“It is hard to anticipate reactions at this time, but I think that boycott of the institutions could bring nothing good to anyone. Protests are different, more concrete mechanisms, that could be more efficient in reaching the goal. The key for them is to be organized and articulated, with clearly stated and realistically reachable goals”, Uljarević thinks.
Ten meetings within the parliamentary dialogue did not bring the agreement between the opposition and the Government. Political parties left the table with different opinions on where it gone wrong.
Uljarević says that the negotiations were marked from the start with different political strategies and campaigning for gaining political points and strengthening positions, which, she thinks, is politically justified.
But, from a point of view of reaching results, it was a great burden on the negotiations.
“At the same time, civil and dominant opposition did not enter the negotiations with a united attitude and offer, and soon they went apart in terms of their goals in negotiations. Opposition subjects that took part until the end, especially those that did not have populist requests, had a hard task. The result had to justify their participation, and the result was to gain control over crucial keys of power of dominant party – DPS. Finally, we need to take into considerations that this is a new form of communication both for Montenegro and for its opposition and Government. There is no trust between these subjects, and it influenced the negotiations badly, creating a reluctance in defining controls mechanisms in questions that were at hand”, Uljarević said.
Uljarević commented the fact that the agreement was not reached even in the question of control of Public Service and the fact that the Prime Minister Milo Đukanović said yesterday that the position of Ranko Krivokapić as President of the Parliament is questionable, seeing that his party does not have a majority.
“It is clear, for some time now, that one of the key political priorities of Đukanović is easy marginalization of Krivokapić’s political position. It was hard to expect that he would miss an opportunity that Krivokapić provided himself, to put into the negotiations the gurantee of preserving current leadership in the Parliament”, Uljarević thinks.
She thinks that the negotiations reached a phase where several positions of power were opened.
“In the case of RTCG, the solution must be found trough changing the legal frame and quick and efficient application of that. Insisting on immediate changes in leadership are redundant, because the quintessential change in RTCG could not have been made in that way”, Uljarević stated.
She underlined that the dialogue is crucial for any democratic society, or those who have that goal.
The success of the dialogue depends on those at the table and of proper communication in terms of goals of that dialogue and its responsibility to interested public.
“This dialogue started without clear definition of attitudes withing the opposition, which was a limiting condition in their position. The part of the opposition that had the political courage and responsibility to try and contribute to political situation in Montenegro in this way should be encouraged. This is not a popular way in a Montenegrin society that is generally not inclined to dialogue. However, it seems to me that the communication with public should have been better from the start, in terms of stating the defined goals and result of negotiations, the ultimate maximum that is desired, and the minimum that is the end of agreement. Those attitudes and reached deals should have been continuously communicated to the Montenegrin public, as a form of public consultations, which did not happen”, Uljarević thinks.
She said that dialogue could be continued but that there is a question of purpose – what can be gained with continuing, in what way should new negotiations be entered?
“Opposition can try with creating one precise and systematical offer that would be the last condition to DPS, with a clear deadline for response. It would entail public presentation of the offer, and those request should be legally impenetrable, so as to minimize the risk of manipulation from the Government”, Uljarević noted.
Uljarević said that in principle, Đukanović agreed to significant compromises.
“But it should not be forgotten that Đukanović is the one to blame for rising political tensions and political crisis in the country, and that he is the most responsible for a negative political influence on state institutions, and the legality and legitimacy of elections”, she said.
When asked who came out the biggest loser from the failed negotiations, Uljarević said it was the citizens.
“Malfunctioning of the Montenegrin political system, that was created by almost all of political subjects, brings damage to the citizens and they are the biggest losers. Politically, I see no victors or losers, because the power balance remains the same. Strategy without political vision and courage that are based on manipulation is primarily directed at narrow parry interests and it does not land to finding a solution”, Uljarević said.
In the end, she said there could be no free and fair elections without reaching agreement on the terms of holding them, clearly established control of state resources, defining criminal and legal responsibility for election rigging where there is clear evidence, and disabling DPS propaganda from RTCG, with stopping financial draining of opposition media.
“After two and a half decades of elections that did not provide change in the leadership, this process does not inspire a lot of confidence, even when it is proved that it was legal. But simply by listening to audio from the affair “Snimak” we know that it was not.”, Uljarević concluded.
