human security in an uufinished state - Helsinki Committee for ...

Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
Human Security in an Unfinished State
INSTITIONS IN THE CLUTCHES
OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
The establishment of a legal system that would bring Serbia closer to
developed democracies is still underway. As it turned out, a genuine political
will to have newly adopted laws and standards implemented did not follow in
the footsteps of legislative activism. This is about a slow-paced process that
almost stalled in 2005. Though the Serbian parliament passed scores of laws,
what marked 2005 was that those laws were not implemented. For a
transitional state and its functional reforms the legislation that lacks
enforceable mechanisms and a new methodology is more of a regress than
progress. The government failed to adopt bylaws that would secure
enforcement of a number of laws, the same as it failed to establish necessary
institutions and mechanisms of control. The much delayed Serbian constitution
indicates a chronic absence of political will to finalize the necessary reforms
and safeguard them by an adequate legal system. All this only moves Serbia
away from European integrations.
The functioning of the State Union’s institutions kept spiraling down
throughout 2005. As in 2004 Montenegrin top politicians were focused on
turning the issue of referendum into “the question of all questions,” the one
exceeding the Union’s interests, the deadline for calling the elections for the
State Union’s Assembly was missed. In early 2005, the State Union’s Assembly
was legally deadlocked: parliamentarians’ mandates were running out in
February. Namely, Article 20 of the Constitutional Charter provides that over
the first two years representatives shall be elected indirectly, in proportion
with their representation in the member-states’ assemblies. After that period,
they shall be elected directly by voters in both member-states. The Assembly of
the State Union is unicameral – out of 126 parliamentarians, 91 come from
Serbia and 35 from Montenegro.
Montenegrin leadership took that calling direct elections made no
sense against the backdrop of an unavoidable referendum that, as they
expected, would result in Montenegro’s independence. Therefore, in early 2005
the Union’s Assembly was faced with illegitimacy, which not only seriously
questioned the Union’s functioning but also fueled citizens’ distrust in state
institutions.
100
101