Montenegro Lacks the Political Will to Solve the Problems of Corruption and Conflict of Interests

Having in mind the accelerated legislative reforms, the position of the Parliament regarding the Law on Conflict of Interests came as a great surprise for the Montenegrin public. The Members of Parliament did not stop at violating the Parliamentary procedures for proposing amendments to the Law, but changed the provisions that actually reduced their financial and other benefits and privileges. As a result, the passing of the amendments proposed by the ruling coalition – the same political parties that actually proposed the draft-Law – represents an absolute deformation of the said piece of legislation. The Law on Conflict of Interests was first submitted by the Government for Parliamentary procedure in 2002. The draft was signed by Filip Vujanovic, the then Prime Minister. In June 2002, the Government revoked the draft-Law in order to change and amend the Law and improve the quality of the text. The new draft-Law was again submitted to the Parliament full 20 months later, in April 2004. The media reported that the session of the Committee on Legislation, which reviewed the draft-Law before the start of the debate, was interrupted for lack of quorum, after Misko Vukovic from the DPS left the meeting. Some media even claimed that the Law will be completely revoked from procedure in the Parliament. The Committee on Economy and Finances decided to propose to the Parliament to postpone the debate on the Law. It is interesting that, apart from Petar Ivanovic – engaged in more than ten different Government and public institutions) and under suspicion of a very real potential conflict of interest – no entity outside the Parliament was ever consulted on the draft-Law. In compliance with the Memorandum of Cooperation that Mr. Boskovic signed with several NGOs that work under the patronage of prof. Veselin Vukotic and Petar Ivanovic himself (n.b. the text of the Memorandum is not accessible to the public), Ivanovic was also present to the Committee meeting. He claimed that the proposed draft-Law is too general in its definition of the term “persons related with a public official”, and that the provision of the Law to publish the property report cards of public officials and their relatives on the Internet is unconstitutional. In the opinion of dr. Josip Kregar, OSCE Anti-Corruption Expert, it is ridiculous for politicians to demand protection of privacy. He added that web publication of property cards is a standard in the countries that have such technical capabilities and wide-spread use of Internet in the population. Kregar emphasizes three factors: the publication is not technically demanding process; the public gets a real possibility to check the validity of the presented data; and it is not an action directed against a government, but for good governance and setting standards applicable to future cases. Nevertheless, the Law was review, allegedly due to the great pressure by the media, and all Members of Parliament that commented on it said that they will vote for it, in spite of being aware that it would be implement it in its current form. After a while, the MPs expressed their strong disapproval and debated on different segments of the Law (but used the same session of the Parliament to adopt a number of important Laws without any debate, including the Law on Foreign Trade). The Book of Rules and Regulations of the Parliament was also violated, when the MPs debated and adopted the amendment on the compensation for board members, which was submitted outside of all prescribed deadlines. That amendment is also contradictory to the overall spirit of the Law. At a request by the MPs, and in accordance with the positions represented by Petar Ivanovic, himself in a position of conflicting interests, the provisions that regulate the obligation of the Commission on Conflict of Interests to publish the property cards of public officials on the Internet was deleted. MPs claimed that such an obligation would be an infringement of their privacy, and that it would suffice to publish that information in the daily press, together with the Annual Report of the Commission. The publishing of the information only once a year would prevent the continued public scrutiny, which violates the principle of transparency of work of public officials, one of the cornerstones of democracy. The MPs, on suggestion by Ivanovic, reduced the number of persons that are obligated to report their property assets on the basis of family relationship with the public officials. So, the offspring of public officials that live out of the household are not obligated to report their property. Interestingly enough, the same proposal in Serbia was submitted by the Socialist Party, which means that Marko Milosevic, the son of the president of that Party, is not obligated to report on his property assets because he doesn’t live in the same household with his father. The possibility to present anonymous communications to the Commission was also deleted from the Law, in spite of the fact that it allowed the citizens to report the cases of potential conflict of interests without a fear of possible consequences. Having in mind that a great number of citizens is economically dependant on political structures, and that the economic and social rights represent the basis for the realization of civic and political rights, the deletion of the anonymous communications puts a strong question mark on the ability of citizens to start a procedure on possible conflict of interests before the Commission. The Law doesn’t restrict the engagement of public officials in the work of non-governmental organizations, which leaves the possibility for similar abuses as those witnessed in the past. Not a single MP, not Mr. Ivanovic, who was the only person outside the Parliament involved in the review of the Law before the adoption procedure was started, had any objections and views on that issue. Judging from the behaviour of the Government and Parliament on the Law on Conflict of Interests, it is obvious that there is no will to reduce the political influence on the economy. The concept of “economy of agreement” and state interventionism, directly opposed to the declared neoliberal concept of market economy, still prevails in Montenegro. The overall impression is that the only reason for such a behaviour is the lack of political will to reduce the financial benefits and possibilities for concentration of power in the hands of a small group of individuals. That postpones the implementation of reforms which the majority of the citizens, as well as the international community, considers to be crucial. Finally, just to remind you that Veselin Sukovic, the director of the Anti-Corruption Agency, said for the record that there is corruption, conflict of interest and abuse of office in abundance in Montenegro and in the region in general, and that the competences for prosecution lie with the Ministry of the Interior and the Public Attorney Office. With the view of Sukovic’s positions and the fact that charges were brought against high-ranking public officials, judges, policemen and businessmen everywhere in the region, the question remains why doesn’t it happen in Montenegro.