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

Predsednik Narodne skupštine dr Vladimir Orlić sazvao je Četvrtu sednicu Drugog redovnog zasedanja Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije u 2022. godini, za četvrtak, 22. decembar 2022. godine, sa početkom u 9.30 časova.

Predsednik Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije dr Vladimir Orlić sazvao je Šesti redovni sastanak Kolegijuma Narodne skupštine u Trinaestom sazivu za četvrtak, 22. decembar 2022. godine, sa početkom u 8.30 časova.

Akademija ženskog liderstva, grupa Novinarke protiv nasilja prema ženama i inicijativa Otvoreni parlament pokreću izbor za najmizoginiju* izjavu 2022. godine. Pozivamo sve građanke i građane Srbije da do četvrtka 29.12.2022. godine glasaju za javno izrečenu izjavu, za koju smatraju da je ostavila najveće posledice i dodatno produbila neravnopravnost i diskriminaciju žena u Srbiji.

Glasanje se vrši na linku

Na samom kraju 2022. godine podsećamo se mnogih mizoginih i seksističkih izjava koje su zabeležili mediji i kojima su kršeni pozitivni propisi i javno vređane sve žene u Srbiji. Smatramo da su seksizam i mizoginija veoma prisutni u javnom govoru u Srbiji i protiv toga se zajednički borimo. Oni su naročito opasni kada se pojavljuju u institucijama, medijima i na društvenim mrežama. Predstavljaju prvi vidljivi izraz rodne neravnopravnosti u našem društvu. Po pravilu su usmereni na žene i devojčice sa idejom njihove diskriminacije. Veoma utiču na mentalno i fizičko zdravlje žena i devojčica.

Protiv mizoginije i seksizma se uvek moramo boriti i tražiti odgovornost za sve one koji ih koriste.

Podsećamo da je Akademija ženskog liderstva pratila nasilje nad političarkama, aktivistkinjama i drugim ženama uključenim u sprovođenje izbora.

Akademija poziva sve žene angažovane u javnom i političkom životu da prijave svaki oblik nasilja kojem su bile izložene koristeći kontakt formu na našoj stranici https://liderke.org/prijavi-nasilje/  ili mail [email protected] .

*naziv za netrpeljivost, prezir, mržnju ili predrasude prema ženama ili devojkama

Kontakt osobe:
Biljana Stepanov: [email protected] 063397172 i Miloš Đajić, 063 578 361  Akademija ženskog liderstva
Smiljana Milinkov, grupa Novinarke protiv nasilja prema ženama, [email protected] 
Tamara Branković, inicijativa Otvoreni parlament [email protected] 

The sitting of the National Assembly of Serbia on the Republic Budget was scheduled only 24 hours in advance. The parliamentary leadership has yet again demonstrated its intention to nullify the role of the Parliament and limit the debate, even though one of the most important laws of the country is on the table. The outcome of such conduct may be the adoption of potentially bad solutions that go against the citizens interests.

This intention of the ruling majority is further verified by the fact that, starting today, MPs have the task of discussing another 34 documents – that is more than 2,700 pages of material that entered the parliamentary procedure during the past two weeks.

"This kind of agenda does not allow for quality preparation, work and discussion. It is especially concerning that this kind of practice is applied when one of the most important laws, the Budget of Serbia, is discussed. Even the public hearing on the Budget did not significantly contribute to the preparation of the MPs for the debate, as it also took place on Sunday, right before the scheduling of the session. When a sitting is scheduled within these deadlines not only are the MPs deprived of the time they need to prepare, but the rules of the Assembly also prevent them from submitting amendments to the agenda. This can result in a law with inadequate solutions for citizens", said Tamara Branković from the Open Parliament.

The Open Parliament is deeply concerned that negative practices, which undermined the reputation and significance of the National Assembly in earlier convocations, are once again present. In addition to constant convening of sessions according to urgent procedures, it seems that the goal is to prevent pluralism, debate and exchange of opinions, both during parliamentary plenums and sittings of parliamentary committees.

The Open Parliament would also like to remind that during the previous convocation there were some noticeable improvements in parliamentary work. However, these improvements were not implemented in the rules and procedures. This implementation is something the Open Parliament advocated, warning that otherwise they could easily be abandoned, which is what we are witnessing now.

The Open Parliament has developed a set of recommendations, including the Model Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly. These proposed solutions aim to enable all MPs equal access to the Parliament, as well as to transform the Parliament into a space for adequate discussion of topics of public interest. Some of the issues the recommendations touch upon are: the necessity to discuss the non-existence of the annual work plan for the Assembly; the need to have no other agenda points at the Republic Budget session; the role of the Speaker of the Parliament and its deputies; the fundamental application of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament, and the need for the parliamentary agenda to include not only proposals submitted by the executive authorities, but the proposals of MPs as well.

Sednica Skupštine Srbije o državnom Budžetu zakazana je samo 24h pre njenog početka. Skupštinsko rukovodstvo je ponovo demonstriralo nameru da obesmisli ulogu parlamenta i ograniči raspravu, čak i kada je u pitanju jedan od najvažnijih zakona države. Ishod ovakvog postupanja može da bude usvajanje potencijalno loših rešenja, koje mogu da imaju negativne posledice po interes građana.

Nameru vladajuće većine dodatno potvrđuje i činjenica da poslanici od danas imaju zadatak da paralelno raspravljaju o još 34 dokumenta, odnosno o više od 2.700 strana materijala koji su ušli u skupštinsku proceduru tokom protekle dve nedelje. 

“Ovakav dnevni red ne može da omogući kvalitetnu pripremu, rad i diskusiju, a posebno brine kada se ovakva praksa primenjuje i u slučaju rasprave o jednom od najvažnijih zakona - Budžetu Srbije. Ni javno slušanje o Budžetu nije suštinski doprinelo pripremi poslanika za debatu, jer je i ono održano u nedelju, neposredno pred zakazivanje sednice. Poslanici ne samo što nemaju dovoljno vremena za pripremu, već ih i pravila Skupštine sprečavaju da podnose predloge za promene dnevnog reda kada se sednica zakazuje u ovim rokovima. Kao ishod, možemo da dobijemo zakon sa lošim rešenjima za građane”, izjavila je Tamara Branković ispred Otvorenog parlamenta.

Otvoreni parlament izražava duboku zabrinutost što su negativne prakse, koje su urušavale ugled i smisao Narodne skupštine u ranijim sazivima, ponovo prisutne. Pored sazivanja sednica po hitnim postupcima, prisutna je namera da se onemogući pluralizam, debata i razmena mišljenja, kako tokom skupštinskih plenuma, tako i na sednicama skupštinskih odbora. 

Otvoreni parlament podseća i da je u skupštinskom radu tokom prethodnog saziva došlo do izvesnih poboljšanja. Ipak, ova poboljšanja nisu našla svoje mesto u pravilima i procedurama, za šta se Otvoreni parlament zalagao upozoravajući da se u suprotnom od njih lako može i odustati, kao što je sada slučaj.

Otvoreni parlament je, podsećamo, razvio set preporuka, uključujući i Model Poslovnika Narodne skupštine. U pitanju su predlozi rešenja čiji je cilj da svim poslanicima omoguće ravnopravan pristup parlamentu, kao i da stvore prostor da se u parlamentu adekvatno razgovara o temama od javnog interesa. Neke od preporuka su da je neophodno razgovarati o problemu odsustva godišnjeg plana rada Skupštine, o potrebi da na sednici o državnom Budžetu nema drugih tema, o ulozi predsednika i potpredsednika Narodne skupštine, suštinskoj primeni Kodeksa ponašanja narodnih poslanika, kao i o potrebi da se u skupštinsku agendu uključuju i predlozi poslanika, a ne samo izvršne vlasti.

Predsednik Narodne skupštine dr Vladimir Orlić sazvao je Treću sednicu Drugog redovnog zasedanja Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije u 2022. godini, za ponedeljak, 5. decembar 2022. godine, sa početkom u 11.10 časova.

Predsednik Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije dr Vladimir Orlić sazvao je Peti redovni sastanak Kolegijuma Narodne skupštine Trinaestog saziva za ponedeljak, 5. decembar 2022. godine, sa početkom u 9.30 časova.

1. Konsultacije u vezi sa radom Narodne skupštine na Trećoj sednici Drugog redovnog zasedanja Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije u 2022. godini
 

2. Ostale aktivnosti u Narodnoj skupštini u periodu od 5. do 11. decembra 2022. godine.

Neobična situacija na skupštinskom kalendaru - „rivalske“ sednice istog skupštinskog odbora dospele su u žižu javnosti. Odbor za zaštitu životne sredine zakazao je dve, na prvi pogled skoro identične sednice najavljene za isti dan, petak 25. novembar 2022. godine, sa razmakom od sat vremena, obe na temu iskopavanja litijuma i projekta „Jadar“, ali sa jednom bitnom razlikom – sednice su se održale u dva različita grada, u Beogradu i u Loznici. Na sednici u Loznici bio je predsednik odbora sa četiri člana odbora iz opozicije i predstavnicima civilnog društva, a na sednici u Beogradu zamenik predsednika odbora sa članovima iz vladajuće većine, ministarkama Đedović i Vujović, gradonačelnik Loznice i dvoje profesora sa Rudarsko-geološkog fakulteta u Beogradu.

Kako smo došli do „rivalskih“ sednica istog odbora? Aleksandar Jovanović Ćuta, predsednik odbora i opozicioni poslanik, zakazao je Petu sednicu ovog odbora za 11 časova sa Rio Tintom i projektom „Jadar“ – za i protiv na dnevnom redu, koristeći se pravom koje nudi Poslovnik da sednicu zakaže van sedišta Skupštine - u Skupštini grada Loznice. Da podsetimo, upravo tamo se delimično odvijaju odnosno planiraju aktivnosti spornog projekta, protiv kog građani protestuju već više od godinu dana. Na sednicu su pozvani svi članovi odbora, resorne ministarke, predstavnici struke, uključujući i dvoje prodekana Univerziteta u Beogradu, meštani kao i aktivisti koji su podneli narodnu inicijativu na ovu temu. Zatim je potpredsednik odbora iz vladajuće većine Milimir Vujadinović, na zahtev članova odbora iz vladajuće većine, zakazao narednu po redu, Šestu sednicu odbora, za isti dan i to sat vremena ranije - u 10 časova, u Beogradu u Domu Narodne skupštine, sa razmatrajem pitanja eskploatacije litijuma u Srbiji na dnevnom redu.

Na sednici koju je zakazao predsednik odbora Jovanović nisu se pojavili ni članovi ni zamenici članova odbora iz parlamentarne većine i tako blokirali mogućnost da odbor donese bilo kakvu odluku. Sa druge strane, sednici koju je zakazala parlamentarna većina, prisustvovala je većina članova, kao i obe resorne ministarke sa obrazloženjem da dolaze tamo gde je kvorum. Odbor u Beogradu je u tom sastavu (bez opozicionih članova) mogao da usvoji zaključak. Zaključili su sledeće: „Odbor je primio informaciju i upoznao se sa problematikom od predstavnika stručne javnosti i dva ministarstva (Ministarstva rudarstva i energetike i Ministarstva zaštite životne sredine); Odbor je informisan u okviru svojih nadležnosti; Narodni poslanici su u toku diskusije postavljali pitanja stručnjacima i iznosili svoja zapažanja; Odbor će stenografske beleške i zapisnik sa ove sednice staviti na raspolaganje poslanicima, Narodnoj skupštini i javnosti radi detaljnog upoznavanja sa ovom temom“.

Iako na prvi pogled možda deluje kao bezazlena skupštinska zavrzlama, ovakva situacija signal je za ozbiljniji problem u funkcionisanju naše skupštine i radu poslanika u novom sazivu. Šta nam podeljeni odbor i „rivalske“ sednicama govore, o čemu se zapravo radi? Da bismo uspeli da raspletemo ovu situaciju i razumemo njene posledice, za početak moramo da se vratimo na osnovna pravila igre.

Ko, kada i kako zakazuje sednice?

Sednicu odbora po pravilu saziva predsednik odbora, koji je zadužen da uskladi rad svog odbora sa drugim odborima i radom Skupštine, predlaže odboru kako da se postupa sa inicijativama, peticijama, predlozima koji su u delokrugu odbora, vodi računa da li se zaključci odbora sprovode itd (videti čl. 70 Poslovnika). Istovremeno, ako jedna trećina članova odbora predsedniku odbora podnese zahtev da zakaže sednicu (ili na zahtev predsednika Skupštine), on je dužan da to i učini, i to u roku koji članovi odrede i naznače u zahtevu, na temu koju su predložili za dnevni red. Ako to ne uradi u naznačenom roku, onda sednicu saziva zamenik predsednika odbora ili sam predsednik Skupštine.

A koja je uloga predviđena za zamenika predsednika odbora? Prema skupštinskom poslovniku, zamenik preuzima dužnosti predsednika odbora samo ako je predsednik sprečen, na primer zbog bolesti, putovanja, ili slične situacije, i to u dogovoru sa predsednikom odbora. Ono što nikako nije uobičajeno jeste situacija u kojoj zamenik predsednika odbora na bilo koji način pokušava da preuzme ulogu predsednika ukoliko o tome ne postoji dogovor između njih. Postoji jasna razlika u ulogama i pravima predsednika odbora i njegovog/njenog zamenika, koja su precizirana u skupštinskom poslovniku, kao i u slučaju predsednika Skupštine i zamenika predsednika, ili šefa poslaničke grupe i zamenika.

Ko onda kroji rad odbor u praksi? Iako je predsednik odbora taj koji formalno ima najveća ovlašćenja, bez podrške većine članova odbora, predsednik nema suštinsku moć da upravlja radom odbora, agendom ili rezultatima odbora. Članovi odbora su ti koji većinom glasova usvajaju dnevni red sednice i zaključke na kraju sednice, sa kojima mogu da zatraže da se neka tema ili pitanje raspravlja na plenumu, informacije ili izveštaje od nadležnih organa izvršne vlasti, a jedna trećina članova može da zahteva sazivanje sednice odbora na temu koju žele, kao što smo već pomenuli. Ako na sednici odbora ne prisustvuje većina članova odbora (takozvani „kvorum“), prisutni mogu samo da povedu raspravu, da bi obavestili odbor o nekom pitanju ili problemu.

Dakle, u praksi, bez podrške većine članova odbora, odbor ne može da odluči o kojoj će se temi raspravljati na odboru, da usvoji odluku, pokrene neki od mehanizama koji ima na raspolaganju (poput javnog slušanja). Drugim rečima, odbor je sprečen da obavlja kvalitetan i smislen rad. 

A ko čini većinu članova odbora? Struktura odnosno raspodela članova odbora po partijama preslikava odnos u plenumu – svaka poslanička grupa predlaže članove i njihove zamenike za odbore srazmerno broju poslanika koji ima i odnosu na ukupan broj poslanika. U sastavu svakog odbora većinu među članovima čini parlamentarna većina (čl. 23 Poslovnika).  

Jedan važan detalj koji često promiče je i eksplicitna dužnost članova odbora da učestvuju u radu odbora (propisana poslovnikom i zakonom o Skupštini). Ipak, nije propisana konkretna sankcija u slučaju da članovi odbora prekrše pravila rada i svoju dužnost. Naravno, može se desiti da članovi odbora propuste po neku sednicu, zbog drugih poslaničkih obaveza, bolesti, putovanja itd... ali rešenje za te slučajeve je takođe predviđeno: njihovi zamenici imaju dužnost da ih zamene. Sistemsko izbegavanje kvoruma, odnosno ne pojavljivanje većine članova odbora na sednicama, u praksi koči rad odbora i suštinski obesmišljava mehanizma koji je neophodan za kvalitetan rad odbora i Skupštine.

Magični sastojak koji nedostaje

Uz sva pravila o funkcionisanju odbora zapisana u Poslovniku i zakonu, često zaboravljamo na one nepisane preduslove koji se u funcionalnim demokratijama podrazumevaju. Podrazumeva se da u parlamentu postoji pluralizam i funkcionalan dijalog između poslanika odnosno članova odbora iz različitih poslaničih grupa i političkih partija. Onog trenutka kad polože poslaničku zakletvu, njihov prioritet postaje predstavljanje SVIH građana i zaštita JAVNOG interesa.

Drugim rečima, podrazumeva se da, bez obzira na razlike u političkim stavovima i partijskim interesima, sve poslanike ujedinjuje „viši“ cilj – a to je odgovorno predstavljanje, zastupanje i zaštita javnog interesa kroz rad Skupštine, kako zakonodavan tako i u pogledu parlamentarnog nadzora i kontrole nad radom izvršne vlasti, kao i otvorenost i dostupnost građanima.

Ovo je „magični sastojak“ bez kog skupštinski odbori suštinski ne mogu da funkcionišu u praksi. Atmosfera i događaji kojima svedočimo u ovom sazivu umesto negovanja ovih osnovnih preduslova pokazuju prisustvo alergije skupštinske većine na pluralizam. Bez interesa većine članova odbora da se skupštinski mehanizmi koriste na delotvoran način, građani ostaju uskraćeni za njihov kvalitetan rad i rezultate, posebno u pogledu bitnih tema i gorućih problema  koji direktno utiču na naše živote.

Kako dalje: moć i odgovornost

Iz dosadašnjeg kratkog rada aktuelnog saziva, odzvanjaju sve veće tenzije između vladajuće većine i opozicije. Nepojavljivanjem na sednicama Odbora za zaštitu životne sredi van sedišta Skupštine, poslanici parlamentarne većine u praksi izbegavaju da opozicinim poslanicima daju makar mali prostor da izlože svoje mišljenje, ali i da pokrenu neke od mehanizama za kontrolu nad onim što izvršna vlast radi u praksi. 

Prirodno je da je su poslanici opozicije katalizator parlamentarnog nadzora i kontrole. Međutim, ono što vladajuća većina ne vidi – ili za šta ne mari, jeste da istovremeno izbegava mehanizam osmišljen da im pomogne im da čuju sa kakvim se problemima građani suočavaju na terenu, da izađu iz „kule od slonovače“, otvore direktan kanal komunikacije i pravovremeno sagledaju goruće brige i prepreke koje urušavaju kvalitet svakodnevnog života građana Srbije. Cena za to je velika - ne samo da udaljavaju Skupštinu od građana, već doprinose rastućem nepoverenju prema poslanicima pogoršavajući dodatno sliku o ulozi narodnih poslanika u očima javnosti. Tako meštanin Zlatko Kokanović za N1 kaže: „Ogorčen sam razočaran, to je tolika bahatost, ko je taj izvesni Milimir, šta sam ja njemu uradio, jel’ ja to Milimiru šta dugujem da on neće da dođe da pogleda u oči dva čoveka koji predstavljaju selo?“

Upravo je gomilanje ovakvih naizgled benignih situacija, koje u praksi vode u obesmišljavanje, filibastering i opstrukcije rada, (za)kočilo kvalitetan i delotvoran rad Skupštine i dovelo do sistemskog narušavanja procesa i procedura u prethodnih 10ak godina. To je siguran put ka potpunom urušavanju institucije Skupštine, njenog integriteta i sve većeg nepoverenja javnosti prema ulozi, funkciji i moći parlamenta u našem društvu.

Vreme je da se svi vratimo osnovama i suštini, da se informišemo i razmislimo čemu odbori i drugi skupštinski mehanizmi služe i za šta se u praksi koriste, za dobrobit svih nas.

Autorka: Tara Tepavac

Ovaj materijal objavljen je u okviru inicijative „Otvoreni parlament” udruženja Crta, uz finansijsku pomoć Ambasade Savezne Republike Nemačke u Beogradu. Za njegovu sadržinu isključivo je odgovorna Crta i ta sadržina nipošto ne odražava zvanične stavove Ambasade Savezne Republike Nemačke u Beogradu.

The Open Parliament is deeply concerned regarding the recent events in the National Assembly. The transpired behavior of MPs encourages sexism, discrimination and violent behavior towards women. This perpetuates a trend of diminishing the reputation of the Parliament and its members.

The discussion in plenum was overflowing with insulting, misogynistic and discriminating comments and gestures. The gesture that stands out is one made by Dalibor Šćekić, an MP from the Serbian Progressive Party. According to MPs who witnessed it, he simulated sexual intercourse during a speech held by Tatjana Manojlović, an MP from the Democratic Party. 

This act violates the dignity of all women amongst MPs, of the National Assembly itself, and of all female citizens of Serbia. 

The MPs have filed numerous reports on the violation of Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly because of inappropriate statements and gestures at the plenary discussion during the Second Sitting of the Second Session of the National Assembly in 2022. An adequate reaction by the Speaker of the Parliament to these reports is still lacking. The only statement that provoked a response by the Speaker is the one made by Dušan Radosavljević, an MP from the Movement to restore the Kingdom of Serbia (POKS), who compared statistics with a bikini. 

The Open Parliament reminds that the MPs are not allowed to use vulgar, sexist or discriminating gestures in their public addresses. They are also not allowed to encourage such behavior, as it would contribute to the normalization of misogyny in society. The National Assembly is a place where MPs are supposed to represent the citizens who not only elected them, but also trusted them with the power to represent their interest. Discriminatory, verbal insults, disparagement of female MPs, that aims to lower their self-esteem and integrity and to discredit them in the eyes of the public, is a form of verbal violence. There is no place for any form of violence in the National Assembly, or for that matter any other public institution and public sphere in general.

The Open Parliament points out that the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination prescribes that „it is forbidden to expose an individual or a group of persons, on the basis of his/her or their personal characteristics, to harassment and humiliating treatment aiming at or constituting violation of his/her or their dignity, especially if it induces fear or creates a hostile, humiliating or offensive environment“(Art. 12), as well as that sexual harassment is a criminal offense.

We remind once again that in 2020 the National Assembly adopted a Code of Conduct which explicitly states that: „The Member of Parliament is to be a model of ethical behavior of a holder of public office“(Art. 7). The Code of Conduct further states that it’s the MPs duty „not to use expressions, words or gestures that insult or disparage the human dignity and violate the dignity of the National Assembly“ (Art. 8, paragraph 1, item 6).

The Open Parliament urges the Speaker of the Parliament to act within his competences and accept the request of MPs to thoroughly investigate and sanction this incident. Furthermore, the Open Parliament urges the MPs to restrain from any and all inappropriate gestures and respect the dignity of the National Assembly