Failure to reach an agreement on key issues for Montenegro would be irresponsible for both the government and the opposition, the president of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) said. Rasko Konjević, recalling the messages of international partners who warned of the possibility of blocking negotiations with the European Union (EU).
He said in an interview with "Vijesta" that in the previous two years nothing was done in the process of integration and the opportunity of new international circumstances due to the aggression against Ukraine was not used because the prime minister Dritan Abazovic "gave up the European story and reopened the topics that brought back the divisions".
However, as he says, he believes that in the end they will agree on two topics, the date of the elections and the functionality of the Constitutional Court.
The President of the Assembly announced the continuation of the parliamentary dialogue. Why should we believe that he will have any purpose when every attempt has failed because there is no desire for compromise but only political blackmail?
Failure to reach an agreement would be the irresponsibility of both the government and the opposition. The government bears greater responsibility, it's always like that. Unfortunately, there was no initiative from government representatives for a serious dialogue in these two years. A few sporadic calls, three to be exact. No goal, clear platforms for agreement. Without a sense of responsibility and without the desire to resolve topics that require a qualified majority. SDP repeatedly invited Mr To Alex Bečić and Mrs to Daniel Đurović to start a true dialogue that would lead to solving problems in the judiciary. Today, we are in an unprecedented institutional and political crisis, and now the responsibility of the leadership of the Assembly is additional.
When the SDP led the Assembly, the dialogue was serious, thought out. We managed to amend the Constitution, elect the judges of the Constitutional Court, the Judicial Council, and the Supreme State Prosecutor. All through dialogue and agreement with the then opposition. But we were committed to that, understanding the responsibility of the authorities and the Assembly in such processes. Today, unfortunately, the President of the Assembly thinks that it is enough to send an invitation. It's not. Nevertheless, I believe that in the end we will agree on two topics, the date of the elections and the functionality of the Constitutional Court. And the other questions seem more realistic to me, after the election.
Under what conditions would an agreement be possible regarding the election of judges of the Constitutional Court? Even before, the parties pushed their candidates, but far from the public eye, including SDP and SNP.
Before, it was not far from the public eye, but very publicly, in the parliament. In competent committees, at the Collegium, thematic working groups and at leadership meetings. This is how the Constitution was changed and the agreement regarding the judges of the Constitutional Court and the members of the Judicial Council was reached. This is how we reached a 3/5 majority for VDT as well, through dialogue with the opposition. SDP then proposed Mr Miodrag Ilickovic. The public knew about his long-term party activism. But also for the authority, integrity and knowledge to be a judge of the Constitutional Court. He was the vice-president of the SDP for many years. Today, his work as a judge, after almost a decade, is positively evaluated by the public.
Therefore, let's support candidates of the profile of Miodrag Iličković, for whom the Constitution and the law have always been above party affiliation, and the agreement will be simple. The SDP voted, for example, for a member of the Prosecutor's Council, Mr Sinisha Gazivodu although we did not suggest it. We have no problem voting for professional people of professional integrity.
Could it be possible for Montenegro to break off negotiations on EU accession in January, or do you think that we are being slapped more on the fingers to get serious?
The messages from international partners are clear. The implementation of the obviously unconstitutional Law on the President, contrary to the opinion of the Venice Commission, would bring the country to the brink of political isolation. The reason is clear. If you want to be part of integration processes, if the rule of law is one of the key conditions, you cannot elect a government based on an unconstitutional law. We warned against adopting such a law, against sending a bad message to European partners. It is clear that the government so elected would be in international isolation, and the damage to the state and its reputation would be enormous. In these two years, nothing was done in the integration process.
The chance of new international circumstances due to the aggression against Ukraine was not used. That "window of opportunity", as the Europeans told us, was a chance for Montenegro. This is why a minority government was formed, with the support of 46 deputies. It was realistic to reach 3/5, the support of only three MPs was missing. But Abazović gave up on the European story and reopened the topics that brought back divisions. Issues of the Basic Treaty and the Open Balkans. Today, we could have had the final benchmarks for chapters 23 and 24, and instead, because the European agenda has been abandoned, we have the threat of a break in the negotiations. It is my belief, from contacts with partners, that the response to the formation of a government based on this law would also lead to a formal termination of negotiations.
What if that happens, how many years do we go back or will we just have financial consequences?
It would take us back ten years. We have lost the last two years. And in the period 2016-2020. more had to be done. We have not yet met the interim benchmarks for key chapters 23 and 24, thus qualifying for the final benchmarks. Now this "political unconstitutional rampage" with the Law on the President and the election of a new government would almost return the country to the beginning of the process. Because the message that you elect a government contrary to the Constitution is the message that you do not care about the rule of law, but about constitutional violence. Such countries cannot be a credible partner of the EU and its member states.
Your party has decided to run independently in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Is the reason for that a bad result in the local elections, where you participated in a coalition with the DPS?
We will run independently in the elections. We think it's the best model. We do not want to carry other people's burdens and bad decisions, and we are ready to answer for our mistakes. SDP has been in the opposition for seven years. It turned out that our warnings, in that period when we left the Government at the end of 2015, were correct. We said that the state is slipping into a way of governing that is not in accordance with democratic practices, that party decisions cannot be stronger than institutions, that we need strong and independent institutions, not party-controlled ones, that individuals have lost their measure under the protection of the party, etc. . All these things led to changes in 2020.
Some did not recognize bad practices in time, but thought that with the power of the party they would be able to hide deviations. That is a fallacy. As in life, invoices always come due. Changes were inevitable because, as our people would say, "the gift exceeded the measure". But, unfortunately, those changes in these two years did not bring essential reforms. Greater political will has been created to fight crime and corruption, but it is not enough. There are no essential steps forward, many bad practices have continued, some even deepened. The result of the local elections was bad in Podgorica. It is obvious that the joint opposition list is not a successful model. In other environments it is different. SDP is now part of the government in Bar, Bijelo Polje, Plav, Ulcinj, after seven years of opposition activity. In Cetinje, we lead the city with the Old Guard of LSCG.
Will the SDP return to social democratic, civil politics, which has been lost in the nationalist politics of the last two years?
You could have offered some argument for the lightly stated claim, which is not true. This is how you reminded me, with your question, for a moment, of the journalistic truths and scope of Pobjeda or RTCG from the beginning of the nineties. The SDP has been dedicated to civil Montenegro since its foundation, just as it is today. But that does not mean that we should be silent when someone's rights are denied, national feelings are insulted, identity is denied. If that is nationalism for you, for us it is an elementary right to defend the dignity and identity of Montenegro and national Montenegrins. But also the rights of Bosniaks and others against whom, after the August changes, you very often have public threats. Just as in the nineties we defended the rights of minority peoples when they were denied.
Therefore, the story about Montenegrin nationalism and the SDP as its political wing is true just as much as the DF is committed to the Western political value system, Montenegro's membership in NATO or the protection of the rights of the LGBT population. Today we are being attacked by DF for nationalism. That speaks volumes. It is clear which policy was on trial in The Hague. Today, followers of such a policy would invent Montenegrin nationalism.
In the announcement from the session of the Presidency, where you decided to run independently in the elections, you also mentioned a unique non-party presidential candidate. Were you in the mood for that in DPS?
You have to ask the DPS leaders that. SDP announced its position. We think that the model of a non-partisan personality could unite political subjects of civic, European orientation, intellectuals, organizations, associations... If there is no interest in that, then it is logical that we think about our candidate in the presidential elections.
The possibility of Milica Pejanović Đurišić strengthening your ranks was mentioned earlier. Are there any other thoughts on that topic, would it be a good compromise?
Professor Pejanović-Đurišić would have my support. I also trust the SDP. I am sure of the Western partners as well, considering the reputation it has. She would be an excellent president of the country. He has been out of party life for a long time, almost 20 years.
What do you think about the proposal that the presidential and parliamentary elections be held on the same day? It is financially more rational, but is it politically more profitable for anyone?
I have nothing against the idea. If this is a condition for the agreement, to reach the date of the election of judges of the Constitutional Court, then I do not see why we could not agree to have the elections on the same day.
What do your coalition partners think about it, were there any discussions on that topic?
We are the opposition, you cannot have coalition partners in the opposition. Coalitions are made when you are in power. If you mean what are the views of other opposition parties, I don't know them. We did not have the issue of the presidential elections as a topic of conversation.
The issue of cigarette smuggling is a topic for political bribery, and there is no mention of the indictment against the head of state in Italy, which was not prosecuted because he was protected by immunity, his connections with a controversial Serbian businessman also linked to smuggling. Đukanović's admission that smuggling was a state business in order for the state to survive economically for a period, the visible wealth of certain former officials, police officials... Given the position of Minister of the Interior that you held in the DPS government, do you feel responsible for that, because now it turns out that GP URA officials came up with smuggling?
It is not a topic for political pocket-money. That is a topic for competent institutions. And let SDT deal with everyone's roles and actions. We are all equal before the law. We gave public support to SDT, after the last session of the presidency, in all cases believing that the Constitution and the law will be the measure of their work. The URA did not come up with cigar smuggling, we agree on that. According to the prosecution, its officials only formed a criminal organization that dealt with it. I stand by the assertions I made in mid-October at the session of the Security Committee.
Then I said yes Milosevic works should be arrested because he organized the smuggling of cigars with a criminal group, that 90% of the contingents that were allegedly "burned" were smuggled, and that the media performance of the "burning" was only a mask for their smuggling. I also said that Mr. Abazović knew about Milošević's actions. The Prosecutor's Office confirmed with its work several of my views expressed at the time. Just remember how Milošević, when he was free, and Abazović and Filip Adzic claimed that they were having an affair.
Falsely accusing me of sponsoring smuggling, they faked the "lighting" of cigarettes and wanted to create a perfect alibi in public. But everything came back to them like a boomerang. Now those who "lighted" cigarettes with him are washing their hands of Milošević. Apparently they didn't know anything. This is just as true as Abazović can't remember who offered him a bribe of 21 million because he met a lot of people and forgot. Now that Milosevic is a suspect, their only concern is that he doesn't talk about cigars and Abazović's encrypted phone.
You always have a responsibility when you are in public office. The reminder you made is from the mid-nineties or immediately after the referendum, but again related to events from the time of the single DPS. Those procedures have been legally terminated. I was not involved in politics then, so I cannot be responsible for those actions.
I will remind you of another example where I have responsibility. You remember how many names I was called in 2014 regarding voter lists. URA and DF were in the lead. That there are 50.000 phantoms in it, that it is organized crime, etc... The government of Krivokapić formed a commission to investigate all that. It was headed by Abazović. You know what they found in two years? Nothing. Now they keep quiet about it. Zoran Miljanic and Milošević in the MUP "combed" every tender from my mandate. And let them be. That they did not find any illegality? Miljanić is "lost", you can no longer see him even on a 55-inch TV, and Milošević is preoccupied with other obligations.
Abazović tried to present himself as a victim of an allegedly arranged affair
Did you submit the document that you posted on Twitter about Abazović's involvement in cigarette smuggling to the SDT, since when did you have it and why did you make it publicly available only now?
I made it publicly available the moment its key content was proven correct. I wanted him to get confirmation in SDT activities first. And that is that Milosevic, according to the well-founded suspicion of the prosecution, organized a criminal group for cigarette smuggling.
The key is whether the other information and findings in that document are correct, not how and when I got it and why it was published. I have reason to believe that the allegations therein are correct. Let it be checked. And the rest of the document is very interesting. It coincides in many respects with the evidence stated in the investigation order issued by the prosecution. Abazović fired Savo Kentera and me, trying to present himself and Milošević as victims of an allegedly rigged affair. In vain.
Increasing spending based on borrowing is always wrong
Do you consider the state budget sustainable in 2023 and the "Europe Now" program?
The coming year will show. I wouldn't prejudge. The fact that you have enormously increased public spending, and that you will largely finance it by borrowing, is always a wrong decision. The decision to borrow 50 million at a rate of 7,5%, and at the same time announce the need for borrowing in the next year of 500 million with this budget structure will surely raise the interest rate by one percentage point. See the warnings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The Government's behavior seems to me like when you go to the bank, take a loan, go to Delta and spend it. You have a pleasant feeling until the loan comes to be repaid. That's when your "head hurts". I am afraid that our headache, to put it metaphorically, will not be constant.
Bonus video:
