doubt what was agreed upon.
We consult previous experiences, including the one from 2002, when it was only partially possible to separate the state television from the management from the ruling party. And that experience shows that changing only the editor-in-chief is not enough to achieve the goal of autonomy, professionalism, and free journalism in a news house financed by all citizens.
The part of the opposition that stayed out of the negotiations criticizes the engagement of some of the opposition parties, including Demos, in the parliamentary dialogue, questioning not only the expediency of the negotiations but also the intentions of the opposition. How do you comment on that?
We avoid commenting on the decisions of others in the opposition, even if they were highly commented on by others. The public is there to judge the seriousness of the arguments. The views of Demos are known to the public and we accept the judgment of the public.
It remains an undeniable fact that all the opposition entities, in their own way, advocated for some form of transitional government, which implied negotiations with government representatives.
It is not good if noise and fury, sometimes charlatan labeling, replace arguments and serious public action. Not good for those who do. However, the public should not be underestimated and think that it does not distinguish between serious and non-serious.
Are you working on a plan "B" in case the negotiations fail?
Plan B, as well as plans C and D of Demos, are firmly based on the determination that in all phases of the country's political, economic, and moral trials, our party positions itself with maximum seriousness, oppositional consistency and a sense of public responsibility. We will continue to consistently fight for a decriminalized society, for respect for rights, for a controlled government, for a rational and sustainable economy, for a serious and balanced foreign policy, for a cultured and tolerant society. Based on these principles, our specific moves will depend on the specific situations that have arisen.
How do you evaluate the announcement of elections in Tivat for April this year while the negotiations are ongoing?
The decision of DPS, implemented through Filip Vujanović, to call elections in Tivat for April 17 without considering whether the election conditions have been achieved, in this period represents an irresponsible political act with major political consequences.
Undoubtedly, election laws have not yet been implemented, and that is the fault of the authorities, nor have mechanisms been defined that eliminate the possibility of misuse of state resources. That is why we are negotiating for them to be defined.
This act of scheduling elections in Tivat is not only a rude intrusion into the parliamentary dialogue on building trust, but a direct contribution to the destruction of a possible Agreement on creating conditions for fair and free elections.
What if Đukanović organizes elections with satellites formed in the meantime?
That is a very possible scenario for the government, so going to the elections with satellites - existing and newly formed. The goal would be to simulate the breadth of political participation with false pluralism as a desirable condition for international verification of such elections.
That scenario can also be seen as a preparation of a response to a possible boycott of the election by the opposition as its potentially legitimate choice. That's why we need to seriously analyze all possible political scenarios, and have mature answers to them.
Bonus video:
