The agreement between the government and the opposition on initiating the procedure for amending the Constitution represents an important step in Montenegro's European integration, but it is not the result of the political maturity of domestic actors, but primarily the mediation of the European Union, Milica Kovačević, program director of the Center for Democratic Transition (CDT), told Boje jutra.
Kovačević said that political parties talked more about deadlines and obligations towards Brussels than about the essence of constitutional changes.
"Politicians will present this as a great success and victory for citizens, but everyone who follows political dynamics knows that this agreement happened solely thanks to the mediation of the European Union. If we had been left solely to domestic democratic capacities, we would probably still be witnessing mutual blackmail, trade, and political upheaval," said Kovačević.
She believes that during the discussion, there was a complete lack of debate about what the constitutional changes will bring to citizens.
"I was sad to see that everything was discussed except the content of the amendments to the Constitution. We keep hearing that it has to be because of Brussels, that there are deadlines from Brussels, that it is a European obligation. And almost no one has explained what these changes mean for Montenegro, for the institutions and for the citizens. I would like us to finally start talking about us, and not just about the European agenda," she said.
Speaking about the constitutional amendments themselves, Kovačević reminded that they relate to three areas - the Central Bank, the judiciary, and the lifting of immunity for members of the Government for certain criminal offenses.
She particularly pointed out the significance of changes in the part related to the judiciary.
"The Montenegrin Constitution is one of the so-called hard constitutions and is very difficult to change. That is why we should think carefully about every solution we adopt now, because we will not be able to easily change it in a year or two. The strategy of adopting something today and then fixing it tomorrow must not apply when it comes to the Constitution," Kovačević stressed.
She recalled that the previous judicial reform from 2013 lasted almost two years and was accompanied by the opinions of the Venice Commission.
"Compared to that process, today's seems much more superficial. There was almost no discussion about the content, and now we have a month of public debate. It would be extremely important for the professional public to get involved and to discuss the quality of the solution, not just how to meet European deadlines," she said.
Kovačević believes that some of the proposed solutions are not sufficiently explained, especially when it comes to the Prosecutorial Council.
"We have been saying for years that the judiciary must be independent of politics. However, the question should be asked whether political influence really came through what is written in the Constitution or through some other mechanism. We also have serious dilemmas about why certain solutions are just copied into the Constitution, without a serious discussion of whether they are the best possible. If we add something to the Constitution now, it will be much more difficult to change it later," she warned.
Kovačević believes that the lifting of immunity for members of the Government for certain criminal offenses is a positive step, but that an opportunity to resolve the issue of parliamentary immunity has been missed.
"Immunity does not exist to protect officials from criminal acts, but to protect their freedom of action and expression. When the Constitution was being drafted, parliamentary immunity should also have been considered, because we have had numerous situations in which it served as protection from liability for hate speech or other actions not related to the performance of parliamentary duties," she said.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
