INTERVIEW Perić for "Vijesti": Politics has become a spectacle that citizens pay for

If compulsory administration were introduced in Podgorica, we would open the door to a situation where everything is decided by a few people with a significantly reduced ability to control. This is always fertile ground for the growth of corruption, and the damage it causes is ultimately paid for by citizens: from the price of political deals to the inefficiency of the system, said the President of the Capital City Assembly in an interview for "Vijesti". Srdjan Peric.

According to him, the real question is: who is harmed by the new level of control and transparency of work - citizens, who gain a greater opportunity to monitor how the government functions, or the ruling political class, which is more comfortable with decisions being made without sufficient oversight.

"I think the answer is pretty clear," said Perić.

He emphasizes that he sees this situation as “an opportunity to introduce the public as an additional arbiter in the decision-making process - as a protector of the common good”. He warns that “politics is increasingly sliding towards a constant spectacle with little substance related to satisfying the needs of citizens to have an efficient and just system”.

Perić also points out that "when there is no clear idea of ​​what kind of city we want in ten, twenty or thirty years, then problems are solved partially and improvisedly."

"And improvisations are always more expensive and less efficient than planned solutions," said the President of the Capital City Assembly.

How do you view the resignation of former city parliament president Jelena Borovinić Bojović, but also the support of the Democratic People's Party (DNP)?

I myself characterized the resignation of Mrs. Borovinić Bojović as a personal act. On the other hand, that resignation created the need to elect a new President of the Assembly because otherwise we would have entered into the introduction of compulsory administration, which was an unfavorable option for citizens, because it essentially means a certain kind of state of emergency at the local level. If it had happened, we would have opened the door to a situation where everything is decided by a few people with a significantly reduced ability to control. This is always fertile ground for the growth of corruption, and the damage it causes is ultimately paid for by citizens: from the price of political deals to the inefficiency of the system.

I would also like to remind you that at least 37 out of 59 councilors claimed that compulsory administration is a bad solution that should not be allowed. Let us not forget that in about two years the government lost its majority twice, and that it did not even want to hold new elections, which would be a fair way out. We called on all parties to offer a solution that would lead to the election of the President of the Assembly. The solution could have been found without us, but there was no willingness and/or ability to implement it.

Based on all that has been said, Preokret then offered a model that anyone could support - from one side or the other. For the umpteenth time, I repeat that we did so from a non-bloc position because that was precisely the only possibility to avoid a forced administration that would ultimately suspend parliamentary life at the level of the Capital City. In the end, that model received a sufficient number of votes. In that sense, we believed, and we still believe, that shifting the focus from that fact to who gave support was a shift from the substantive to the procedural field. I repeat, the model was offered to everyone without any restrictions on who could accept it. Any different approach would mean abandoning the non-bloc position.

How do you comment on the fact that city council sessions over the past year have often turned into a competition for points on social media, and often into a premature election campaign, without any concrete effect on the quality of life of citizens?

In general, and not only in our country, politics is increasingly sliding towards a constant spectacle with little substance related to satisfying the needs of citizens to have an efficient and just system. With the growth of populist tendencies that encourage the need for the extraterritorialization of politics, this problem is becoming more pronounced. We are not immune to this phenomenon either. However, it is important to understand that this is not an unknown model: we see similar processes almost everywhere where parliamentary democracy exists.

The essential question, however, is how much does such a way of conducting politics cost us as a community? In addition, an even more significant problem opens up: we are gradually reaching a situation where we are not reaching solutions based on reliable data and truth, but on untruths, half-truths, spin... As a result, we have the fact that instead of expertise, we get superficiality and, ultimately, instead of democracy, arbitrariness.

That's why the model we are promoting is based on this: that everyone should be faced with their decisions and their consequences. That's why there is so much resistance to it, because a pattern is built over a long period of time in which facing the results of decisions is avoided.

The previous appointments of board members, managers of city enterprises and local authorities have provoked criticism from a part of the public, who believe that party criteria and membership play a crucial role in these processes. How do you assess the current personnel policy and why, in your opinion, has there not been a greater departure from such practice?

Parties understood personnel policy as an opportunity to develop party infrastructure, and this approach did not change with the change in government. Obviously, there is no need to prove it, but we must fight against what is an extremely harmful practice that we ultimately pay for with the difference between average or poor management of our resources and the possible result of the best personnel being elected to key positions.

Party appointments have taken on new dimensions, to the point that they should not even be criticized now, even when they are clearly bad solutions. Let me add: it is not disputed that a minister, mayor, or someone in a position with a high degree of responsibility has a team of associates on whom he relies and in whom he has full confidence. It is also not disputed that political parties take political initiative and have personnel solutions for this, but this should be a limited scope that goes with responsibility.

To avoid this situation, we need to introduce a model of public involvement everywhere and always. Let the public assess what the best solution is. That way, meritocracy can be strengthened. If it can't be done by the top of the political system, it can be done by the citizen.

Do you think that you have suffered (or will suffer) political damage because your election to the position of president of the city parliament was supported by the DPS and DNP, considering that for years your policy has been directed towards not siding with either party?

Let me ask a counter-question: who are we with now? If the executive branch has remained the same, if the balance of power in parliament and the autonomy of political entities have remained unchanged as before the election of the Speaker of the Assembly, if there is no coalition, division of functions, or any political agreement - then on what basis is it claimed that we "went with anyone"?

The model we offered was a way to overcome the possibility of introducing compulsory administration. It was supported by councilors from different political parties, but this did not mean creating an alliance or coalition or siding with anyone. After all, it is certain that we will have variable majorities when voting. I also repeat that Preokret does not enter the executive branch. It was a response to an institutional problem. Our position was and remains non-aligned, and we acted accordingly.

The essence is something else: the intention to introduce coercive administration, which would have opened up wide space for corrupt practices and uncontrolled arbitrariness, has been thwarted. Today, various spins are being used to divert attention from this issue and shift the discussion to political interpretations.

But the real question is: who is harmed by the new level of control and transparency? Is it the citizens, who gain a greater ability to monitor how the government functions, or the ruling political class, which is more comfortable with decisions being passed without sufficient oversight? I think the answer is pretty clear.

And let me add, we need to achieve a result that is in the interest of the citizens. We will get a decision on the quality of that result in the elections and I am completely calm about that court.

How do you think the Assembly will accomplish anything, given that there is no clear majority, and that it was achieved only for your appointment, and thus, as you previously stated, forced administration has been prevented. How will the Assembly make decisions?

I see this very situation as an opportunity to introduce the public as an additional arbiter in the decision-making process - as a protector of the common good.

The idea is simple: the decision must be presented to the public in a timely manner, with clear justification, arguments and possible consequences. Citizens should be allowed to express their opinion on specific proposals, whether it is an act, report, project or personnel decision.

Then each political entity makes a decision after that process. This does not mean that everyone will always agree, nor that political differences will disappear: they are a natural part of democracy. But it does mean that everyone will have to explain to the public, in one way or another, why they support or reject a particular solution.

I believe that such a model is more useful for citizens, because politics is then less and less a space for closed agreements, and more and more a process in which decisions can be monitored, evaluated and compared with results.

The possibility for the public to clearly see the decision-making process, to participate in it as much as possible and to evaluate the work of institutions based on the results can empower all participants in the system on a sound basis. Ultimately, the best effect of such an approach should not be the benefit for any political entity, but for citizens, who then receive what should be the basic goal of any government: more accountable and quality governance.

Podgorica has been facing serious traffic jams, a lack of parking spaces, and the problem of illegal parking for years. How do you assess the current approach to solving these challenges and what measures do you consider to be the most effective for overcoming them in the long term?

The problem is access. It is undeniable that traffic jams, lack of parking and illegal parking are the result of decades of poor planning, which has created problems in many parts of the city that today seem very difficult to solve. However, the bigger problem is that we have not learned enough from previous experience, nor have we been able to find the root of the problem. It boils down to two words: no ideas.

When there is no clear idea of ​​what kind of city we want in ten, twenty or thirty years, then problems are solved partially and improvisedly. And improvisations are always more expensive and less efficient than planned solutions.

Therefore, a serious approach must start with communication with citizens, then involving the profession and finally with political consensus on solutions that have long-term value. This would mean that solutions do not change with every change of government, but that they are continuously implemented and improved. This strengthens the profession, protects the public interest and spends citizens' money more rationally.

At the level of urban planning, a system of bypasses and concentric traffic rings must be part of the future development of Podgorica. In addition, it should be understood that more parking spaces alone will not solve the problems, but may even encourage people to use cars more, which can lead to additional congestion. The essence is in the development of alternative transport models, more functional public transport, better pedestrian and bicycle connections and creating conditions for citizens to have a choice in how they move around the city. Long-term planning is important not only because of traffic, but also because of changing attitudes towards the city. Podgorica cannot become better organized on its own. The city is a community in which everyone has their place, but also their responsibility.

When we start to see the city as a shared space, and not just as a sum of individual interests, then it will be easier to come up with sustainable solutions.

Citizens of many settlements in Podgorica warn that the capital is becoming inhumane to live in, all because of investors who exploit plots, so that residents have nowhere to park, often look into the living rooms of their neighbors from neighboring buildings, while green areas and playgrounds are in very poor condition. A public hearing was also held during which citizens complained about the prices of legalizing their facilities. Despite numerous objections, the prices have remained the same, noticeably high for the pockets of the average Podgorica resident. Do you expect the act on legalizing facilities to be adopted soon and would it send the wrong message if the prices are not corrected?

At the very beginning, we must start from the assumption that different situations cannot be viewed in the same way. A primary housing facility for a socially vulnerable category of the population is not the same as, say, a luxury multi-storey building that has achieved significant market value. For the first case, it would make sense to provide for symbolic fees for legalization, while the second would of course have to be treated differently. The income generated on that basis could and should be further invested in the development of the system and the development of the city, which also includes new green areas, children's playgrounds, facilities for cultural events... Only with such an approach can we begin to create fair and sustainable solutions to the problem.

At the same time, we need to reach an important moment of drawing a line. But not in the way it happened before, where every new legalization was a message that illegal construction will pay off sooner or later. It needs to be a point from which we have clear rules and a plan that we will all adhere to.

However, legalization is only part of a broader problem. The fundamental challenge is the way we plan space. I often have the impression that the city is developing according to the needs of investors, instead of according to a clear idea of ​​what kind of city we want to leave to future generations.

Spatial planning must have a deeper meaning than determining the number of floors and building lines. It must contain a vision of the city, its functionality and the quality of life of citizens. Therefore, the role of institutions, from the Agencies for the preparation of local planning documents to the Secretariat, is important to provide the prerequisites for planned development, but also to reduce the space for potential or actual abuses.

It is equally important that citizens have timely and complete information. They must know what is planned in their neighborhood, have enough time to react, and that there is an equal standard of treatment for all requests. In this process, the Assembly can play an important control role, not taking over the powers of the executive branch, but monitoring whether the system functions equally for everyone.

An additional problem is that instead of solving specific problems, we often hear about large projects that have not been sufficiently professionally analyzed. Such projects may sound attractive, but without a clear plan they can create more problems than solutions. An example of this is the Velje Brdo project, which is being promoted at the state level, and we do not know its real reflections in relation to the level of the Capital City.

At the same time, we have hardly opened a serious discussion on social housing, although it can be one of the ways for a city to develop in a planned and balanced manner and guided by the principles of social justice. Social housing does not mean the concentration of a large number of people - who cannot meet their housing needs on the market - in one place, because that leads to ghettoization. The essence is to create better organized, more aesthetically acceptable and, if you will, settlements with a more humane idea in different parts of the city and for every part of Podgorica to be a good place to live. This is an idea that would help both the most vulnerable and the very idea of ​​city development.

The key mechanisms for controlling the executive branch are

What three projects would you like to see completed by the end of your mandate in June next year?

First, it should be understood that the Assembly is not an executive branch. Therefore, one of the key goals I would like to highlight is the strengthening of its control role, which unfortunately is often denied by various circles and for various types of motivation. I would also highlight as significant the intention to hold elections in local communities, and to open the Assembly to citizens through specific mechanisms of citizen participation.

Therefore, the most important thing would be to succeed in building mechanisms for controlling the executive branch and enabling citizens to monitor not only the work of the executive branch, but also the quality of the work of the Assembly itself. This would contribute to more responsible governance in the long term, which ultimately means better services for citizens.

This is neither an easy nor a simple task, especially in a period of less than a year, with expected resistance, especially from those parts of the system where party affiliation has long been and still is a more important criterion than the quality of public good management. But when such patterns begin to change, I am convinced that things can go much faster and easier, to the benefit of all citizens.