The authorities have the necessary majority to rule, but obviously do not have the majority needed to secede from Yugoslavia. The Constitution of Montenegro is very specific and specifies that a decision about a change of articles of the constitution dealing with the status of the state must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of representatives in the parliament, after a referendum. Someone who knows very well that this is the case, has fabricated a dilemma whether a referendum is in itself sufficient to declare independence. And a referendum in which more than fifty percent of citizens voting in the referendum voted for independence. If this is accepted as true, that would usher in a period of long term instability. It is easy to prove this assertion. I hope that all of us can agree that in the future some coalition will have a minimum of 51-52 percent of voter support. If the support of only 51 percent of voters participating in a referendum is sufficient to change the status of the state, then we shell set an unfortunate precedent. Is it really necessary that every four years, or every time government changes, we also change the state status? Isn't it true that only ten years ago the joint state with Serbia earned support of two-thirds of registered voters (rather than those voting in the referendum), while the authorities in only seven-eight years managed to reduce that overwhelming support and create with the assistance of the media a significantly different political picture of Montenegro? Isn't it easy to predict that it would be even easier, using the same method, to shift small majorities of one or two percentage points? Obviously, that would be very easy. This clearly indicates that a majority of 51 percent of those voting in the referendum does not guarantee long-term stability but, on the contrary, guarantees long-term instability. Unless it is not expected that in the next hundred years the same party will always be in power.
The authorities have become a hostage of their election campaign promises that they are unable to fulfill. I do not intend to get involved in the so-called creative interpretation of the Constitution, but only to read what is written in that document. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the authorities have taken upon themselves a big risk by undertaking to attain independence. Now they face the dilemma whether to give up that project or to unilaterally declare independence. Neither would be good for the authorities, but it is not irrelevant for the people what course of action the authorities will chose.
Today Yugoslavia de facto exists. I do not intend to argue about that. It is clear that Yugoslavia is a subject of the international law and politics. Those who would like to change that de facto situation must secure a sufficient majority. A two-thirds majority is only a necessary condition, just like a referendum. Both of them together would be a sufficient condition for independence. Therefore, both conditions must be fulfilled if Montenegro is to attain stable independent status as far as the internal political situation is concerned. At least, that is what the Constitution says. If the authorities believe that they can change the status of the state, why don't they do that according to the procedure outlined in the Constitution? If they do not think they are capable of doing that, why don't they give up their project? The authorities should not beg opposition to help them. What would be the interest of the opposition to work against its program and against the will of those citizens who voted for the opposition? Why should the opposition risk losing the trust of the voters by betraying them? The regime needs a referendum, the opposition does not. If the current opposition were in power a referendum would not be mentioned as one of possible denouements. Why would the opposition behave any differently now when it is only an opposition? In no case opposition helps authorities to stabilize their control of government, and it is foolish to expect that Montenegrin opposition would do something like that.
Before the elections in April, the authorities promised that they would win a two-third majority in the parliament. Why? Because they were aware that that majority is necessary to declare independence. In that case it would make sense to call an independence referendum and independence would be a realistic goal. In that case no one could criticize the regime for its actions. But, it is politically immature and risky to enter the project of changing the statues of Montenegro with a small majority, which almost does not enable the authorities to form stable executive authorities. Lest we forget, the international community is also opposed...
The author if a vice-president of the opposition People's Party