Laws test the seams of government: What are the frictions between the constituents of the ruling majority?

The sudden withdrawal of the draft law on the National Security Agency (NSA) and on internal affairs from the agenda of the Parliament session the day before yesterday, after friction between the constituents of the ruling majority over their failure to vote on the amnesty act, shows that something is seriously wrong in the government and that the draft regulations were withdrawn because they had no support either "from within" or "from outside".

This is how the interlocutors of "Vijesti" interpret the latest developments in parliament, which have led some in the government to announce a review of relations within the coalition.

The parties of the former Democratic Front (DF) claim that the agreements are not being respected, accusing some of the deputies of the Europe Now Movement (PES) of this - but not its leader and head of government. Milojko Spajić, stating that they had a "historic" meeting with him and that he was a "gifted politician."

The Amnesty Bill, submitted by MPs from the former DF - New Serbian Democracy (NSD) Andrije Mandić and the Democratic People's Party (DNP) Milan Knežević, did not receive the necessary support (41 votes) in parliament the day before yesterday. Representatives of the NSD and DNP subsequently protested at the collegium of the head of parliament Mandić, saying that they would take into account the attitude of their colleagues from the government towards their proposal, after which they did not vote for the amendments to the law on corporate income tax, proposed by the PES.

After the regulation was not voted on, Mandić announced that the majority MPs had withdrawn the draft laws on the National Security Agency and internal affairs from the agenda. He said that the ruling majority, although supporting the changes, did so because they appreciated "that the public was not well informed."

At the end of last week, the government adopted the Draft Law on the National Security Agency (ANB) in an electronic session, without prior public debate, and submitted it to the parliament under a shortened procedure. The proposal has been met with strong reactions for days by numerous non-governmental organizations, the Association of Lawyers, and opposition members, who claimed that the proposed solutions were unconstitutional and contrary to international standards. “Vijesti” wrote that the proposal, among other things, paves the way for the head of the National Security Agency (ANB) to be granted much more power without any control mechanisms.

No party in power responded to "Vijesti"'s questions about why the regulations were actually withdrawn from the agenda, and those from Spajić's and Mandić's cabinets remained silent.

Their cabinets remained silent about what was discussed at the "historic" meeting and what was agreed upon.

Bad communication - a cheap excuse

Mandić announced that until the withdrawn proposals are put into the procedure again, they will make an effort to “better communicate” with the public and international partners. He said that he and Knežević had “great conversations” with Spajić, that he is “a young, talented politician”, and that he is sorry that many in PES and the party’s parliamentary group do not understand the efforts “to improve this parliamentary majority in its activities”. In this context, he said that a review of “all partnerships” in the coalition is coming.

Director of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM) Nevenka Vuksanović She told "Vijesti" that she disagreed that the laws were withdrawn due to poor communication, stating that the facts say otherwise.

"The pressure from the public, the civil sector and the professional community was extremely strong, and even among the members of the parliamentary majority there was no agreement to support these proposals in their current form," she said, adding that everything indicates that the laws were withdrawn because they lacked political, public or international sustainability.

She said that if there were attempts to "push through" laws by exchanging support for certain issues, that trade "clearly failed."

"Withdrawal does not mean that the idea has been abandoned - I believe it is just about buying time, not giving up," said Vuksanović.

Docent at the University "Donja Gorica" Nikoleta Djukanovic She said that Mandić's messages were symptomatic, to say the least. She stated that if laws are being withdrawn because they "were not well communicated," it is a direct indication that something is seriously wrong within the majority.

"Because, if there is no basic coordination and communication when it comes to such important laws, then that speaks of a deep crisis of trust or complete disorganization," claims the interviewee of "Vijesti".

However, she believes that it is more realistic to assume that the withdrawal of the proposed regulation is more than a "technical error in communication", and that it is either an unsuccessful attempt at political bargaining or that some actors within the majority assessed that they did not get what they expected in return.

"In any case, the withdrawal of these laws casts serious doubt on the stability of the majority and raises the question - who really decides and in whose name," Djukanovic concluded.

Pižurica: I did not vote against PES

MP and DNP leader Knežević said at the session the day before yesterday that there was an agreement at the collegium of the ruling majority to adopt the amnesty law because, as he stated, it is not controversial.

"Unfortunately, my fellow MPs from the BS (Bosniak Party) and some PES MPs did not honor the agreement and did not inform us that they would not honor it," he said.

34 MPs raised their hands in favor of adopting the regulations, while four from PES abstained - Miloš Pižurica, Darko Dragović, Gordan Stojović i Nadja Laković, while MPs from the ruling BS also did not participate in the vote.

Pižurica told "Vijesti" that he abstained because he found it unacceptable for the Parliament to vote on the same day to increase the salaries of judges and prosecutors, "people who, together with the police, fight organized crime and corruption every day", and then vote to reduce the sentences of "the very people against whom this fight is being waged".

"For me, this is politically and morally contradictory and makes any serious reform of the judiciary and the fight against crime meaningless," he said.

Asked whether this was a position contrary to the party's, Pižurica replied that PES is not a party that demands unquestioning party discipline, but rather a space in which MPs are given the opportunity to decide according to their own conscience in special situations, "especially when it comes to complex ethical issues such as amnesty."

"My vote was not in contradiction with the values of the Movement, but was an expression of personal responsibility," he stated.

Dragović, Stojović and Laković did not respond to the editorial team's questions.

Head of the BS parliamentary group Amer Smailovic He said at the parliament session the day before yesterday that, "in the sea of laws they received," it was difficult to focus on each item individually and vote on each one "the right way."

"We are voting for what is most important, which is European laws, to be completed by a certain deadline, and we are committed to that goal," he said.

New government architecture

Milan Knežević stated the day before yesterday that support for the amnesty law was lacking while he and Mandić discussed "further strategic directions" for Montenegro's development with Spajić, claiming that the conversation was "very fruitful", and that not voting on the regulation could not cause them to quarrel with Spajić, "because he (the prime minister) was certainly not involved in such a vote".

"However, it is problematic that after we agree on something, it is scrapped an hour later," he said, repeating that such an approach was not correct while he and Mandić were holding "historic talks" with Spajić.

Nikoleta Đukanović states that the fact that the meeting was assessed as "historic" primarily raises the question in what sense and for whom it was so, and that, if it is an agreement that marks a turning point in the mutual relations of the meeting's participants, this would also explain why the majority acted like a "completely out-of-tune orchestra" the day before yesterday.

"So far, this very heterogeneous majority has had a certain level of discipline, largely thanks to the role of the Speaker of the Assembly Mandić as a kind of coordinator, while Prime Minister Spajić was more in the position of the one who follows than the one who leads. Of course, with the great benefits that the political partners received through the distribution of state resources," she pointed out.

She claims that the events in parliament the day before yesterday indicate possible new power relations within the majority. According to her, it is possible that a new architecture of government, or at least a new dynamic within the existing one, was negotiated at that "historic" meeting.

"This also explains the complete lack of support for the laws that came from the ranks of the majority. If this is truly a historic meeting, perhaps its consequence is exactly what we witnessed - a show of teeth between supposed allies," the interviewee says.

Pižurica: If the law was important to Mandić and Knežević, they would be in the courtroom

When asked to comment on Knežević's statement that not voting on the amnesty law could not cause a quarrel between the former DF and Spajić, Pižurica replied that he was "a little surprised" by the reactions of Knežević and Mandić.

"If the two of them had been present in the plenary hall and voted for the proposal, the law would have been adopted. Since they were not present, I assume that this law was not such a priority for them," he said.