Will of Citizens Need Not Be Confirmed By Two-Thirds Majority In Parliament

The constitution does not anywhere mention referendum among the possible originators of the constitutional changes. The constitution merely states that the president of Montenegro proposes to the parliament to call a referendum, that the parliament adopts the decision to call a referendum by a majority of the overall number of representatives and that "the decision to change the state status" cannot be made before a previously held referendum. Everything else about the referendum can be found in the Referendum Law of the republic of Montenegro

by Miodrag VUKOVIC

Pobjeda, Podgorica, Montenegro, FR Yugoslavia, May 6, 2001

These days the Montenegrin public has been bombarded by "expert" comments of the constitutional solutions related to the referendum as a procedure for changing the constitution. Proven legal non-experts, obsolete politicians, cheap political commentators, and everyone else opposed to the referendum and bent on disrespecting the constitution, have been rushing to offer their comments. All of them, without an exception, come from the structures of the current FR Yugoslavia, which is the state created by a classic constitutional coup, state created by the biggest possible manipulation of the constitution, directly and against the rights of Montenegro and her citizens defined in the constitution. "Our representatives in the current FRY" are rushing to defend that FRY from "referendum separatism". All of them are comfortably established in the thereby "constitutionally" organized state, her institutions, with precisely defined obligations to that state, and synchronously and without flinching, but incorrectly and deliberately incorrectly, they quote the constitution of Montenegro, even daring to omnisciently threaten Montenegro in case "she and hers", and especially her president, set on the unconstitutional path. Tragic, of course. Those who are spokespersons of the unconstitutionally created purported federal state, those who are where they are because of political violence of a dictator, warn a democratic state about the need to respect a constitution. Not only is this an example of human and political mimicry but also baseless arrogance, because Montenegro is too democratically mature to now risk, defending herself until now from the political violence carried out against her constitution and laws, from the creators of the current and their FRY, to become and start behaving as these all-knowing types. The referendum is the issue. The referendum as a procedure that is mentioned by the constitution of Montenegro as an obligation that must be fulfilled before making a decision about the state status of Montenegro. Since the democratic project of the development of Montenegro is unstoppable and since Montenegro after 100 years of struggle and search for wider integration has dominantly decided to go towards full state independence, democracy and Europeanization of her structure, the fear of nationalists from the imminent, forthcoming independent Montenegro, from the democratic state with total respect of the constitution, has turned into a political and human paranoia.

Consequently nationalists who advocate Greater Serbia in which there is no space for Montenegro have recently been courageously threatening and demanding that the constitution be interpreted the way they had been ordered to read it. And the constitution of Montenegro clearly defines two separate procedures. One for a referendum and the other one within the parliament. The part dealing with the changes of the constitution specifies that amendments of the constitution can be proposed by the president of the republic, government, 25 members of the parliament and 10,000 voters. The proposed amendments cannot request a change of the state status. The proposed amendments must specify the articles of the constitution that are to be changed. The change of the constitution is conducted through amendments to the specified articles of the constitution. Amendments are drafted by the parliament. The proposed amendments enter the procedure in the parliament of Montenegro and the parliament must adopt them with a two-thirds majority. If the amendments are adopted, the parliament is dissolved, new elections follow, and the newly elected parliament must again adopt the amendments adopted by the previous parliament and nothing else. Therefore it is absolutely clear that this is only the formal procedure with precisely stated possible originators of the proposals for a change of the constitution and the right of the parliament to accept with the two-thirds majority or reject the proposed changes. The government of Montenegro is elected by the parliament, so that it makes sense that the parliament that elects the government can reject the proposal of the government. 25 representatives constitute one third of the parliament, so that it makes sense that the other two-thirds of the representatives have the right to reject the proposal made by their colleagues. 10,000 voters are not all the eligible voters, 447,000 citizens with the voting rights in Montenegro. The parliament was elected by more than 10,000 voters and consequently it has a mandate from the much larger electorate to reject a proposal made by 10,000 voters with a two-thirds majority. The president of the republic is elected directly, but the parliament is a legal organ representing legislative authorities and has the right to contest the proposal made by the president of the state with a two-thirds majority. The constitution does not anywhere mention referendum among the possible originators of the constitutional changes. That is not accidental. For example, if the writers of the constitution intended for the parliament to verify by a two-third majority the expressed will of the citizens, they would have written "citizens in a referendum" instead of 10,000 voters, and then everything would be clear. In that case the will of the citizens would have to be confirmed by a two-thirds majority in the parliament. That does not exist in the constitution. The constitution merely states that the president of the Montenegro proposes to the parliament to call a referendum, that the parliament adopts the decision to call a referendum by a majority of the overall number of representatives and that "the decision to change the state status... cannot be made before a previously held referendum". Everything else about the referendum can be found in the Referendum Law of the republic of Montenegro. Once the referendum is called, it is possible that all 447,000 voters will participate. It is also possible that all of them vote in the same manner. In that case, if we are to believe those who are making noise these days, the parliament with the two-thirds majority can be "stronger" than all 447,000 voters. What sort of democracy is that? That parliament, elected by a smaller number of voters can suspend the will of all voters. There are many other practical and legal and essentially democratic questions. What if all of that was really necessary? What should we do in the situation that is also possible - a referendum is held with a strong turnout, the proposed changes approved by a majority, the parliament votes, but one vote is missing for the two-thirds majority needed to confirm the will expressed in the referendum. Is it possible to envisage that type of democracy in which one vote, even if of a representative in the parliament, is stronger than the will of a majority of Montenegrin voters? All that and much else indicates that the referendum and its consequences is one thing and the procedure for the change of the constitution something totally different. Namely, in the independence referendum you are not asked whether you support changes of article 1,2,3,4... of the constitution as the constitution demands when other proposed changes of the constitution are concerned, but a general question about the state status of Montenegro. Therefore after the referendum the parliament must simply register the results of the referendum with an appropriate act of the parliament, dissolve the parliament and then constitute a new parliament that will work on the constitutional expression of the will expressed in the referendum. Finally, since the announced referendum will decide the state status of Montenegro one wonders why is there so much noise against the referendum, why insistence that all nationals of Montenegro, rather than those to whom the constitution of Montenegro applies, the residents of Montenegro, vote in the referendum, why deliberate misinterpretation of the constitution and the demand for the two-thirds majority in the parliament purportedly needed to verify the will of the citizens expressed in the referendum only in the case of independence of Montenegro, if the political assertions of these very same readers that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Montenegro supports the joint state are concerned? Therefore, if someone is confident that what is taking place in Montenegro is separatism, and that the overwhelming majority of the population supports the joint state, why are some afraid of the referendum? Another question, if it is necessary to accept such mistaken interpretation of the constitution, if it is necessary to secure in the referendum "maximum majority" beyond democratic standards and if that will needs to be confirmed by a two-thirds majority in the parliament, why don't those who read the constitution of Montenegro in that manner propose that the question in the referendum be "do you agree that Montenegro should stay in the joint state" or even more precisely "in current Yugoslavia"? One would think that such a solution would be suitable for them. Thereby they could confirm with the will of the citizens in the referendum and two-thirds majority of representatives in the parliament that at the recent elections in Montenegro separatism was defeated, that the majority, overwhelming, some claim even two-thirds majority, of citizens of Montenegro supports the joint state. This would give them a chance to formally confirm all of that "in accordance with their expert interpretation of the constitution of Montenegro". Simply this is a quasi-political effort of the so-called intensive minority to disrespect democratic procedure, to ignore the will of the citizens and to secure for themselves, via wrong interpretation of the constitution, and with forceful support of the greater Serbian nationalists, undeserved positions and, what is most important, stop the unstoppable process of democratic, state, national and civic emancipation of Montenegro.

Two-thirds majority Was not Demanded in 1992, Why Would It Be Any Different Today?

Montenegro entered the joint state after a referendum held in 1992. More than a half of eligible voters participated in that referendum. Out of the voters participating in the referendum, more than a half voted in support of a joint state of Serbia and Montenegro. Wouldn't it be democratic if in the same way and through identical procedure we decide whether Montenegro will continue to exist as a state in the wider community or as an independent state. Then it was not demanded that the parliament confirm the will of the voters expressed in the referendum by a two-thirds majority, the constitution was not modified even though the decision was about the state status, but based on the referendum results the new constitution was written, which was the constitutional expression of the new state status of Montenegro decided by the will of the voters in the referendum, rather than any sort of majority of this or those representatives in the parliament. If that was then, why should it be any different today?

(The author is a senior official of the ruling Democratic Party of Socialists)

Translated on January 8, 2001