„Neće biti napretka u stanju ljudskih prava niti u bilo kojoj drugoj oblasti, u privredi, ekonomiji sve dok se u Srbiji ozbiljno ne shvate poglavlja 23 i 24 kao temeljne vrednosti za koje se zalažemo u pregovorima sa Evropskom unijom, odnosno dok se ne uredi pre svega stanje u pravosuđu. Lično ne verujem u iskrene namere Skupštine Srbije da položaj žena u društvu učini boljim, ali smatram da dijalog sa zakonodavcem treba nastaviti,“ rekla je za Otvoreni parlament  Marijana Savić, direktorka NVO „Atina“, organizacije koja se zalaže za jednak tretman svih članica i članova društva.

OP: Kada kao neko ko dolazi iz nevladinog sektora i bavi se ljudskim pravima i položajem žena, čujete da se prošle nedelje u skupštini sastala Ženska parlamentarna mreža i donela neke zaključke, da li ta vest ima značaja za vas?

MS:  Ne, ne, ta vest zaista nema težinu jer ne postoji poverenje u Parlament. Moralo bi prvo da se stekne poverenje u tu političku instituciju kao i u sve institucije koje bi trebalo da implementiraju zakone i politike. To poverenje se izgubilo pre mnogo godina i zaista su potrebni ozbiljni  koraci kako bi se ponovo uspostavilo. Potreban je zaista partnerski odnos sa svim učesnicima u društvu koji su zainteresovani za određene teme, zatim implementacija svega što je do sada usvojeno i  urađeno. Institucije treba da pokažu odlučnost, treba da prekinu lošu praksu relativizacije i to ne samo nasilja, već i drugih važnih tema koje se tiču svih građana. Siromaštvo je samo jedna od tih tema. Mora se uočiti kako temeljne bolesti našeg društva, te perzistentne barijere kao što su korupcija i nepotizam utiču i na neravnopravnost žena.

OP: Pomenuli ste relativizaciju. Poruka predsednice Ženske parlamentarne mreže Sandre Božić posle konferencije bila je da ne smemo govoriti „nasilje nad ženama“ jer se žena dovodi u položaj objekta, već da usvojimo „nasilje prema ženama“. Jel to važno?

MS: To je primer relativizacija svega što se dešava ženama svakodnevno. Standardni poricateljski repertoar. Hajde da pitamo žene koje trpe nasilje da ili im je važnije da se kaže “nad” ili “prema” ili da dobiju podršku, izvesnost, razumevanje i pomoć. Takve „jezičke nedoumice“ su tu da se skrene dijalog, kojeg i inače nema, na neke nevažne teme, a da se ne progovori o suštini. Ova se tema ne sme shvatati olako.

OP: Čuli smo više puta od zvaničnika da su žene u Srbiji institucionalno zaštićene, ali da to nije dovoljno. Opet, pohvalno je što u Skupštini sedi i odlučuje 40 posto poslanica i to što je, kako je nedavno istakla premijerka Ana Brnabić, porastao broj žena na čelu gradova i opština. Da li je to mogući put poboljšanja položaja žena u društvu?

MS: Ne. Nije rodna ravnopravnost ili bilo koja ravnopravnost broj ili neka kvota koja treba da se ispuni. To bi zapravo bilo verovanje da su građanke i građani koji žive u ovoj zemlji ravnopravni i stremljenje tome da se izbrišu sva mesta neravnopravnosti. To je duboko uverenje da treba brisati sve linije diskriminacije i afirmisati načine na koje ćemo svi učestvovati u donošenju odluka. Ovde vidimo da to nije afirmisano, jer donositi odluke znači biti transparentan i odgovoran za usvojena rešenja. Omogućiti građanima da učestvuju u procesima odlučivanja, informisati ih i omogućiti im da budu informisani, sve to znači podlogu i temelj za ravnopravnost. To što će biti 40 ili 60 odsto poslanica koje su tu došle nečijom odlukom,  ne znači puno.

OP: Da li to znači da se ne može mnogo očekivati ni od ponovo najavljenog  Zakona o rodnoj ravnopravnosti ?

MS: Ne očekujemo promene na bolje. Zaista bi trebalo nešto nesvakidašnje da se desi kako bi se vratilo bar očekivanje da će se zakon implementirati. Po načinu na koji se ova verzija pravi i koliko se konsultuju svi koji su zainteresovani za taj proces, ništa nam ne ukazuje da  će biti drugačije nego do sada.

OP: Da li se sećate nekog primera kada je zakonodavac poslušao neke preporuke nevladinog sektora? Da li vas konsultuju?

MS: Jedno je konsultovati, a drugo prihvatiti ono što je iskustvo organizacija na terenu, civilnog društva, akademskih ustanova ili institucija na lokalnom nivou koje se svakodnevno suočavaju sa različitim problemima. Kad govorimo o rodnoj ravnopravnosti, nasilju ili socijalnoj politici, ili o situacijama u koje dođu žrtve porodičnog nasilja ili trgovine ljudima, zakoni se uglavnom kreiraju sa vrha. Sastavi se neka radna grupa od ljudi koji nemaju iskustvo bavljenja tim problemom, a ne uzimaju se u obzir iskustva onih koji se time autentično bave. Ne verujem da ćemo zakonom dobiti novi instrument koji bi trebalo da nam pomogne da pratimo šta država radi po tom pitanju. Ipak, NVO „Atina“ kao i mnoge ženske feminističke organizacije učestvuje u svim razgovorima o rešenjima koji se tiču žena i devojčica, njihovog ekonomskog položaja. Mi radimo na tome da promovišemo bolji socijalni položaj žena jer je to jedini način da vrate kontrolu nad svojim životima i izbore se za ravnopravnost.

OP: Dakle, u razgovorima sa zakonodavcima svakako treba učestvovati?

MS: Sve ovo podseća koliko je važno braniti državu od vlasti. Velika je to pretnja postala, glumiti dijalog, dobiti legitimitet od civilnog sektora, a onda nastaviti kao da nikad ništa nije dogovoreno. Dok se ne bude preuzimala odgovornost i snosile konsekvence, ne može biti napretka. Takođe, nema ekonomskog napretka niti rodne ravnopravnosti ako ne donesemo odluke da zatvorimo poglavlja 23 i 24 u pristupu EU, koja se odnose na vladavinu prava. Nema napretka dok ljudi ne shvataju korelaciju izmedju „rules of law“ i nezavisnog pravosuđa, jake borbe protiv korupcije i organizovanog kriminala, reformisanja javne uprave i policije. Bez toga ne možemo nigde.

“There will be no progress in the state of human rights in any area, in the economy or economics, until Chapters 23 and 24 are taken seriously in Serbia, as fundamental values that we advocate in the negotiations with the European Union, more precisely, until the situation in the judiciary will have been regulated. Personally, I do not believe in the sincere intentions of the Serbian Parliament to improve the position of women in society, but I do believe that the dialogue with the legislator should continue,” said for the Open Parliament Marijana Savić, director of the NGO “Atina”, an organisation that advocates equal treatment of all male and female members of society.

OP: When, as someone who comes from the non-governmental sector and deals with human rights and the position of women, you hear that the Women’s Parliamentary Network met in the Assembly last week and came to some conclusions, does that news matter to you?

MS:  No, it doesn’t, that news really has no weight because there is no trust in the Parliament. What should be first gained, it is confidence in that political institution, as well as in all institutions that should implement laws and policies. That trust was lost many years ago and serious steps are really needed to re-gain it. We really need a partnership with all participants in society who are interested in certain topics, followed by the implementation of everything that has been adopted and done so far. Institutions should show determination, they should stop the bad practice of relativisation, not only of violence, but of also other important topics that concern all citizens. Poverty is just one of those topics. It must be noted that the fundamental diseases of our society, and persistent barriers such as corruption and nepotism also affect the inequality of women.

OP: You have mentioned relativisation. After the conference, the message of the president of the Women’s Parliamentary Network, Sandra Božić, was that we should not talk about “violence against women” because a woman is reduced to the position of an object, but that we should adopt the expression “violence towards women”. Is this important?

MS: This is an example of the relativisation of everything that happens to women every day. It is a classical denialism repertoire. Let’s ask women who suffer violence whether it is more important for them to use the preposition “against” or “towards”, or to receive support, certainty, understanding and help. Such “linguistic dilemmas” are there to divert the dialogue, which does not exist anyway, to some unimportant topics, without talking about the essence. This topic should not be taken lightly.

OP: We have heard several times from officials that women in Serbia are institutionally protected, but that this was not enough. Yet, it commendable that there are 40 percent of female MPs who have seats in the Assembly and who make decisions. As the Prime Minister Ana Brnabić recently emphasised, the number of women who are the head of cities and municipalities increased. Is it a possible path towards the improvement of women’s position in society?

MS: No, it isn’t. Gender or any other type equality is not a number that should be reached or a quota that should be achieved. It should actually be the belief that all male and female citizens living in this country are equal and the desire to annihilate all places of inequality. It is a deep conviction that all lines of discrimination should be erased and the ways in which we will all participate in decision-making should be affirmed. We can see here that it is not affirmed, because making decisions means being transparent and accountable for the adopted solutions. Enabling citizens to participate in decision-making processes, informing them and enabling them to be informed, all this represents the basis and foundation for equality. The fact that there will be 40 or 60 percent of female MPs who got seats in the Assembly by someone’s decision, doesn’t mean much.

OP: Does that mean that not much can be expected from the newly re-announced Law on Gender Equality?

MS: We do not expect changes for the better. Something extraordinary should really happen in order to restore at least the expectation that the law will be implemented. Given the way this version is being drafted and the extent to which interested parties are being consulted, nothing indicates that it will be different than before.

OP: Do you remember any example when the legislator listened to some recommendations of the non-governmental sector? Do they consult you?

MS: It is one thing to consult and another to accept the experience of organisations, civil society, academic institutions or institutions at the local level that face various problems on a daily basis. When we talk about gender equality, violence or social policy, or about situations in which victims of domestic violence or human trafficking find themselves, laws are mostly created from the top. A working group composed of people who do not have experience in dealing with this problem is formed, and the experiences of those who deal with it authentically are not taken into account. I do not believe that we will get a new instrument by law that is supposed to help us monitor what the state is doing on that issue. However, NGO “Atina”, as well as a number of other women’s and feminist organisations, participates in all discussions about solutions concerning women and girls, their economic position. We are working to promote a better social position of women because it is the only way for them to regain control over their lives and to fight for equality.

OP: Therefore, we should by all means participate in talks with legislators?

MS: All this reminds us how important it is to defend the state from the authorities. It has become a great threat, to playact a dialogue, to obtain legitimacy from the civil sector and then to continue as if nothing had ever been agreed. Until responsibility is assumed and consequences borne, there can be no progress. Also, there will be no economic progress or gender equality if we do not make decisions to close Chapters 23 and 24 in the EU accession, which refer to the rule of law. There will be no progress until people understand the correlation between the rule of law and an independent judiciary, a strong fight against corruption and organised crime, a public administration and police reform. Without that, we can’t go anywhere.

Na početku nove godine u Skupštini sve isto kao i pre

Gledano očima formalnog posmatrača po službenoj dužnosti, u Skupštini Srbije sve je bolje nego pre, ali suštinskog napretka u razvoju demokratije nema. Naprotiv. I ovaj januar, početak nove godine nije doneo ništa novo u nastupima narodnih poslanika, niti u procesu donošenja odluka. Na prvi pogled ispravljaju se greške na koje joj je prošle godine ukazala Evropska komisija. Sednice se zakazuju na vreme, poslanici imaju priliku da postavljaju pitanja izvršnoj vlasti (što bi trebalo da bude način kontrole), izabane su nove sudije, potvrđeni važni međunarodni sporazumi. Sastala se čak i Ženska parlamentarna mreža, održan je skup o odnosima Srbije i Amerike, nekoliko ambasadora posetilo je parlament. To i dalje nije zamaglilo činjenicu da je sve to lako organizovati u praktično jednopartijskom sistemu, kao ni to da se ni onih šestoro poslanika Albanaca i Bošnjaka koji nisu deo vlasti, ove nedelje skoro nisu ni oglasili.

Kada je reč o izboru osmoro novih sudija koji su prvi put postavljeni na sudijsku funkciju, po staroj navici o kandidatima pre glasanja ni ovog puta nismo saznali baš ništa. Zato smo od poslanika čuli da, kratko rečeno, “sudije treba da budu nezavisne, ali da poštuju vladajuću većinu i predsednika Vučića. Poslanici su ponavljali da veruju Visokom savetu sudstva da su kandidati najbolji, te nisu imali nikakva dodatna pitanja o njima. Od poslanice SPS-a Dubravke Kralj čula se primedba da u biografije predloženih sudija treba vratiti podatak o prosečnoj oceni studiranja (što nije nerealan zahtev od poslanice koja je diplomirala sa prosekom 9,97), ali njen predlog nije naišao na podršku. Iz čitave rasprave najupečatljivija je bila poruka advokata Vladimira Đukanovića koji je sa mesta predsednika Odbora za pravosuđe poručio da “čestit sudija ne ide po televizijama”. I ostali poslanici, bilo da su pomenuli sudiju Miodraga Majića, bilo da su govorili o nekim neimenovanim sudijama, vršili su celodnevni pritisak na sve sudije da, nekako nije dobro kad kritikuju predsednika ili donose presude na štetu Srpske napredne stranke.  

Kada je reč o kontrolnoj funkciji Skupštine, i to je obavljeno. Poslednjeg četvrtka u mesecu održana je još jedna sednica na kojoj su predsednica Vlade i ministri odgovarali na pitanja poslanika. U ovakvom sastavu Parlamenta, to zapravo više zvuči kao tri sata besplatnog marketinga vladajućih stranaka. Bilo je pitanja o dobroj organizaciji vakcinacije, ideji ponovnog uvođenja služenja vojnog roka, kolika ulaganja u turizam se planiraju, tražio se savet za poljoprivrednike u šta da ulažu ove godine. Pohvale obrazovanju, ekonomiji, oživljavanju srpskih sela, s tim što je poslanica SPAS-a imala pitanje baš za ministra Ratka Dmitrovića, poslanika PUPS-a baš je zanimao resor sela i ministar Krkobabić, dok su se socijalsti interesovali za mišljenje ministra bez portfelja Ivice Tončeva. 

Od ostalih januarskih aktivnosti izdvajamo konferenciju Ženske parlamentarne mreže pod nazivom "Hrabrost je ženskog roda", a tema je bila stanje rodne ravnopravnosti u Srbiji. Usred afere o zlostavljanju u pozatoj školi glume koja poslednjih dana potresa Srbiju, predsednik Skupštine Ivica Dačić izrazio je “veliko poštovanje za hrabrost mladih glumica da se usprotive nasilju”. Dodao je da je u Srbiji  institucionalna zaštita prava žena na visokom nivu, da postoje dobri zakoni, ali da to nije dovolljno, “sve dok i jedna žena u Srbiji smatra da je na bilo koji način diskriminisana, ugrožena ili podređena”.

Premijerka Ana Brnabić pohvalila je Žensku parlamentarnu mrežu jer je, kako je ocenila “pokazala kako se bori za rodnu ravnopravnost i kako se  radi na istom cilju”, što se možda odnosilo na neke ranije godine s obzirom na to da celu mrežu praktično čine poslanice vladajuće većine. Premijerka se pohvalila sve većim brojem žena na čelu lokalnih samouprava i važnih institucija, velikim brojem ministarki u Vladi, ali nije pomenula podatak da je u prošloj godini prema podacima nevladine ogranizacije Autonomni ženski centar, 22 žene u Srbiji ubio partner ili drugi član porodice, a u još pet slučajeva postoji sumnja da se radi o femicidu. 

Inače, prethodna aktivnost Ženske parlamentarne mreže zabeležena je u prošlom sazivu, još u martu 2019. godine, kada su narodne poslanice učestvovale u radu sednice Ženskog parlamenta Skupštine Crne Gore. Pre toga, u oktobru 2018. godine u Skupštini je održana godišnja Nacionalna konferencija Ženske parlamentarne mreže „Žene grade budućnost“. 

Portal Danas u saradnji sa inicijativom Otvoreni parlament svakog meseca objavljuje mesečne izveštaje o aktivnostima u Skupštini Srbije.

Predsednik Narodne skupštine Ivica Dačić sazvao je, na zahtev 237 narodnih poslanika, Drugo vanredno zasedanje Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije u Dvanaestom sazivu, za utorak, 9. februar 2021. godine, sa početkom u 10.00 časova.

How does is Serbia fighting against the "white plague" and why the biggest problem with the coronavirus epidemic is wedding receptions? In the new episode of #CoupletChorusRebuttals listen to how did the MPs oversee the work of the Government by asking these and many other questions.

Thanks to the President and the Government, Serbia received the vaccine and lives normally, and the biggest problem with the coronavirus epidemic is that wedding receptions are forbidden. These are, in short, the impressions from the session at which the MPs oversaw the work of the Government by asking questions to the ministers. Prime Minister Ana Brnabić included vaccines, economic progress and excellent moves made by her Government in every answer. 

“People, look at what’s going on around us. Look at Europe. Look at the restrictions they imposed. Life there is not nearly normal. If you read the press like the Daily Mail, for example, the Netherlands is on the brink of civil war. In Great Britain, everything is closed, in Germany, everything is closed. We are leading an excellent fight.”

The coronavirus was the main topic, and the leader of United Serbia, Dragan Marković Palma connected it with the fight against the “white plague” and asked the crisis response team to allow people to have weddings with at least 150 guests. He chitchatted about it with the ministers of health, Zlatibor Lončar, and of agriculture Branislav Nedimović.

“Well I know at least twenty families who are waiting for measures to be cancelled. How are we supposed to fight the white plague? She’s sleeping at her dad’s; he’s sleeping at his dad’s. In the meanwhile, they fall out because of measures and the wedding is off.”

“I especially don’t understand what you’ve said about her sleeping over at her mom’s and him at his dad’s, because they didn’t get married. I haven’t heard yet that love is waiting for a signature, or for things like that.”

“What you’re telling us is reflected in the system HoReCa (hotels and restaurants). There’s nothing going on there. Nobody’s eating out. Our consumption of beef has dropped by 70 percent and the consumption of pork has fallen by 25 percent, but people, health comes first, come on.”

“In villages people live to see wedding parties, especially grandparents who say – I want to see my grandson getting married, I want to dance kolo (circle dance) and then I can die.”

The practice has continued that MPs most often ask questions to ministers from their own parties, that ministers give too long answers. The Serbian Socialist Party fellows Ivica Dačić and Minister of Education Branko Ružić even managed to joke about this.

“Ladies and gentlemen MPs...”

“It won’t be hard with Ružić, I’ll cut him off, but I don’t know what to do with the others.”

“You can only follow the Rules of Procedure, Mr. Speaker. We’re joking, of course. These are our private jokes. I think that the esteemed MP Dragan Marković…”

“You see that I can cut you off.”

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You have proved your power and I think it is good that the Serbian public knows who is the head of the Parliament.”

At this session, nine MPs from all parliamentary groups asked questions.

For the Open Parliament Mirjana Nikolić. 

Srbija je zahvaljujući predsedniku i Vladi dobila vakcinu i živi se normalno, a kod korone najveći je problem što su zabranjena svadbena veselja. To su ukratko utisci sa sednice na kojoj su poslanici kontrolisali rad Vlade postavljajući pitanja ministrima.

Srbija je zahvaljujući predsedniku i Vladi dobila vakcinu i živi se normalno, a kod korone najveći je problem što su zabranjena svadbena veselja. To su ukratko utisci sa sednice na kojoj su poslanici kontrolisali rad Vlade postavljajući pitanja ministrima. Premijerka Ana Brnabić u svaki odgovor ubacila je vakcine, ekonomski napredak i odlične poteze svoje Vlade. 

„Ljudi, pogledajte šta se dešava oko nas. Pogledajte Evropu. Vidite koje su to zabrane. Tamo život nije ni približno normalan. Ako čitate štampu kao što je Dejli mejl, na primer, Holandija je na ivici građanskog rata. U Velikoj Britaniji je sve zatvoreno, u Nemačkoj je sve zatvoreno. Mi se sjajno borimo.“

Korona jeste bila glavna tema, a lider Jedinstvene Srbije Dragan Marković Palma je povezao sa borbom protiv „bele kuge“ te tražio od kriznog štaba da dozvoli ljudima svadbe sa barem 150 gostiju. O tome je proćaskao sa ministrima, zdravlja Zlatiborom Lončarom i poljoprivrede Branislavom Nedimovićem.

„Evo, ja najmanje poznajem 20 porodica, čekaju da se skinu mere. Kako mi da se borimo protiv bele kuge? Ona spava kod tate, on spava kod tate, u međuvremenu se posvađaju zbog mera i nema ništa od brakova.“

„Posebno ne razumem da to što vi kažete da je ona kod mame, da je on kod tate iz razloga što se nisu venčali. Ja još nisam čuo da ljubav čeka potpis da bi se pokazala i slično.“

„To što vi pričate nama se odrazi sve u sistemu Ho Re Ka, hotela i restorana. Nema bre, niko ne jede, 70 posto nam je pala potrošnja goveđeg mesa i 25 posto pala potrošnja svinjskog mesa, ali ljudi, zdravlje je na prvom mestu, ljudi.“

„Na selu ljudi žive za svadbu, pogotovu deka i baka, koji kažu – da sačekam da mi se oženi unuk, da zaigram kolo, pa sutra neka umrem.“

Nastavljena je praksa da poslanici najčešće pitaju ministre iz svojih stranaka, da ministri daju preduge odgovore, pa su na tu temu stranačke kolege iz SPS-a Ivica Dačić i ministar prosvete Branko Ružić stigli i da se našale.

„Poštovane dame i gospodo narodni poslanici...

„Sa Ružićem ću ja lako, ja ću da mu oduzmem reč, ali ne znam šta ću sa drugima.“

„Možete samo po Poslovniku, predsedniče. Šalimo se naravno. To su naše interne šale. Mislim da je uvaženi poslanik Dragan Marković pos …

„Vidiš da mogu da ti oduzmem reč.“

„Hvala predsedniče. Dokazali ste svoju snagu i mislim da je dobro da javnost Srbije zna ko je šef u Parlamentu.“

Na ovoj sednici pitanja je postavilo devet poslanika iz svih poslaničkih grupa.

Za Otvoreni parlament Mirjana Nikolić. 

Mogućnost za različito tumačenje odredbi i jednostepeno odlučivanje skupštinskog Administrativnog odbora, najveći su problemi u primeni novousvojenog Kodeksa ponašanja narodnih poslanika, ocenio je programski direktor Transparentnosti Srbija Nemanja Nenadić. Transparentnost Srbija (TS) uradila je analizu u kojoj je navela da je Kodeks o ponašanju narodnih poslanika  bez jasnih razloga donet po hitnom postupku, da nisu bili prihvaćeni pozivi civilnog društva na razmenu ideja pre njegovog usvajanja, niti na javnu raspravu. Uz sve propuste Nenadić kaže da je bolje što je Kodeks ipak usvojen jer treba koristiti svaki pravni mehanizam kako bi se ukazalo na moguću korupciju.

OP: Imate li poverenja da će Skupština Srbije sprovoditi Kodeks ponašanja i da li će Transparentnost Srbija podnositi prijave nadležnom odboru?

NN: Ako bude razloga, naravno, jer mi uvek koristimo sve raspoložive pravne mehanizme. Mi smo upućivali predstavke Nadzornom odboru koji je formiran za izbore i od kojeg  se nikad nije mnogo očekivalo niti se oglašavao, pa ćemo svakako probati i ovaj mehanizam koji je čvršće pravno utemeljen. Pretpostavljam da će to najpre biti u vezi sa dužnostima poslanika da  obrazlože odluke o zakonima koji su nam bitni. Takođe ćemo se koristiti ovim novim odredbama u želji da dopremo do poslanika i da oni razmotre naše predloge i inicijative. Poslanici bi trebalo da prouče predloge za poboljšanje zakona koje nevladin sektor dostavlja skupštini kad je reč o važnim antikorupcijskim propisima. To ne znači da nužno treba da podrže sve što predložimo, ali mogu da razmotre.

OP: I u analizi ste naveli da je ostalo nedorečeno kakva je uloga Agencije za sprečavanje korupcije u sprovođenju Kodeksa?

NN: Odbor je u obavezi da Agenciji prosledi prijave koje se odnose na pojedine tačke Kodeksa, bilo da je reč o sukobu interesa ili primanju poklona. Međutim, tu postoji jedan pravni problem jer Agencija može da utvrđuje povredu zakona, ali nije ovlašćena da utvrđuje da je povređen Kodeks. 

OP: U Kodeksu postoji član da poslanik ne sme da koristi službena sredstva ili imovinu Narodne skupštine za potrebe izborne kampanje niti da zloupotrebljava poslaničku funkciju radi lične koristi ili koristi političke stranke. Imamo utisak da su poslanici u kampanji sve vreme i svakodnevno krše ovu odredbu, pa na šta se ovo u stvari odnosi? 

NN:  Prvi deo je jasan i to ovde nije moralo da piše, jer je zabranjeno zakonom. Samo osobe koji se štite bezbednosno mogu da koriste službeni auto. Na primer predsednik Skupštine u vreme kampanje može da obilazi odbore svoje stranke ako je procena bezbednosnih službi takva. Ali odredba o zloupotrebi poslaničke funkcije u ličnu ili u korist svoje stranke može se u praksi različito tumačiti. Recimo najekstremniji primer je da poslanik uzme pare za sebe ili stranku od neke firme, pa da koristeći svoje pravo na diskusiju ili poslaničko pitanje u skupštini javno kritikuje  konkurenciju. A u najširem smislu zloupotreba govornice je i kada poslanik u diskusiji o nekom zakonu koristi vreme da promoviše program svoje stranke o tom pitanju iako to nema veze sa trenutnom temom sednice.

OP: Postoji i odredba da poslanik “izbegava svaku situaciju koja bi mogla da nagovesti podmićivanje ili korupciju”. Čini se da ni to ništa ne znači jer je nemoguće dokazati nameru?

NN: Znači da ako ima naznaka da bi trebalo da se sastane sa nekim ko je zainteresovan da ga upozna, ako mu je predložen susret sa nekim uticajnim “ko može da završi neki posao”, poslanik na takve sastanke jednostavno ne treba da ide i toga treba da bude svestan. 

OP: U Kodeksu piše da poslanik “ostvaruje stalni i neposredni kontakt sa građanima u poslaničkim kancelarijama, na tribinama i drugim javnim skupovima, kao i odgovaranjem na pitanja upućena poštom i elektronskim putem”. Za sada se to ne dešava, ko će da ih natera da komuniciraju?

NN: Ukoliko ne odgovaraju na pitanja, poslanici krše Kodeks. Preporuka građanima je da pitanja postave ponovo, sada kada je Kodeks stupio na snagu, pa onda mogu da ukažu na taj problem. 

OP: Ako i ukažu, o prijavama odlučuje Administrativni odbor na čijem čelu je šef najjače poslaničke grupe. Ako Odbor odluči u korist svojih poslanika, kao što je i o kršenju Poslovnika po pravilu odlučivao, posle toga nema dalje procedure?

NN: Tako je, tu se proces završava. Sada je specifično što su zbog sastava Parlamenta skoro svi članovi odbora iz vladajuće koalicije, ali  generalno u većini odbora vlast je uvek činila većinu. Drugi rizik je što onaj ko ukazuje na kršenje Kodeksa treba o tome da dostavi dokaze, dok odbor ništa ne mora da radi po službenoj dužnosti. Zato je TS ukazala da je bolja dvostepenost odlučivanja i da je etičku komisiju trebalo bolje iskoristiti. Jer iako je predviđeno formiranje Komisije za etiku koja bi se starala o primeni Kodeksa, ostalo je nedorečeno koji to, pored poslanika, imenovani i postavljeni članovi mogu biti njen deo. Jedno od najbitnijih pitanja – broj i izbor članova Komisije i način njenog rada – nisu uređeni Kodeksom, već je predviđeno da se uređuju aktom Narodne skupštine. Komisija određuje koji će član biti zaduženi za pružanje poverljivih saveta narodnim poslanicima u vezi sa primenom Kodeksa, ali kvalifikacije za odabir ovih savetnika nisu precizirane. Zato bih rekao da je svakako dobro što je Kodeks usvojen, ali da nakon što Komisija izradi Vodič za primenu Kodeksa, kada će kroz razmatranje primera biti jasnije koje sve dileme treba razrešiti, Skupština treba ponovo da razmotri i precizira sadržaj samog Kodeksa.

The possibility for different interpretations of the provisions and one-step decision-making of the Assembly’s Administrative Committee are the biggest problems in the application of the newly adopted Code of Conduct for MPs, said the programme director of Transparency Serbia, Nemanja Nenadić. Transparency Serbia (TS) conducted an analysis in which it stated that the Code of Conduct for MPs had been adopted by urgent procedure without clear reasons, that civil society’s call for exchange of ideas before its adoption, or for public debate had not been accepted. Nenadić still says that despite all these omissions, it is better that the Code was adopted, as every legal mechanism should be used to point out possible corruption.

OP: Do you have confidence that the Serbian Parliament will implement the Code of Conduct and is Transparency Serbia going to submit complaints to the competent Committee?

NN: If there is a reason, of course, because we always use all available legal mechanisms. We have been submitting petitions to the Oversight Committee, which was formed for the elections and from which not much had ever been expected or announced, so we are certainly going to try this mechanism, which is more firmly legally grounded. I assume that it will first be related to the obligations of MPs to explain decisions on laws that are important to us. We are also going to also use these new provisions in order to reach out to MPs and have them consider our proposals and initiatives. MPs should study proposals for improving the laws that the non-governmental sector submits to the Assembly when it comes to important anti-corruption regulations. This does not mean that they should necessarily support everything we propose, but at least they can consider it.

OP: You also stated in the analysis that the role of the Anti-Corruption Agency in the implementation of the Code remained unclear.

NN: The Committee is obliged to forward to the Agency complaints related to certain points of the Code, whether it is a conflict of interest or receiving gifts. However, there is one legal problem here, because the Agency can establish a violation of the law, but is not authorised to establish if the Code has been violated.

OP: There is an article in the Code saying that an MP may not use official funds or property of the National Assembly for the needs of the election campaign, or abuse their parliamentary function for personal gain or for the benefit of a political party. We have the impression that the MPs in the campaign are violating this provision all the time and every day. What does this article actually refer to? 

NN:  The first part is clear and it did not have to be articulated here, as it is forbidden by law. Officials can use official vehicles only for the purpose of personal safety protection. For example, the Speaker of the Assembly may visit the boards of their party during the campaign if the assessment of the security services is such. But the provision on the abuse of the parliamentary function for personal benefit or for the benefit of one’s party can be interpreted differently in practice. For instance, the most extreme example would be that an MP takes money from a company for themselves or for their party, and then to use their right to a discussion or parliamentary question in the Assembly to publicly criticise the competition. And in the broadest sense, the abuse of the rostrum is also when an MP in a discussion on a law uses the time to promote their party’s programme on that particular issue, although it has nothing to do with the current topic of the sitting.

OP: There is also a provision that the MP “shall avoid any situation that could indicate bribery or corruption.” It seems that even this formulation means nothing as it is impossible to prove the intention.

NN: This means that if there are indications that they should meet with someone who is interested in meeting them, if they are offered a meeting with an influential person “who can get things done”, the MP simply should not go to such meetings and should be aware. 

OP: The Code states that an MP “shall establish constant and direct contact with citizens in parliamentary offices, forums/discussions and other public gatherings, as well as by answering questions sent by mail and electronically.” For now, that is not happening. Who will make them communicate?

NN: If they do not answer the questions, the MPs will violate the Code. The recommendation to citizens is to ask questions again, now that the Code has entered into force, as they will be able to point out the problem. 

OP: If they point it out, the Administrative Committee, chaired by the head of the strongest parliamentary group, will decide on the applications. If the Committee decides in favour of its MPs, as it has been deciding on the violation of the Rules of Procedure, as a rule, there will be no further procedure, is that right?

NN: It is. It is where the process ends. It is now specific that due to the composition of the Parliament, almost all members of the Committee are from the ruling coalition, but in general, in most committees, the regime has always been the majority. Another risk is that the one who points out the violation of the Code should submit evidence about it, while the Committee does not have to do anything ex officio. That is why TS pointed out that two-level decision-making is better and that the Ethics Commission should have been used better. Although the formation of the Ethics Commission, which would take care of the application of the Code, has been planned, it remains unclear who could be its members, in addition to the MPs, nominated and appointed people. One of the most important issues – the number and election of members of the Commission and the manner of its work – are not regulated by the Code, but are envisaged to be regulated by an act of the National Assembly. The Commission shall determine which member will be in charge of providing confidential advice to MPs regarding the application of the Code, but the qualifications for selecting these advisors have not been specified. Therefore, I would say that it is certainly good that the Code has been adopted, but that after the Commission will have developed a Guide for the application of the Code, by analysing examples, it will be clearer which dilemmas need to be resolved. The Assembly should then reconsider and specify the contents of the Code.

Sudeći po novom skupštinskom sazivu analitičar bi mogao pomisliti da u Parlamentu Srbije sede dve partije sa približnim brojem poslanika, pa jednu predvodi Aleksandar Vučić, a drugu Dragan Đilas. Koliko je ponašanje i diskusija u ovom sastavu srpske skupštine u najmanju ruku neobična vidi se iz rezultata analize Otvorenog parlamenta koja kaže da je bez konkurencije najviše puta, u prvih pet meseci novog saziva, pomenut predsednik Srbije i predsednik vladajuće Srpske napredne stranke Aleksandar Vučić, a nakon njega lider vanparlamentarne Stranke slobode i pravde  Dragan Đilas. Uz Vučićevo ime veoma često se koristila sintagma da je “zahvaljujući Vučiću i njegovo mudroj politici” Srbija postigla neki uspeh, dok se uz Đilasovo ime najčešće pominjala reč “tajkun” i navodnih “619 miliona evra koje je oteo od građana”. Dodatni podatak da su  predsedavajući propustili svaku od skoro dve hiljade prilika da govorike prekinu i kažu da Vučić i Đilas nisu tema sednice, govori nam da je upravo suprotno. Parlament je, makar ovih poslednjih meseci, najviše služio kao poligon za predizbornu kampanju i obračun sa neistomišljenicima koji nisu prisutni.

I ne samo sa političarima. Zabeležili smo koliko su u jedanaest sednica jesenjeg zasedanja - devet redovnih i dve posebne, pominjani i drugi pojedinci koji svakako  nisu imali veze sa temama održanih sednica, kao ni sa radom Parlamenta. Analizirali smo koliko su narodni poslanici u periodu od 22. oktobra do 29. decembra, pominjali različite političke aktere ali i osobe koje uopšte ne učestvuju u političkom životu Srbije, medije, nevladine organizacije, javne ličnosti i druge.   

Celo jesenje zasedanje u znaku predsednika Srbije

Tokom prvih pet meseci novog dvanestog skupštinskog saziva, Vučić  je bio pomenut čak 1,604 puta iako se ni jedan zakon o kojem se raspravljao nije odnosio na dužnosti predsednika ili bilo šta što bi bilo u njegovoj direktnoj nadležnosti. Sledi Dragan Đilas o kojem je bilo reči čak 1,030 puta iako je njegova Stranka slobode i pravde bojkotovala prethodne parlamentarne izbore pa osim retkih istraživanja javnog mnjenja, nikada nije izmeren njen rejting. Takođe, Đilas je u vreme prethodne vlasti bio gradonačelnik Beograda, a ne predsednik ili premijer odgovoran za stanje čitave države. Poslanici su dakle Đilasa pominjali duplo češće nego svoju Srpsku naprednu stranku  (659 puta), pa opet predsednika Srbije bez izgovorenog imena (590 puta). Svi ostali su bili daleko manje zanimljivi, ali je interesantno što su nevladine organizacije bile pomenute 99 puta, nezavisna televizija N1 97 puta, dok je poslanica Evropskog parlamenta Tanja Fajon bila pomenuta čak 29 puta (Grafikon 1). Kad je reč o medijima, nevladinim organizacijama pa i predstavnicima Evrope, poslanici su im se najčešće obraćali u zamišljenom dijalogu iznoseći kritike pa i optužbe na koje odgovore ne očekuju.

Grafikon 1: Broj spominjanja različitih političkih aktera i izraza u jesenjem zasedanju

“Hvala predsedniku što sam poslanik”

Aleksandar Vučić je najčešće, čak 340 puta bio pominjan na prvoj sednici jesenjeg zasedanja. Tada su, naročito novi narodni poslanici, govore počinjali izrazima zahvalnosti predsedniku Srbije i Srpske napredne stranke Aleksandru Vučiću što im je pružio poverenje da uopšte budu tu gde jesu,posebno jer se iz biografija mladih sa liste “Aleksandar Vučić - Za našu decu” vidi da su mnogi izabrani bez nekog radnog ili političkog iskustva. Na četvrtoj sednici kada je razmatran set zakona o porezima, Vučić je pomenut 239 puta, 201 put kad se pričalo o digitalnoj imovini i fiskalizaciji, a 197 puta kad su poslanici su raspravljali o budžetu za 2021. godinu (Grafikon 2).

Grafikon 2: Broj spominjanja Aleksandra Vučića po sednicama

Lider opozicije je tajkun i lopov 

Sednica o godišnjim izveštajima i finansijskim planovima nezavisnih tela i institucija bila je prilika da se ime Dragana Đilasa čuje čak 265 puta i ostane upamćena po govoru mržnje. Đilas je tada nazvan “velikim bratom svih finansijskih pronevera u Republici Srbiji” a na udaru poslaničkih kritika našao se i njegov brat Gojko Đilas za kojeg javnost ranije nikada nije čula i koji se ne bavi ni politikom ni javnim poslom. Kako je tada objasnila poslanica Sandra Božić, inače predsednica skupštinskog Odbora za kulturu i informisanje, ona je fotografiju Gojka Đilasa pokazala javnosti zato što građani znaju kako izgleda brat predsednika Vučića, kako izgleda brat premijerke Ane Brnabić, pa smatra da treba da se zna i kako izgleda brat jednog od lidera opozicije. Poslanici su tih dana ponavljali pozive nadležnima da utvrde koliko nekretnina poseduje brat Dragana Đilasa te kako je do njih došao, ali kasnije nisu obavestili javnost da li su im istražni organi ikada odgovorili. Na sednici na kojoj je građanima trebalo približiti rad nezavisnih institucija poput Fiskalnog saveta ili Agencije za borbu protiv korupcije, kritikovan je vlasnik jedne od retkih nezavisnih medijskih kuća u Srbiji Dragan Šolak, ali i Tanja Fajon o kojoj je navedeno da pre svega objasni “u čijoj vili u Ljubljani se nalazi sedište njene partije”. Otvoreni parlament je neke od najupečatljivijih primera govora mržnje objavio na svom twitter nalogu, a najviše pažnje javnosti privukla je izjave poslanice Srpske napredne stranke Biljane Pantić Pilje da nezavisne medije, N1 i Novu S “može opisati samo jedna rečenica - domaći izdajnik, strani plaćenik”. 

Đilas je u govorima poslanika predstavljen ne samo kao sadašnji lider opozicije uz tvrdnje da je “kupio” dobar deo opozicionih aktivista, već i kao simbol bivšeg režima. Kada su poslanici raspravljali o budžetu za 2021. godinu, 223 puta pomenuli su Đilasa, a naročito njegovih sada već legendarnih “619 miliona koje je Đilas stavio na račune svojih privatnih firmi dok je vodio grad Beograd”. 

Grafikon 3: Broj spominjanja Dragana Đilasa po sednicama

I na kraju bilo je situacija da neki ljudi budu pomenuti samo jednom, ali da je zbog njihove popularnosti ili posebno neprijatnog tona, to imalo izuzetno snažan odjek. Danima se u javnosti komentarisalo to što je poslanik Srpske napredne stranke Marko Atlagić poznatu srpsku glumicu Seku Sablić optužio za nedostatak patriotizma odgovarajući na jedan njen intervju u kojem je kritikovala stanje u Srbiji. Isti poslanik pozvao je jednog od najpopularnijih glumaca u Srbiji Dragana Bjelogrlića da se iseli iz države jer je kako tvrdi “obećao da će otići ukoliko ne uspeju protesti nazvani “Jedan od pet miliona” a koji su neko vreme trajali protiv Vučićevog režima.

Judging by the new Assembly convocation, an analyst might think that there are two parties in the Serbian Parliament with a similar number of MPs, one led by Aleksandar Vučić and the other by Dragan Đilas. The unusual behaviour and discussion in this composition of the Serbian Parliament can be seen from the results of the analysis of the Open Parliament, which shows that, without competition, the President of Serbia and the President of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party Aleksandar Vučić was mentioned most often in 2020, followed by the leader of the extra-parliamentary Party of Freedom and Justice Dragan Đilas. Vučić’s name often stood together with a syntagm “thanks to Vučić and his wise policy” Serbia achieved some success. On the other hand, Đilas’s name was most often accompanied with words “tycoon” and alleged “619 million euros that he stole from citizens”.  The additional fact that the speakers of the Parliament missed each of the almost two thousand opportunities to interrupt the addressers and say that Vučić and Đilas were not the topic of the session, tells us that it was just the opposite. At least in recent months, the Parliament has mostly served as a training ground for the election campaign and for confrontation with dissidents who are not even present.

And not just with politicians. We noted that in eleven sittings – nine ordinary and two special ones, other individuals were mentioned, too, although they did not have anything to do with topics of these sittings, nor with the work of the Parliament. We analysed the extent to which MPs in the period from October 22nd to December 29th mentioned various political actors, but also persons who do not participate in the political life of Serbia at all, the media, non-governmental organisations, public figures and others.  

The entire autumn session was dedicated to the President of Serbia

During the first five months of the new twelfth parliamentary convocation, Vučić was mentioned as many as 1,604 times, although none of the laws being discussed referred to the duties of the President or anything that would be in his direct competence. Dragan Đilas closely follows as he was talked about as many as 1,030 times, although his Party of Freedom and Justice boycotted the previous parliamentary elections. Apart from rare public opinion polls, this party’s rating has never been measured. Also, during the previous regime, Đilas was the mayor of Belgrade, and not the president or prime minister responsible for the state of the entire country. However, MPs mentioned Đilas twice as often as their own Serbian Progressive Party (659 times), and then the President of Serbia without saying his name (590 times). All the others were far less interesting, but it is thought-provoking that non-governmental organisations were mentioned 99 times, independent television N1 97 times, while MEP Tanja Fajon was mentioned as many as 29 times (Chart 1). When it comes to the media, non-governmental organisations and even representatives of Europe, the MPs most often addressed them in an imaginary dialogue, presenting criticism and even accusations to which they do not expect answers.

“Thank you, President, that I am an MP”

Aleksandar Vučić was most often, as many as 340 times mentioned at the first constitutive session of the Assembly of Serbia in the Twelfth Convocation. The new MPs were beginning their speeches by expressing gratitude to the President of Serbia and the Serbian Progressive Party, Aleksandar Vučić, for giving them the confidence to be where they are, especially because the biographies of young people from the list “Aleksandar Vučić – For Our Children” show that many of them were elected without any work or political experience. At the fourth sitting, when the set of laws on taxes was discussed, Vučić was mentioned 239 times, 201 times when digital property and fiscalisation were discussed, and 197 times when MPs discussed the budget for 2021. (Chart 2).

Chart 2: Number of mentions of Aleksandar Vučić per sitting

 

The leader of the opposition is a tycoon and a thief 

The sitting devoted to annual reports and financial plans of independent bodies and institutions was an opportunity for the name of Dragan Đilas to be heard as many as 265 times and to be remembered by hate speech. Đilas was then called “the big brother of all financial embezzlements in the Republic of Serbia”, and his brother Gojko Đilas who the public had never heard of before and who was not involved in politics or public affairs, was also attacked by parliamentary critics. As the MP Sandra Božić, who also happens to be the President of the Parliamentary Culture and Information Committee, said, she showed the photo of Gojko Đilas to the public because citizens knew what President Vučić’s brother looked like, what Prime Minister Ana Brnabić’s brother looked like, so she thought it should be known what one of the opposition leaders’ brother looked like. In those days, MPs reiterated the calls to the authorities to determine how much real estate property Dragan Đilas’s brother had, how he had acquired it, but they did not inform the public whether the investigative bodies had ever replied.  At a sitting at which the work of independent institutions such as the Fiscal Council or the Anti-Corruption Agency should have been brought closer to the citizens, the owner of one of the few independent media houses in Serbia, Dragan Šolak, was criticized, together with Tanja Fajon from whom it was demanded to explain first of all “in whose villa in Ljubljana her party was headquartered”. The Open Parliament published some of the most striking examples of hate speech on its Twitter account. The statements of the Serbian Progressive Party MP Biljana Pantić Pilja that the independent media, N1 and Nova S “can be described by only one sentence – a domestic traitor, a foreign mercenary”, attracted the most public attention. 

Talking about Đilas, MPs not only presented him as a current opposition leader claiming that he “had bought” good part of the opposition activists, but also as a symbol of the former regime. When the MPs discussed the budget for 2021, they mentioned Đilas 223 times, and especially his now legendary “619 million that Đilas put on the accounts of his private companies while he was leading the city of Belgrade”. 

Chart 3: Number of mentions of Dragan Đilas per sitting

 

In the end, there was a situation where some people were mentioned only once, but because of their popularity or especially unpleasant tone, the mention had extremely strong repercussions. For days, the public commented that the MP of the Serbian Progressive Party, Marko Atlagić, had accused the famous Serbian actress Seka Sablić of lack of patriotism, responding to one of her interviews in which she criticized the situation in Serbia. The same MP called on one of the most popular actors in Serbia, Dragan Bjelogrlić to move out of the country because, as he claimed, he had promised that he would leave the country if the protests called “One in five million”, which lasted for some time against Vučić’s regime, failed.