An unusual situation on the parliamentary calendar – ‘rival’ sittings of the same parliamentary committee came into the limelight. The Environmental Protection Committee scheduled two, at first glance, almost identical sittings announced for the same day, Friday, November 25th, 2022, with an hour gap, both on the topic of lithium mining and the ‘Jadar’ project, but with one important difference – the sittings were held in two different cities, in Belgrade and in Loznica. The president of the committee with four committee members from the opposition and representatives of civil society was at the session in Loznica, while, at the session in Belgrade, there were the deputy president of the committee with members from the ruling majority, ministers Đedović and Vujović, the mayor of Loznica and two professors from the Faculty of Mining and Geology in Belgrade.
How did we get to ‘rival’ sittings of the same committee? Aleksandar Jovanović Ćuta, chairman of the committee and opposition MP, scheduled the fifth sitting of this committee for 11 o’clock with “Rio Tinto and the ‘Jadar’ project – pros and cons” on the agenda, using the right granted by the Rules of Procedure to schedule the sitting outside the Parliament – in the Assembly of the city of Loznica. Let us remind you, that is where the activities of the disputed project, against which the citizens have been protesting for more than a year, are partially taking place or being planned. All members of the committee, line ministers, experts in the field, including two associate deans of the University of Belgrade, residents and activists who submitted a people’s initiative on this topic were invited to the sitting. Then the vice chairman of the committee from the ruling majority, Milimir Vujadinović, at the request of the members of the committee from the ruling majority, scheduled the next in order, the sixth sitting of the committee for the same day and one hour earlier – at 10 o’clock, in Belgrade in the National Assembly, with the issue of lithium exploitation in Serbia on the agenda.
At the sitting scheduled by the chairman of the committee, Jovanović, neither the members nor the deputy members of the committee from the parliamentary majority showed up, thus blocking the possibility of the committee to make any decision. The line ministers did not show up either. On the other hand, the sitting scheduled by the parliamentary majority was attended by both line ministers with the explanation that they came to the sitting where quorum is met, and since the majority of members were also present, the committee in that composition (without opposition members) was able to adopt the conclusion. They concluded the following: “The committee received information and became acquainted with the issue from representatives of the professional public and two ministries (the Ministry of Mining and Energy and the Ministry of Environmental Protection); The committee is informed within its competences; During the discussion, MPs posed questions to experts and presented their observations; The committee will make the stenographic notes and the minutes of this sitting, available to MPs, the National Assembly and the public for detailed familiarisation with this topic.”
Although at first glance this may seem like a harmless parliamentary imbroglio, this situation is a signal of a more serious problem in the functioning of our Assembly and the work of MPs in the new convocation. What are the divided committee and ‘rival’ sitting telling us, what is it really about? In order to unravel this situation and understand its consequences, we must first go back to the basic rules of the game.
Who, when and where schedules sittings?
As a rule, the committee meeting is convened by the chairman of the committee, who is in charge of harmonising the work of his committee with other committees and the work of the Assembly, suggests to the committee how to deal with initiatives, petitions, proposals that are within the scope of the committee, takes care of whether the committee’s conclusions are implemented, etc. (see article 70 of the Rules of Procedure). At the same time, if one-third of the members of the committee (or the Speaker of the Assembly), submit a request to the chairman of the committee to schedule a sitting he is obliged to do so, within the time limit that the members determine and indicate in the request, on the topic they proposed for the agenda. If he does not do so within the specified period, then the sitting is called by the deputy chairman of the committee or the Speaker of the Assembly.
And what is the role foreseen for the deputy chairman of the committee? Well, according to the parliamentary Rules of procedure, the deputy assumes the duties of the chairman of the committee only if the chairman is prevented, for example due to illness, travel, or similar situation, and in agreement with the chairman of the committee. What is by no means usual is a situation in which the deputy chairman of the committee tries in any way to take over the role of chairman if there is no agreement between them. There is a clear difference in the roles and rights of the chairman of the committee and his/her deputy, which are specified in the parliamentary Rules of procedure, just like in the case of the Speaker of the Assembly and the deputy speaker, or the head of the parliamentary group and the deputy.
Who then tailors the work of the committee in practice? Although the chairman of the committee has formally the most authority, essentially without the support of the majority of committee members, the chair has no substantive power to steer the committee’s work, agenda, or committee’s conclusions. Committee members are the ones who adopt the agenda of the sitting and the conclusions at the end of the sitting, who can request that a topic or question be discussed at the plenum, to request information or reports from the competent bodies of the executive branch, whereby one third of the members can request convening a committee sitting on the topic they want, as we have already mentioned. If the majority of the committee members are not present at the committee sitting (the so-called ‘quorum’), those present can only initiate a discussion in order to inform the committee about a certain issue or a problem.
So, in practice, without the support of the majority of the committee members, the committee cannot decide which topic will be discussed at the sitting, cannot adopt a decision, initiate some of the mechanisms provided (such as a public hearing, for example), in other words, use all procedures available for quality and meaningful work. And who makes up the majority of committee members? The structure, i.e., the distribution of committee members by party, mirrors the relationship in the plenum – each parliamentary group proposes members and their deputies for the committees in proportion to the number of MPs it has and in relation to the total number of MPs. Therefore, in the composition of each committee, the majority among the members is the parliamentary majority (article 23 of the Rules of Procedure).
One important detail that is often overlooked is the explicit duty of committee members to participate in the work of the committee (prescribed by the Rules of procedure and the Law on the Assembly). Although these rules are stipulated by the parliamentary Rules of procedure and the Law, no specific sanction is prescribed in case the committee members violate them. Naturally, it may happen that committee members miss a sitting or two, due to other parliamentary duties, illness, travel, etc... but the solution for those cases is also foreseen: their deputies have the duty to replace them. Systematic avoidance of quorum, i.e. non-appearance of the majority of committee members at sittings, in practice hinders the work of the committee and fundamentally renders meaningless the mechanism that is necessary for the quality work of the committee and the Assembly. Result: citizens are deprived of the Assembly’s quality work of the Assembly.
The missing magic ingredient
With all the rules on the functioning of the committee set forth the Rules of Procedure and the Law, we often forget about the unwritten prerequisites that are taken for granted in functional democracies. It goes without saying that there is pluralism and functional dialogue in the Parliament between MPs or committee members from different parliamentary groups and political parties, because the moment they take the parliamentary oath, their priority becomes the representation of ALL citizens and the protection of the PUBLIC interest.
In other words, it is understood that, regardless of differences in political views and party interests, all MPs are united by a ‘higher’ goal – which is the quality work of the Assembly, when it comes to its legislative branch and in terms of parliamentary oversight and control over the work of the executive power, as well as the accountability for devoted and conscientious use of all parliamentary mechanisms for the benefit of the citizens to whom MPs must be available
This is the ‘magic ingredient’ without which parliamentary committees essentially cannot function in practice. The climate and current situations that we are witnessing in this convocation, instead of these basic prerequisites, demonstrate growing majority’s allergy to pluralism. And without the will and desire of the majority of committee members to use parliamentary mechanisms efficiently, citizens remain deprived of their quality work and results, particularly when it comes to important topics and burning issues that directly affect our lives.
How to proceed: power and accountability
From the brief work that the current convocation has put in so far, the increasing tensions between the ruling majority and the opposition are echoing. By not appearing at the sittings of the Committee for Environmental Protection convened outside the Assembly, the MPs of the parliamentary majority in practice avoid giving the opposition MPs even a small space to present their opinion, but also to initiate some of the oversight mechanisms over what the executive does in practice. It is natural that opposition MPs are the catalyst for parliamentary oversight and control.
Nevertheless, what the ruling majority does not see – or does not care to see – is that it simultaneously avoids a mechanism designed to help them hear what problems citizens are facing in the field, to get out of the ‘ivory tower’, open a direct channel of communication and timely perceive the burning concerns and obstacles that undermine the quality of everyday life for all of us in Serbia. And the price for that is high – not only do they not narrow the gap between the Assembly and the citizens, but they rather contribute to the growing mistrust towards the MPs, further worsening the image of the position and role of MPs in the eyes of the public. This is what local resident Zlatko Kokanović says for N1: “I am bitter and disappointed with such arrogance. Who is this Milimir, what did I do to him, what do I owe Milimir that he will not come and look into the eyes of two men who represent the village?“
Exactly the accumulation of such apparently benign situations, which in practice lead to nonsense, filibustering and obstruction of work, has hindered the high-quality and efficient work of the Assembly and led to a systemic disruption of processes and procedures in the previous 10 years or so. This is a sure path to the complete collapse of the institution of the Assembly, its integrity and the increasing distrust of the public towards the role, function and power of the Parliament in our society.
It is high time for all of us to return to the basics and essence, to inform ourselves and think about what committees and other parliamentary mechanisms are there for and what they are used for in practice, for the benefit of all of us.
Author: Tara Tepavac