Although it restored its statehood exactly 19 years ago, Montenegro has still not managed to free itself from external pressures and influences, economic uncertainty, and divisions that deeply divide its society, so it is questionable whether it can be said to be, in addition to being independent, a sovereign country.
With these words, the interlocutors of "Vijesti" answer the questions of how capable Montenegro is today of independently, without influence from the neighborhood or the international community, making important decisions regarding state policy and the economy, and whether, despite formal independence, it has a sufficiently functional system with strong institutions that confirm its sovereignty in reality.
Some Montenegrin political actors claim that many important decisions in the country are made under the strong influence of Western embassies, while others say that the strongest influence on internal affairs comes from Belgrade, and therefore Moscow.
In terms of influence from the West, the question arises as to how much sovereignty is affected by Montenegro's membership in NATO, of which the country has been a part since 2017, and by negotiations with the European Union (EU), of which Montenegro wants to become a member.
In addition, the issue of the economic sovereignty of the state, whose economy depends largely on imports and foreign borrowing, is also open, which, according to some experts, further complicates the capacity for independent decision-making.
In the referendum held on May 21, 2006, 55,5 percent of citizens, or 230.661 of them, voted for the return of statehood, while 44,5 percent, or 185.002, voted for the survival of the union with Serbia.
The referendum was preceded by many turbulent events of the 1990s, which began with the bloody breakup of Yugoslavia and when the idea of an independent Montenegro was supported by a small percentage of the population. However, this changed towards the end of those years, when the then unified Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) split and when that party, led by Milo Đukanović, turned her back on the then president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) Slobodan Milosevic.
A house without a host
For the Vice President and MP of the DPS Ivan Vuković, the terms "sovereignty" and "independence" reveal, he says, the difference between how Montenegro functioned as a state before August 30, 2020, when his party's government was removed, and how it functions after that date.
He claims that it is evident that Montenegro's sovereign right to decide for itself has been called into question and that the current ruling majority, "trying less and less convincingly to justify this by criticizing the former DPS government and coalition partners", almost without exception "openly serves other people's interests". In this way, Vuković states, Montenegro, "which is proud of its millennial tradition of statehood", is classified in the category of countries that, in their immediate surroundings and in the wider political space, formally independent, do not have the ability to make the most important political decisions in full capacity and with sovereignty.
"That's why today we have a president (Jakov Milatović) who admires (the President of Serbia) Aleksandar Vučić because of his knowledge of wine, or rather the President of the Assembly (Andrija Mandić") who humbly turns off the sound on his mobile phone after his (Vučić's) public admonition. I am sure that the day is not far off when we will politically defeat this inferior consciousness and petty interests, that is, restore sovereignty to our country, as befits its glorious history and as our European future demands," he told "Vijesti".
Vuković said that the restoration of independence in 2006 created the basic assumptions for citizens to freely and independently decide on their political destiny. This, according to him, is the essence of what happened 19 years ago, adding that the possibility of independent decision-making represents a true political privilege in a world where, he says, many significantly larger social communities struggle to realize this democratic right, most often without much prospect of success.
However, he estimates that after the political changes of 2020, the opportunity to make political decisions about Montenegro was given to "people whose experience of May 21st is completely different."
"Their political worldview is based on an inferiority complex, or rather the belief that our country is insufficiently capable of taking care of itself. Hence the numerous examples of state-wise irresponsible, and in fact politically infantile and, in relation to our northern neighbor (Serbia), hopelessly inferior behavior of Montenegrin officials over the past half decade," claims an official of the party that led the Movement for Independence.
According to him, such an attitude of the new majority also determines state policy in the area of European and Euro-Atlantic integration.
"Instead of 'seizing the opportunity' that presented itself to us after the radical change in geopolitical circumstances caused by the Russian aggression against Ukraine, and even more strongly profiling Montenegro as a reliable ally within NATO and, soon, the first next EU member state, the highest Montenegrin representatives are acting unworthy of the historical moment, incompetent and, in some cases, extremely ill-intentioned towards state and national interests," the interlocutor states.
The 2020 national elections marked the first time that the government in Montenegro was changed by election. After 31 years of rule, the DPS went into opposition, and the new ruling majority was agreed upon by the parties of the then Democratic Front (DF), the Democrats and the Civic Movement URA, along with smaller coalition allies. The former DF and Democrats are also part of the current government, led by the Europe Now Movement (PES), which has since been formed and is led by the Prime Minister Milojko Spajic.
Asked how he sees the role of international actors in the internal political life of Montenegro, and where the line is between support and influence on decision-making processes, Vuković replies that in the years behind us, Montenegro, figuratively speaking, "acts like a house without a host, with wide open doors and windows, through which one enters and exits as one pleases."
"Namely, under the leadership of DPS and coalition partners, despite all the criticism of their government, Montenegro was a respected and equal partner to the countries of the region and the wider international community. Following the clear priorities of building good neighborly relations, strengthening the Euro-Atlantic alliance and opening a European perspective for Montenegro, the then political elite independently made key political and foreign policy decisions, above all taking into account the interests of our country. After all, the 2006 referendum itself took place despite, and not in accordance with, the political will of the majority of our traditional partners," he reminds.
The European Union was initially against the idea of Montenegrin independence, but as the referendum approached, that began to change. A Slovak diplomat confirmed this to "Vijesti" last year. Miroslav Lajcak, who was the EU's special envoy for the implementation of the referendum. Lajčák said that the EU initially supported the survival of the union of Serbia and Montenegro, but that when negotiations began on the accession of the common state to the Union, it became clear that the structure of the economies of Serbia and Montenegro was different, that it was quite difficult to agree on a model of negotiations that would suit both, etc.
Vuković announced that at this moment, while part of the ruling majority gathered around Mandić "blindly follows the interests of official Belgrade and indirectly Moscow", a number of so-called Western allies are trying to neutralize their, as he claims, "malignant influence in the security sector and on the broader political plane".
"Instead of Prime Minister Spajić, who even after two years has not understood what his job actually is, or rather the president of the state who, at the end of last year, lost all political credibility after it became obvious in what way and on whose behalf he makes key political decisions," said Vuković, alluding to the decision of President Milatović, close to the Movement for Podgorica, to form a government in Podgorica with PES, Democrats and parties of the former DF at the end of the year, instead of with DPS, as expected.
When asked whether Montenegro has a sufficiently functional legal and political system with independent institutions that confirm the sovereignty of the state in practice, Vuković replied that building institutions is a process that requires time and favorable socio-political conditions.
"Institutions are not abstract creations that function alongside, or regardless of, the environment in which they arise and develop, as one might conclude based on the frequent comments of those who criticize the DPS government for 'not building institutions'. After all, the recent political experience of the oldest and most consolidated European and world democracies teaches us that, just like the democratic development of a society, the work of building institutions never ends, and that there is always a risk of their weakening and political abuse," he says.
He notes that in a country with "a modest democratic tradition and a very turbulent political history", such as Montenegro, institutional development depends to an even greater extent on the attitude of socio-political actors towards the process. In this sense, he adds, the actions of the ruling parties after the political changes of 2020 "should concern every responsible citizen".
"As a consequence of the systematic political persecution of professionals in the state administration, massive party recruitment, irreparable loss of institutional memory, evident decline in professional standards, astonishing inaction and almost caricatured ignorance, we are witnessing the destruction of institutions that, to some extent, 'took root' in the post-referendum period," he claims.
Who "benefited" from independence?
Former leader of the People's Party, which was part of the unionist bloc, Predrag Popovic, assessed that Montenegro regained full state independence in the 2006 referendum, but that it essentially lost its independence.
"Montenegro was independent about a hundred years ago, so it was not a taboo topic. The problem was the content of that new independent Montenegro, based on the negation of everything that adorned the then independent Montenegro. Our main motto was - 'Montenegro is not for sale' Why? Precisely because we were afraid that its future fate would be decided at the addresses that were the mentors of that new Montenegrin independence," he told "Vijesti".
He stated that the fight against organized crime, corruption, disrespect for institutions and “many other anomalies” have only hypertrophied. He added that after the referendum, political elites used independence to preserve their authority and power, and that “it is incredible how much they glorified servility towards the so-called collective West as the supreme ideal of their rule.”
"In return, they benefited greatly. That was the price. Independence paid off. Not for the benefit of the state, but for the benefit of that so-called elite," the interviewee claims.
Asked how independent Montenegro is in making important decisions, Popović responds by saying that "the interpretation of the new government is nothing more than voluntary acceptance of a classic colonial, or vassal, relationship."
"Narratives have changed. The new government has, however, at least in some segments of domestic policy, shown that it thinks 'with its own head', but, to be honest, the main directions of foreign policy have remained exactly the same. They do not make any decisions independently," he notes.
Asked whether the identity divisions that polarize society are a strategy of the post-referendum government or a consequence of the lack of mutual dialogue, Popović replies that "there is both."
"The authorities at the time did not want dialogue, because that would have required them to agree to some compromises, especially regarding the adoption of a new Constitution, from which all citizens of Montenegro would benefit. The winners of the referendum wanted to create an environment by force of majority, in which only those who were in favor of independence would be questioned, and relegated us to the status of second-class citizens," said the interlocutor, adding that such a policy "was dominant until the 2020 elections."
"Well, that's gone. At least not to that extent. Hence the verbal replay from the referendum about Montenegro being threatened by Serbs and Serbia. The same 'music', the same 'musicians'. But there's not as much 'audience' anymore. The sooner they accept the new reality, the better it will be for them, and for all of us," the interviewee says.
Part of the ruling majority is seeking to change the highest legal act to give the Serbian language official status, and is advocating changes to citizenship regulations to introduce dual citizenship with Serbia. They justify their position that this should be done without a broader social consensus by saying that for three decades, the DPS has been making decisions on important issues without seeking consensus with the opposition.
Speaking about the difference between sovereignty and independence, Predrag Popović says that independence is just a form...
"You have the prerogatives of statehood, but decisions are made by others, or by you, but with the prior consent of others. Is there a better example than Bosnia and Herzegovina? Or even the EU. Formally, it is an alliance of independent states, but essentially a protectorate of supranational bureaucrats from the Brussels administration... Sovereignty implies independence in running the state and making decisions in accordance with one's own interests. This does not mean isolationism, but it implies that running the state belongs to the citizens of that state. Globalism is the counterbalance to sovereignty," said Popović.
Voters legalize "underground crime"
Pisac Nikola Nikolic He told "Vijesti" that he sees independence as "a sublimation of simple legal and political facts", and that sovereignty is "something deeper, more essential".
"Independence is externality, sovereignty - a building material. Which, in our case, is quite porous, malleable. And it cannot boast of any immunity," he assessed.
Nikolić states that the fundamental problem of the Montenegrin state is that it is not based on legitimate institutions, adding that the supreme principles are partitocracy and nepotism, instead of knowledge, expertise, and healthy competitiveness.
"For example, the former primitive forms of government had much greater legitimacy. The bishop made state decisions with the most prominent leaders. I, who follow politics, who have studied it, do not know at least a third of the current ministers. Who are these strange people, where did they come from in the public sphere, what are they talking about, how exactly did they deserve to perform the most important state tasks, how did they prove themselves, to whom? Voters do not choose. They only legalize a specific, secret type of crime, which parasitically sucks the life juices of this already anemic society," he said.
When asked how he interprets the fact that Montenegrin independence continues to cause divisions in society, Nikolić replies that there is still a strong school of thought in Montenegro according to which Montenegrin independence is "something temporary, abnormal, deeply wrong."
"It is represented by those who foolishly belittle their own homeland, perceiving it as a mere address. As a toponym, a subcategory of something bigger, broader, cultivated in the wet dreams of chauvinistic myth-mongers," he said.
This, according to him, is the result of personal political ignorance, and then "some strange kind of Adonis complex, but certainly also the neighbors' big-state projects, zombie-like resistant, fueled from time to time."
"After Montenegro was practically wiped out in 1918 in a rarely seen, horrific act of trampling on rights and historical facticity, the opponents of its statehood should finally realize that they have been working to their own detriment all along, erasing their own dignity, hypnotized into the role of useful idiots of someone else's perverse desires," the interlocutor emphasizes.
The conditions for sovereign fiscal policy did not even exist
When it comes to issues of sovereignty and the economy, it faces the challenges of high public debt and significant dependence on imports. According to data from the Ministry of Finance, total public debt at the end of last year amounted to 4,573 billion euros, which represents 61,32 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Montenegro's external debt at the end of 2024 amounted to 4,183 billion euros, and internal debt amounted to 331,3 million euros.
According to the same information, in terms of foreign trade, Montenegro exported goods worth 2024 million euros in the period from January to July 330,8, while imports amounted to 2,336 billion euros. This means that imports were seven times higher than exports, and the coverage of imports by exports was only 14,2 percent.
Economist and President of the Montenegrin Employers' Association (CUP) Vasilije Kostić, assesses for "Vijesti" that the way the Montenegrin economy functions is aimed at economic survival, not sustainable growth, and, he states, the fact that such an approach is presented as a success and affirmed as the right path in front of the public is particularly negative.
"The issue of the efficiency of the system is not being considered, but rather the issue of economic survival. Its sustainability in the true sense of the word, which implies growth, development, progress, while preserving the natural environment, is not being considered. In this way, the public, as a significant corrective factor in economic policy (and everything that happens in society), has the wrong focus, because if the public's interest were centered on the economic efficiency of the system, and not its survival, the system would probably be far more efficient than it is now, because the government would have to answer unpleasant questions," the interviewee explains.
Kostić said that it is not essential whether a country has a strong or weak production base, but rather the level of productivity with which a certain activity is performed. He argues that in this way the country becomes more competitive, because in a globalized economy, competitiveness is an essential response to challenges.
"Of course, this does not mean that we should not develop the manufacturing industry in sectors where we have the potential for it. But unfortunately, we do not have an industrial policy, we do not yet know what is most important for us and what is necessary for us. There is no discussion about this because we are preoccupied with social populism for the sake of political interest," said Kostić.
It states that no country can be self-sufficient or sovereign in a strictly economic sense, but that it can be more or less sovereign, or more or less vulnerable.
"A position of stronger resistance to external events, or increased economic independence or sovereignty, is achieved through well-designed development strategies that strengthen the performance of one's own economy, its potential, its capacities, and not in the short term, but in very long terms that essentially constitute the continuity of socio-economic development," he notes.
Asked whether he thinks Montenegro is capable of independently conducting a successful fiscal policy, Kostić responds that the conditions for a sovereign fiscal policy did not exist, and that even much healthier economies do not have the conditions for a high degree of sovereignty.
"Our institutional capacity is more than questionable, but it is not just the sin of this government. It is an inherited condition that, unfortunately, has been passed on and deepened for decades. Each government is limited by the achievements and results of the previous one, and none of them started with what is called a 'tabula rasa'. Figuratively speaking, the frame for the picture was made before the picture was painted, so it had to adapt to it," the interviewee says.
Nikolić: Cultural identity on glass legs
Speaking about the cultural identity of the state, as well as the role of literature and art in it, Nikola Nikolić points out that Montenegrin culture is "undefined, dissolute and disoriented", and that it "mostly does not know where to strike".
"We can hardly talk about cultural identity if you have to be careful not to have stones thrown at your head when visiting Žabljak Crnojević, a first-class cultural and historical sensation. If tragicomically small amounts of money are allocated for culture. If our cultural institutions are armed with semi-literate slobs. Then it is completely 'small business' for politicians to slander it when they feel like it and feed their voracious campaign appetites with it," says the writer.
He stated that art is not an everyday necessity, but a matter of "occasional consumerist outbursts," and that it is incapable of changing major things.
"It stays in a small circle, where we then tap each other on the shoulder and throw chewed-up bits at each other," the interviewee concludes.
Vuković: Populists are counting on the disappointed
When asked how important building citizens' trust in institutions is for maintaining sovereignty, Ivan Vuković answers that the loss of trust in them, the political system, the so-called mainstream parties, and even democracy itself represents one of the greatest political challenges of our time.
He says this has resulted in a continued growth in support for populist parties.
"Which, by criticizing the political establishment and promising 'easy solutions' to complex social problems, are increasingly changing the political map of the Western world. Political phenomena of this kind are particularly problematic in young democracies such as Montenegro," he said.
Vuković said that this is also evidenced by the attitude of the leader (Spajić) and senior officials of the ruling PES towards the Constitution, laws and procedures on which the democratic order in our country is based.
"I fear that with politically motivated criticism of practically everything related to the state authorities of Montenegro from the time of DPS dominance, many have, consciously or unconsciously, created a very wide space for maneuver for populist movements such as PES," the vice president of the strongest opposition party assesses.
Kostić: Economic efficiency is a condition for social justice
When asked how realistic it is to expect Montenegro to achieve a balance between economic efficiency and social justice in the near future, given the structure of public spending and market dependence, Vasilije Kostić replied that social justice cannot be meaningfully discussed without economic efficiency, so it is logical that the condition for social justice is economic efficiency.
"Given the worldview of our politicians, that political interest dominates over everything else at all costs, it is unlikely that we will see any kind of balance between social spending and the efficiency of the system in the near future. After all, such a concept, spending at the expense of economic efficiency, is the source of all our problems," he claims.
Kostić says that reversing such a trend will be possible when the view of reality changes.
"When political elites put the long-term interests of society ahead of personal interests, and when the public does not approve of politicians' moves that are aimed at the short term, even if it is for the benefit of the public, it is primarily because that is what matters most," the economist concludes.
Bonus video:
