Good morning! Freedom House’s Freedom in the World reports on Montenegro and other countries in the region have lost quality in recent years. One notices repetition, laziness in the work of researchers and an incomprehensible bias, which in the end results in a report that contains information that does not correspond to the reality in the countries being written about.
Click here to join our Viber group, where we update you live from hour to hour and answer your questions directly.
Freedom House’s report of poor quality
Montenegro has improved in some domains, and there is no doubt about that. Political power has been decentralized, and this has its benefits in terms of political freedoms. While the 2024 Freedom in the World report on Montenegro by Freedom House factually accurately lists the key political events in 2023, it shows an incomprehensible political bias by making comparisons with the DPS rule, which ended four years ago. It is interesting to compare the way in which the government of DPS and their coalition partners in Montenegro is called the “DPS regime”, while in the Report on Serbia for this year the ruling majority is called the “coalition led by SNS”. It is interesting that in this year’s report, DPS, which was replaced almost four years ago, is mentioned 14 times, while SNS, which is still in power in Serbia and leads the authoritarian regime in that country, is mentioned 17 times in the report on that country.
While Abazovic, who was prime minister almost all of last year, is mentioned 7 times, his party is not mentioned once; Europe Now Movement (PES), which won the presidential and parliamentary elections, is mentioned 6 times, and the pro-Russian DF, which played a strong and destabilizing role in political situation in the country during the last year, it is mentioned only twice.
As for external influence, it is noted when it comes to Serbia, but its strength is relativized and diluted by mentioning the statements of American officials and the US Embassy in Montenegro, which is equated with the influence of Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, who exerted intense pressure for the pro-Russian DF to come to power and ultimately succeeded in it. The report fails to mention this, but it directly links the influence of the US Embassy and US officials to the delays in the formation of the government after the election.
In the section on corruption and organized crime, the report mentions and highlights the publication of SKY transcripts in Vijesti and praises it while not mentioning and analyzing a strong imbalance in the reporting of competing organized crime groups. This is a serious flaw in the Report because the problem in which organized conflicting criminal groups have their political patrons and pawns on different political sides must be stated for a better understanding of the situation and context.
The important moment, when last year the Chief Special Prosecutor announced that he feared for the safety of himself and his family, is not mentioned, the political affiliation of those arrested and prosecuted for corruption and organized crime is not emphasized, and the reader is led to think that they all belonged to the former regime, which is not true. An important moment was missed to strongly highlight the discrimination against candidate Milojko Spajic and the pressure that Abazovic exerted on him through the Do Kwon affair in cooperation with the Serbian state and security services.
When it comes to media freedom, academic freedom and freedom of religion, the Report is of the poorest quality. Unfounded qualifications are given, the national broadcaster and the University of Montenegro, led by the agent of Russian influence, Professor Vladimir Bozovic, are praised.
Serbian ownership in the majority of Montenegrin media is noted, although the criticality of this moment and the easily verifiable and referenced connection between these media companies, managing Montenegrin media, and the regime of Aleksandar Vucic in Serbia are not highlighted.
In the section on freedom of religion, it is stated that the believers of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) were discriminated against and the target of hate speech during the DPS government, but that it is now over and that SPC has a strong influence in Montenegro. It’s a very short statement that leads to a wrong conclusion. During the DPS rule, SPC gained a privileged status in society in Montenegro, built the most temples and strengthened its structure and social power, changing the state in providing social services, which the state had neglected. SPC and its close activists and media were often the source of hate speech and discrimination, especially towards the believers of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church. Islamophobia and anti-Semitism as well as hatred towards people who are not religious were often present in those media and narratives. The Report fails to mention all that.
That’s it for today. We wish you a pleasant rest of the day.
Kind regards,
Ljubomir Filipovic, CdM analyst and columnist
(The opinions and views of the authors of the columns are not necessarily those of the CdM editorial staff)
