CONSTRAINTS FOR EFFECTIVE PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCACY IN THE BALKANS

Most of the Balkan states are unicameral parliamentary democracies (except for BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA) in which the executive branch is democratically legitimised by and accountable to the legislature.

Throughout the region, parliaments are chosen by popular vote in largely free and fair nationwide electoral contests, and function according to constitutionally-ascribed provisions. However, non-respect of existing legal frameworks and rules of perocedure, combined with weak administrative capacities, still jeopardize the quality of legislation and the supervisory role of parliaments in the Balkans.

On an operational level, some of the main problems confronting parliaments in the region relate to short timeframes, insufficient human resources and inadequate expertise. To various extents across the Balkans, parliamentary committees work under strict deadlines to allow for the necessary analysis and discussion of any given piece of legislation. Brief and formal committee meetings also preclude proper consultation with interest groups and civil society organisations, which can face discouraging bureaucratic procedures or legal obstacles to participating in deliberations (for instance, in ALBANIA, KOSOVO, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA and SERBIA). There are, however, positive developments in the partnership betwee civil society and the state, namely in MONTENEGRO and FYR MACEDONIA. In MONTENEGRO in particular, there is now a regular involvement of NGOs in policy development, legislative drafting and monitoring processes, including in sensitive fields such as the anti-corruption fight and judicial edfficiency.

In countries like ALBANIA, it is not uncommon for the ruling party to schedule urgent parliamentary sittings for arguably no other reason than to satisfy the executive's last minute political priorities. In other cases, however, the executive can simply choose not to involve the legislature at all in the adoption of different national strategies and action plans.

Regarding administrative capacities, a common complaint in Balkan countries like SERBIA, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, MONTENEGRO and KOSOVO is that the parliaments' services are often understaffed and lack the required expertise to assist parliamentarians with timely and relevant materials on draft laws and incoming reports. In ALBANIA, for instance, the Legal Committee and the EU Integration Committee are the smallest in size even though they are responsible for the largest share of the legislative workload.

In addition, thoughout the region, human resources are poorly managed insofar as administrators work without clear job descriptions and recruitment continues to be carried out on the basis of political affiliation. Frequent replacements of personnel following changes of government or high-level transfers from political to administrative positions are just a few regional examples that defy the principles of de-politicisation and professionalism of the assembly's administration.

Equally important, parliaments in the Balkans often fall short in their role of monitoring the executive branch. Oversight instruments such as investigative committees, Q&A sessions, motions for debate or of (no) confidence and reporting are only applied in a limited manner and, when used, they often merely serve the purpose of fighting political adversaries. Moreover, in some countries like SERBIA and MONTENEGRO the five minutes allowed during control hearings are often misused by parliamentarians to depart from the topic on the agenda and start polemics that defeat the purpose of the procedure.  In SERBIA, MONTENEGRO and in KOSOVO, commentators criticize the fact that the questions MPs do address to their governments are usuallu better than the delayed answers they receive, and complain that Balkan ministers are not yet in a habit of reporting on their activity before the assembly. In fact, government officials in KOSOVO do not attend plenary sessions on a regular basis. All of these factors can effecttively allow governments in the region to operate unchecked, and even to control the assembly via parliamentary majorities, as is the case in both ALBANIA and MONTENEGRO.

The media could persuade institutions to abide by European democratic standards, but journalists in the Balkans still lack the necessary specialisation to be able to keep tabs on their parliaments and governments.

Parliaments in the Balkans

ALBANIA: Unicameral (140 members elected for a 4 year term)

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA : Bicameral (House of Representatives 98 members appointed for 4 year term by proportional representation and House of Peoples 58 members appointed by parliaments of the constituent republics)

CROATIA: Unicameral (151 members elected for a 4 year term)

FYR MACEDONIA: Unicameral (123 members elected for a 4 year term by proportional representation)

KOSOVO: Unicameral (120 members- of these 100 are directly voted in the assembly)

MONTENEGRO: Unicameral (81 members elected for a 4 year term)

SERBIA: Unicameral (250 members elected for a 4 year term through a closed-list proportional representation)