Namely, the parliamentary committee, consisting of representatives of the DPS, the LSCG, the SDP, and ethnic Albanian parties, failed to reach an agreement about the draft Referendum Law. The committee was boycotted by the pro-Yugoslav parties and the DPS, although abstaining from voting about the proposed draft ultimately did agree to send the proposed law to the parliament.
The pro-independence block is facing disagreements about the minimum turnout needed to declare a referendum as valid. The SDP and LSCG believe that the turnout should not be specified, the solution that according to them is shared by some countries in Europe. However, the DPS insists that more than a half of registered voters must vote about the independence of Montenegro for the referendum to be valid.
Although the debate in the parliament still hasn't started it is clear that the law will not be adopted by the parliament. As in the past, the SDP and the LSCG will be in minority, while the DSP and the pro-Yugoslav block will be against the solution advocated by these two political parties.
Consequently, the DPS has already been accused of assisting the pro-Yugoslav parties and their threat to boycott the referendum. "Contrary to their recently adopted program, the DPS will try to use all means available to postpone the holding of the referendum or to make the referendum totally meaningless," Slavko Perovic, spokesperson of the Liberal Alliance, explains his doubts. "We will not vote for the proposal made by the SDP and the LSCG, although we do intend to win together with them the legitimate right of the Montenegrin people to vote on its independence. But, unlike socialdemocrats and liberals, we believe that more than a half of all registered voters must participate in the referendum for it to be valid. There are several reasons why this is necessary. The first one is the formal one - we should leave Yugoslavia in the same way we joined her, and you know already that the referendum held in 1992 required a turnout of more than 50% of registered voters for valid results," Miodrag Vukovic, president of the executive council of the DPS says.
Vukovic warns that in divided Montenegro the proposal of the SDP and the LSCG is dangerous. "Although the threat with boycott by the pro-Yugoslav parties is an admission that they fear referendum and that they have the support of less than 30% of voters for the preservation of Yugoslavia, liberals and socialdemocrats with this proposal give fuel to Kostunica and the coalition 'Together for Yugoslavia'. Now the pro-Yugoslav block is gloating and cynically claiming that we want to create an independent state in a referendum in which, out of three voters participating, two need to vote for independence," Vukovic is resigned. He emphasizes that the proposed Referendum Law diverges from the suggestions made by the international community.
It is clear that the DPS is in an unpleasant situation. On the one hand it is under pressure coming from its coalition partners, and on the other hand there is the pressure of the international community and the threat of the opposition that the results of the referendum will not be recognized unless the conditions for the referendum about independence are not adopted by consensus.
Although the international community favors "democratic Montenegro in democratic Yugoslavia" and wants to preserve status quo, it verbally does not have anything against a referendum. Because, it is impossible, at least publicly, to deny Montenegro the right enjoyed by the citizens of other states, members of the former Yugoslavia. But it is already clear that the Americans and Europeans will demand strict rules in order to accept the results of the referendum. The solution proposed by the socialdemocrats and liberals goes against the recommendations made by the OSCE on July 6 2001.
"In my opinion, the draft law is a step back in comparison with the version of the law adopted in February. The July recommendation of the OSCE regarding the referendum in Montenegro is clear. They clearly state that the referendum cannot be valid unless more than a half of all citizens participate in it," a foreign expert, who requested to remain anonymous, stated for Monitor. The OSCE recommendation insists on a few additional principles. Above all, the decision to call a referendum and its verification in the parliament must be based on "clear interpretation of the constitution". And a team of foreign experts that recently visited Montenegro believes that a two-thirds majority is needed for changes of the constitution.
The OSCE at the same time recommends that only residents of Montenegro should have the right to vote in the referendum, while the Montenegrin citizens who live abroad or in Serbia should be denied that right, although pro-Yugoslav parties demand that they also be allowed to vote in the independence referendum. However, the OSCE is of the opinion that the safety and stability after the referendum cannot be guaranteed unless the decision in favor of independence of staying in Yugoslavia is supported by the so-called qualified majority of voters. The OSCE did not specify that majority, while the coalition "Together for Yugoslavia" believes that more than a half of all registered voters would have to support independence for that decision to be acceptable.
How to overcome that dispute? Srdjan Darmanovic, the director of CEDEM, emphasizes that the recommendations of the international community should be observed, and that they are not an obstacle to reach a solution by consensus.
"The issue of majority will be the key element in the internal Montenegrin negotiations. The SNP will, perhaps, be prepared to accept that only residents of Montenegro vote in the referendum. But I really doubt that they will give in regarding the issue of majority needed for a valid decision. Besides, the SNP enjoys the support of key Western partners. They insist that in the divided Montenegrin society, some sort of qualified majority is needed to secure stability after the referendum. The SNP finds that attitude encouraging because that party not only demands that 50 percent of voters participate in the referendum, but also that more than 50 percent of all registered voters support independence."
According to Darmanovic, it would be a mistake to organize a referendum based on the proposal made by the representatives of the LSCG and the SDP. "It is questionable whether a referendum held according to those rules would make any sense. The citizens would perhaps vote, but if that referendum is ignored by the rest of the world, I do not see that it makes any sense. Among other, independent states exist to be recognizes by other states. If the referendum were held based on this proposal, the international community would view that as an attempt to ignore it. The referendum would be rejected a priori by the international community".
Ranko Krivokapic, vice-president of the SDP, agrees that the proposed Referendum Law goes against the recommendations made by the OSCE, regarding the needed majority, but he emphasizes that his party is prepared for talks and compromise. He says that the SDP will wait for the opinion of the OSCE, and that the Referendum Law should be the object of a political agreement in the parliament. "The proposed law stimulates discussion, and our party has nothing against leaving Yugoslavia in the same way Montenegro entered the joint state with Serbia in 1992," Krivokapic emphasizes.
The international community and the part of Montenegro that will oppose the majority decision, regardless of what it will be, will accept only if the Referendum law is adopted by consensus of the most important political factors in Montenegro, and if the major recommendations of the OSCE are observed.
Darmanovic believes that Montenegro, because of internal divisions, could use the experience of some Western democratic countries. He mentions the example of qualified majority in Scotland and Denmark.
"There are countries that, because of serious nature of issues considered in referendums, introduced qualified majority needed for the adoption of such decisions. There are two examples in Europe. Scots voted twice in twenty years on whether they will get their own parliament. Twenty years ago the referendum failed even though more than 50 percent of those who voted voted in favor of that proposal. But the Scottish law specifies that besides the majority of those who vote in the referendum, the majority must exceed 40 percent of all registered voters. In Denmark the majority must exceed 45 percent of all registered voters."
Darmanovic readily calculates required majorities. If the Montenegrin law required majority of 40 percent of all registered voters, then about 176,000 voters would have to vote for independence. If the qualified majority was 45 percent of all registered voters, the needed majority would be about 198,000 voters.
"Therefore, the coalitions that won and lost in the last elections are both capable but not certain of being able to secure that many voters. Therefore, that could be some sort of compromise, a risk that both sides would have to accept," Darmanovic concludes.
If the pro-independence block insisted on compromise within Montenegro regarding the conditions for referendum, then they could demand from the international community to drop the double standards. Because, since the fall of Milosevic, the USA and her European partners exerted pressure only on the official Podgorica while they de facto encouraged pro-Yugoslav forces in Belgrade and in Montenegro.
If the referendum law were adopted according to the recommendations made by the OSCE, the authorities in Podgorica would have the right to demand from the international community to pressure the pro-Yugoslav block to give up the boycott. Otherwise, regardless of whether it is just or not, the pro-independence coalition risks political isolation.
Is it to be expected that the two opposing blocks would reach compromise in the situation when Montenegro is thoroughly divided?
The time that the DPS wasted during the last four years in putting off true reform and resolving the state status [proclaiming independence] is now working against that party, and the state they rule. The rest is already known. Instead of reaching agreement regarding the least painful way to achieve independence the pro-independence block is wasting time in mutual disagreements. Thus, the Referendum Law proposed by the SDP and the LSCG can easily sever the thin thread tying them to the DPS.
Namely, if the DPS refuses to vote for this proposal, Liberals can use that as an excuse for bringing down the minority government. "So what if the government falls? We will clearly explain to the Montenegrin public who is to be blamed for that," says Miodrag Vukovic.
The verbal war between the supporters of independent Montenegro could turn into a true inter-party conflict and bring about, instead of an independence referendum, new elections! That would postpone the solution of the state status and prolong status quo, which turns out to be increasingly harmful for Montenegro. That would be the final proof that even though the consciousness that Yugoslavia can not survive exists, Montenegro has irresponsible political elite that is not capable of achieving independence for the state.