Kori Udovički
CEVES calls on all those interested in good governance in Serbia to oppose the recently adopted amendments to the regulations on the process of adopting new regulations and public policies („regulations“ hereinafter). With these amendments, the Government has freed itself from the obligation to submit new regulations to public consultations as well as to submit them for assessment to the Republican Secretariat for Public Policies (RSJP). The exemption applies „only“ to cases where the regulation concerns „harmonization with EU law,” which can essentially be almost anything that can be changed in regulations. Far from being a „practical solution“ on the European path, as it is presented, this is the beginning of the final phase of destroying the professional public administration – which the authorities are carrying out for their own, admittedly practical, reasons. A legal and systemic analysis of what exactly has been done has been excellently provided by Đorđe Vukotić in his article for N1 and Forbes Serbia, here (https://forbes.n1info.rs/biznis/propisi/), and there is no need for me to repeat it here.
I want to be more explicit than Mr. Vukotić in emphasizing what this is about: far from a „practical solution“ on the European path, as it is presented, this is the beginning of the final phase of destroying the professional public administration – which the authorities are carrying out for their own, admittedly practical, reasons. The tactic serves to expand the scope of arbitrary rule over the country, as it forces the authorities to present us with a fait accompli.
Two recent examples are emblematic of this tactic. At the end of November last year, the Government adopted amendments to its Rules of Procedure. The nominal goal was „harmonization” with the obligation from the Reform Agenda – to reduce the number of exceptions to public debate. And this was done in one article. But this amendment was accompanied by the formulation of a new Article 41a, which actually expands the possibility of exemption. Three representatives of civil society and a representative of the Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities in the working group rejected this additional amendment in writing – the proposal was nevertheless sent to the Government for adoption, without informing the members of the working group and without the prior opinion of the European Commission or SIGMA/OECD. SIGMA issued a mostly negative opinion only after adoption, requesting that Article 41a be deleted or amended. The National Convention on the EU and civil society warned the European Commission in a timely manner, so the Reform Agenda will not be fulfilled in this regard, and the Government will not receive the corresponding funds.
Let's also look at the case of the „Mrdić laws” on the judiciary. These measures were so undemocratic and non-European that the EC initiated the Venice Commission to provide an opinion on them urgently. That opinion is now being discussed through the wrong procedure, and although the opinion is unusually detailed and directive – it is difficult to believe that all essential matters will be returned to their previous state. The most difficult will be the most important: that all professional and diligent prosecutors who worked on sensitive cases in TOK return to them. And this tactic continues, now with the "Petrašinović" amendments to the election laws, which are in the parliamentary procedure.
Therefore, the opinion of „Europe” may patch up the jug, but the milk will remain spilled. If these regulations remain valid, neither civil society nor RSJP will be able to warn about problematic regulations in a timely manner. By „problematic,” we do not only mean undemocratic, but also a series of possible „honest” mistakes and inconsistencies that RSJP and civil society point out today before they cause damage.
The excuse that this is about „accelerating EU integration” plays on three cards. The first card is for people who don't have time to go into detail – the majority: why all these checks, asks a rational, incompletely informed observer, when European regulations are being „copied” anyway, which the European Commission will read anyway and give its opinion on? The second is for „patriotic” readers: if you believe that Serbia should draft its own regulations, „copying” should anger you – the regime is constantly working to make citizens hate the EU. The third card serves the same purpose as the previous one and is intended to highlight European double standards, which President Vučić so often invokes Brussels for: such a solution would show that consultations and quality control are necessary for everyone else, but not when the projects are European.
We forget that even Sweden, which only joined the EU in 1995, worked throughout the period from candidacy to membership not on copying the acquis, but on applying it in a Swedish way. Every country that not only respects itself but also wants its regulations to work must ask itself: how will this rule look in our legislative practice and public administration? how will this authority function with our social welfare system? how will this deadline fit into our procedures? This is not resistance to European law – it is the job of every serious country entering such a community. And this is precisely the job that RSJP helps the entire administration to do better. Without it, we are left with regulations that work in their original contexts, but are inapplicable in ours, or are distorted, or simply not implemented.
This is precisely where lies another reason why it is „practical“ for RSJP and the public to see new regulations as late as possible. Because, both RSJP and domestic civil society can better and faster recognize the Trojan horses in new regulations than European experts can, even though European experts are often more familiar with the acquis itself – domestic actors know how our house really works.
Yes, amendments that are pushed through „in the dark,“ bypassing all of us, and which contradict EU law, will be able to be „prevented“ and returned to their previous state with sufficient pressure. The jug will sometimes be patched up. But, as the TOK case shows, the milk remains spilled. Every day of arbitrary rule "bought" this way is worth the regime's effort – especially since it consumes not only the energy of the authorities, but also the attention and energy of all of us who fight for the protection of professional and democratic standards. Among other things, every day in which the work of professionals in RSJP is rendered meaningless will be another blow that erodes its capacity.
The role of the RSJP is to fight for the meaning, rationale, and consistency of regulations – as well as for the coordination and minimum effectiveness in the Government's work planning. For Serbia, this is gold that must not be lost. Serbia needs professional, purposeful, and responsible governance more than anywhere else outside the former Yugoslavia – and it is harder to build. Because the Yugoslav legacy, combined with the politicization of the professional sphere from the beginning of the transition onwards, has positioned public administration in such a way that purposeful management is difficult – almost impossible. CEVES points this out in its first Report on Economic Governance in Serbia (see especially Chapter 4, serbia2eu.org). One of the basic findings of this study is that precisely because we lack purposefulness in governance – there is no development plan, existing plans are non-binding, and regulations are over-regulated to absurd detail – a clear division of responsibility is also impossible, and therefore the effectiveness of work. Furthermore, administration is fragmented, making coordination impossible. In such an environment, without the RSJP, only the voice of one minister against the voice of another minister remains, and Aleksandar Vučić arbitrates everything.
The RSJP is probably the most important, and certainly the unique result of almost a decade and a half of efforts – and significant EU funds – invested in building a „center of government“ in Serbia, without which there is no serious governance. The work began in 2003, was completed in 2018 with the adoption of the Law on the Planning System, and throughout all those years, the RSJP has been highlighted as one of the few structural successes. The EU itself has repeatedly emphasized „the importance of the strong quality control role of the Republic Secretariat for Public Policies and other institutions of the center of government.“ I expect that EU officials will soon recognize that with this maneuver, the regime is significantly raising the temperature of the pot in which it has been boiling us, like frogs, for more than a decade. If it does not raise its voice, the EC will turn its back on its enormous efforts and funds invested in the past; and even worse – it will turn its back on the chances for Serbia to finally establish the administration it needs to function as a modern and European country, whether inside or outside the European Union. The first next reform achievement to be lost will be the professionalism in the work of the RSJP itself – its remaining professionals will begin to leave. It will be the first, but certainly not the only one.
— Kori Udovički
