Update
Draft Law Amending the Law on Prevention of Corruption
Draft law analysis Draft Law Amending the Law on Prevention of Corruption The Agency for the Prevent...
On 29 July, the National Assembly rejected a motion of no confidence in the government of Prime Minister Đuro Macut. Of 176 MPs present, 40 voted in favour of the motion, 135 against, and one abstained, so the cabinet retained the Assembly's confidence. The debate ran across three days, from Monday 27 to Wednesday 29 July.
The motion itself was not new. It was filed on 13 February by 62 opposition MPs from a broad group of parties. In their explanation, they cited a reasonable suspicion that individual members of the government were implicated in the Generalštab case - Minister Nikola Selaković is the first defendant in that proceeding - and the fact that the Prime Minister had taken no action in response. Presenting the motion, authorised proposer Miroslav Aleksić, leader of the People's Movement of Serbia - New Face of Serbia parliamentary group, argued that the opposition sought no confidence in the Macut cabinet but that this extended to the entire system, and called on President Aleksandar Vučić to call elections.
The more significant part of the story is what happened between February and July. Under parliamentary procedure, a no-confidence motion should reach the agenda of the next session after it is filed. Instead, the motion first came before MPs on 15 April, when the session could not be held for lack of a quorum, was postponed to the following day, and again could not proceed. For months afterwards, Speaker Ana Brnabić repeatedly stated that the session would be held only "when there are no more important priorities for the state", while the Assembly's time went to the set of judicial laws and to amendments to the electoral laws.
When the session was finally convened, it was not the opposition that secured it. The sitting was called at the request of 109 MPs of the ruling "Aleksandar Vučić - Serbia must not stop" group, who also provided the quorum for it to take place. A no-confidence motion could be heard only once the ruling majority chose to supply the quorum for it. The opposition that filed the motion could not muster a quorum on its own, which left the timing and conduct of its own oversight instrument in the hands of the majority it was seeking to challenge. The Open Parliament initiative had earlier assessed that the authorities were working to secure "controlled conditions" for the debate.
Other circumstances reinforced that impression. The debate was scheduled for the end of July, when public attention is lower, and the public broadcaster RTS interrupted its live coverage of the session to broadcast a football match. MPs of the NADA coalition and the Democratic Party did not attend, maintaining their boycott of parliamentary sittings in support of students.
The motion itself was not new. It was filed on 13 February by 62 opposition MPs from a broad group of parties. In their explanation, they cited a reasonable suspicion that individual members of the government were implicated in the Generalštab case - Minister Nikola Selaković is the first defendant in that proceeding - and the fact that the Prime Minister had taken no action in response. Presenting the motion, authorised proposer Miroslav Aleksić, leader of the People's Movement of Serbia - New Face of Serbia parliamentary group, argued that the opposition sought no confidence in the Macut cabinet but that this extended to the entire system, and called on President Aleksandar Vučić to call elections.
The more significant part of the story is what happened between February and July. Under parliamentary procedure, a no-confidence motion should reach the agenda of the next session after it is filed. Instead, the motion first came before MPs on 15 April, when the session could not be held for lack of a quorum, was postponed to the following day, and again could not proceed. For months afterwards, Speaker Ana Brnabić repeatedly stated that the session would be held only "when there are no more important priorities for the state", while the Assembly's time went to the set of judicial laws and to amendments to the electoral laws.
When the session was finally convened, it was not the opposition that secured it. The sitting was called at the request of 109 MPs of the ruling "Aleksandar Vučić - Serbia must not stop" group, who also provided the quorum for it to take place. A no-confidence motion could be heard only once the ruling majority chose to supply the quorum for it. The opposition that filed the motion could not muster a quorum on its own, which left the timing and conduct of its own oversight instrument in the hands of the majority it was seeking to challenge. The Open Parliament initiative had earlier assessed that the authorities were working to secure "controlled conditions" for the debate.
A no-confidence motion could be heard only once the ruling majority chose to supply the quorum for it.
Other circumstances reinforced that impression. The debate was scheduled for the end of July, when public attention is lower, and the public broadcaster RTS interrupted its live coverage of the session to broadcast a football match. MPs of the NADA coalition and the Democratic Party did not attend, maintaining their boycott of parliamentary sittings in support of students.
