When the Government stops hiding from the public some important decisions it makes and when it starts publishing documents about it, it will be less important whether its sessions are open or closed.
This was said by the interlocutors of "Vijesti", speaking about the transparency of the work of Montenegrin governments, after the cabinet Milojko Spajić canceled the broadcasts of executive power sessions immediately upon election.
Live broadcasts, on television and YouTube, were introduced by the previous government, which he headed Dritan Abazovic. Although some disputed that move, claiming that the sessions serve for political marketing, sometimes the views of the constituents of the government on important issues could be heard at them, which is not the case now. However, there were generally no press conferences after the sessions.
The Spajić government's decision to close the sessions, i.e. cancel the broadcasts, was criticized by a part of the parties and the civil sector, saying that it is a step backwards and that it will make it difficult for the public to be directly informed about the government's work.
The Government claims that the open sessions did not contribute to transparency, and that is why they were replaced by press conferences.
It is necessary to know what the Government decides
Public policy researcher at the NGO Institute of Alternatives (IA) Marko Sosic, assesses that there are a number of documents from the sessions of the Government and its working bodies that should be published, and that this is a true guarantee of openness - significantly more than opening the sessions to the public.
He therefore says that, first of all, it is necessary to change the decision on the publication of materials from the sessions, which, he points out, is a decade old and ripe for amendment.
"The agenda of the Government must be published in its entirety, which includes documents that are classified as classified. "Citizens must know what the Government discussed and decided on, even in the case when the material is confidential, at least through the name of the document", Sošić explains to "Vijesti".
However, Spajić's government does not practice this. On the agenda of several of its sessions, there were items marked internal, without information on what they refer to. "Vijesti" from the Government expects an answer to the question of what was the content of those points.
The Government announced to "Vijesta" at the beginning of December that they had made three decisions marked with the degree of secrecy.
Since October 31, when it was elected, the government has held six regular and three telephone sessions. On its website (gov.me), announcements of the sessions were published the day before, with information on when they will start and whether there will be a media conference. Five press events have been held so far.
Agenda proposals were published several hours before the beginning of the sessions, with the exception of the agenda of the constitutive session. The announcements from the sessions could be found on the website a few hours after they ended, with the materials discussed.
The report from the telephone session held on November 17 was published three days later, while the announcements from the remaining two such sessions were published on the same day they were held.
That only Spajić's cabinet does not hide what it decides on is evidenced by the behavior of previous governments.
Sošić reminds that the government is working on the last two Zdravka Krivokapića and Abazović, about five percent of all items on the agenda were completely hidden, i.e. that the names of those points were not published.
"Those parts were deleted from the minutes, and the public part of the session ended before the members of the government discussed those points," says Šošić.
The government told "Vijesti" that, according to the data of their General Secretariat, Abazović's cabinet adopted 127 decisions marked as classified. However, they did not want to say how many such decisions were made by Krivokpić's government, even though they were asked.
When it comes to the Government Duško Marković, who governed the state until the arrival of Krivokapić, the data of some NGOs show that during her mandate, about 20 percent of the decisions at the sessions were marked as secret.
Sošić emphasizes that it is also important that documents are published regardless of the format of the session, and that this is especially important because during the term of office of the Krivokapić government there were twice as many electronic sessions as regular sessions (148 versus 67), and that almost none of the electronic sessions were published. documentation.
"It is necessary for the public to have basic information about the work of the four permanent working bodies of the Government, which are now completely closed. Our struggle to find out how the commission of the Government of Duško Marković distributed the budget reserve ended when we found out that all the documentation was destroyed, and the General Secretariat at the time did not allow us access to even the basic data", says the interlocutor.
They hide contracts, earnings data...
Lazar Grdinić from the NGO Network for the Affirmation of the Non-Governmental Sector (MANS) says that after the change of government three years ago, there were increased public expectations that "chronic non-transparency" would be removed, but that the previous two governments did not have enough political will for the radical reforms that would entail opening key databases.
"Thus, the public still does not have access to concrete information regarding the construction of the highway, as well as documentation regarding numerous privatizations," he adds.
Grdinić states that certain bodies in the state and local administration, state companies, but also other obligees of the Law on Free Access to Information, have continued to hide data that is within the scope of their work, thus rendering meaningless any control role of the public, the media and the civil sector, and making the necessary reforms in that area difficult.
He explains that, in this sense, Abazović's government declared information secret, obscured documents, and that information that was once available to the public was and is being hidden. He emphasizes that this has lowered the standard in the field of transparency, "even compared to the time of DPS rule".
As an example, the interlocutor cites the fact that Abazović is hiding the information published by the media - that Elektroprivreda Srbije (EPS) terminated the contract for the purchase and sale of brown lignite coal with the Pljevlja Coal Mine, justifying it as a trade secret.
"Ultimately, the consulting contracts of the national airline 'To Montenegro' are still secret, and it is not possible to find out how much they earn in the management of state-owned companies," says Grdinić for "Vijesti".
He therefore assesses that the open sessions of Abazović's government were basically a good idea, but that in practice they turned into "continuous self-promotion of the former prime minister and several ministers", because all important decisions were made behind closed doors.
"We had nothing to hide"
Abazović told "Vijesta" that the fact that he opened the sessions is the best indicator of the immediacy and good intentions of his government that the general public be informed about every decision of public interest, and that it was a message that they had nothing to hide.
Commenting on the fact that his government made 127 "secret" decisions, the former prime minister said that this is less than 2,5 percent of the total considered materials, considering that, he claims, they dealt with over 5.000 different issues.
"The degree of secrecy in 99 percent of cases was a legal obligation from the departments of defense, internal affairs, finance, capital investments, economy, and much less from other departments," Abazović pointed out, noting that the majority of those decisions have an "internal" character, for which secrecy is valid for 12 months, which means that in some cases that mark can already be removed.
He criticized the move to close the sessions, saying that Spajić's transparency "is similar, if not the same, to that of the governments Milo Đukanović and Duško Marković".
Presses instead of transfers
The Government told "Vijesti" that the live broadcast of the sessions "for the most part corresponded with tendencies that essentially have no elements of transparency", adding that this has been confirmed in practice on several occasions.
"The decision was made to replace the aforementioned approach with press conferences after the sessions when the agenda of the Government session requires it", they stated, adding that in this way, media representatives will be able to "get the necessary information about the most important decisions made in direct contact with the members of the Government at the session".
However, there were no conferences after each session, and the Government did not answer why.
A respected journalist and editor Dragoljub Duško Vuković, says that after the fall of DPS from power, essentially nothing has changed in terms of transparency, and that the new governments have not made any progress in terms of informing the public in a quality way about what they are doing.
"It is not only important to know that a decision has been made, it is important to know who benefits from that decision and whether that benefit is visible. This is the only way to control the executive power", he pointed out for "Vijesti".
Popularity, not transparency
Vuković states that the basis of the story about the openness of government sessions was to gain popularity, not transparency. He recalls the experience of monitoring the sessions of the Federal Executive Council (SIV) in the late eighties, and says that they were "somewhat more serious" than the sessions of Abazović's Government.
"What was specific about the Executive Council during the time of socialism and the one-party system was that different voices about some things were expressed in a similar way as they are expressed in the multi-party system, only they did not have that different ideological coloring, because everything was within the framework of one ideology," he explains.
That's why Vuković says that the executive power should be open, and that the question of the format is how it will be achieved. He adds that he thinks that the sessions should be opened for journalists, and that a "serious press center" should be created from which the media will be able to follow the sessions.
"And all those that journalists show interest in should meet in the press center and answer questions. The press center should have all the materials that are relevant and that should be made available to the public, except for those documents that are under a certain degree of secrecy," the interlocutor underlines.
Vuković's opinion is shared by the editor and longtime journalist of TV Vijesti Danijela Lasic, who says that the opening of the sessions was a great idea, but that they were very often used as a promotional platform. He believes that the Government should open sessions when discussing topics that are important to the public.
"Such as some important laws, whether the Brskovo mine should be opened, what will happen to Željezara, how will we solve the issue of education... But to be closed when discussing some technical matters, because I think it's just a waste of time - both theirs and ours," Lasica told "Vijesta".
She points out that the aggravating circumstance for journalists was the absence of press conferences after the sessions of Abazović's cabinet.
"They said what they thought at the sessions, and that was it. So it's a double-edged sword," adds Lasica.
The interlocutor believes that the current government's approach is not good either, and that it is necessary to strike a balance.
"In my opinion, it would be best if there was a press conference after each Government session, and more ministers appeared at it and journalists could ask whatever they wanted," concludes Lasica.
Broadcasts in Croatia, not in Serbia and Slovenia
In most countries of the region, government sessions are closed to the public, Croatia being an exception.
In the law on the government of that country, it is written that the sessions are public and that the government can decide whether the session, that is, the discussion on certain items on the agenda, will be held without the public. The sessions can be followed live on the official YouTube channel of the Croatian Government.
The Rules of Procedure of the Government of Serbia state that meetings are closed to the public unless otherwise specified, and the same is stated in the Rules of Procedure of the Government of Slovenia.
According to the Law on the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), the executive body of that state, that body itself ensures the publicity of the work, and the media from BiH evaluated its work as "non-transparent".
Sošić: The General Secretariat hid information for a long time
Marko Sošić says that the General Secretariat, which responds to requests for access to information, is important for the openness of the government.
"That government center has long been one of the least transparent institutions, and it was only during the mandate of the previous government that it finally started responding to requests and created its own website. It would be important to continue this practice".
Šošić says that he believes that when these conditions are met, it will be less important whether the Government sessions will be open to the public or not.
"The possibility that journalists can ask questions and ask for more detailed explanations after the session is also a useful instrument of openness. Public meetings of the government can sometimes turn into a performance for the public and the opposite of essential openness".
Tweets instead of replies
Duško Vuković and Danijela Lasica assess that the problem that journalists are now facing is the communication of officials through the social network Iks (formerly Twitter).
Lasica says that this practice is bad for journalism, and that it is very frivolous to inform the public that way.
"They record themselves, send us a statement - this is disastrous for journalism and the public, because they only send what they think is necessary, there are no questions, sub-questions, we cannot know anything more than what they want us to know. Let's not talk about the fact that it is very frivolous to inform the public via a tweet about some important issue that we need to know".
Vuković states that the media in that case is "just an extended arm of political marketing".
"In theory, this is known as 'spoofed' information, which PR services and the actors themselves 'spoof' to journalists. A responsible policy must provide passability on that other channel, so that you can ask. PR services are counting on exactly that - the media's laziness and understaffing".
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
