Though Montenegro regained its statehood 19 years ago, it continues to grapple with external pressures, economic instability, and social divisions, raising doubts about its true independence and sovereignty.

This sentiment is echoed by the interlocutors of “Vijesti,” who ponder Montenegro’s current ability to make significant state and economic decisions without external influences from neighboring countries or the international community, questioning whether it has a sufficiently effective system with robust institutions that validate its sovereignty in practice.

Some political figures in Montenegro argue that many critical decisions are heavily influenced by Western embassies, while others assert that internal matters are predominantly swayed by Belgrade and, by extension, Moscow.

Montenegro’s membership in NATO since 2017 and its aspirations to join the European Union (EU) also begs the question of how much sovereignty is impacted by these affiliations.

Moreover, the state’s economic sovereignty is under scrutiny, given the heavy reliance on imports and foreign loans, a situation that experts suggest further hampers independent decision-making.

In a referendum held on May 21, 2006, 55.5 percent of voters, totaling 230,661 citizens, favored restoring statehood, while 44.5 percent, equating to 185,002 votes, supported remaining in union with Serbia.

This referendum followed a tumultuous decade in the 1990s, beginning with the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia, where the concept of an independent Montenegro garnered minimal support. This changed later in the decade when the then-united Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) fractured, culminating in Milo Đukanović leading a faction that distanced itself from former president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic.

A house without a host

According to Ivan Vuković, Vice President and MP of the DPS, the terms “sovereignty” and “independence” illustrate the differences in Montenegro’s state functionality before and after August 30, 2020, when his party was ousted from power.

He claims that Montenegro’s sovereign right to self-determination is in question, as the current ruling majority increasingly serves external interests rather than the nation’s own. Vuković emphasizes that Montenegro, despite its historical legacy, is categorized with nations that, while formally independent, lack the capacity for significant political decision-making.

He highlights concerns regarding the current president (Jakov Milatović) admiring Aleksandar Vučić of Serbia for his wine knowledge, or the Assembly president (Andrija Mandić) obeying Vučić’s public reprimand. Vuković expresses confidence that Montenegro will eventually reclaim its sovereignty, reflective of its illustrious history and the demands of its European future.

Vuković notes that the restoration of independence in 2006 was meant to empower citizens to make autonomous political choices, a privilege he underscores amidst the struggles for such rights globally.

However, he argues that the political transitions post-2020 have shifted the decision-making power to individuals whose understanding of Montenegro’s independence contrasts with that of prior leaders.

He highlights a prevailing inferiority complex among new leaders, who demonstrate politically irresponsible behavior, particularly regarding relations with their northern neighbors.

In light of recent geopolitical shifts instigated by Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, Vuković expresses his disappointment that Montenegro’s leaders have not effectively seized the moment to position the nation as a reliable NATO ally and a forthcoming EU member.

The 2020 national elections were significant as they marked the first transition of power through voting after 31 years of DPS leadership, leading to a new government formed by the Democratic Front (DF), Democrats, and the Civic Movement URA, among others. The current government, led by the Europe Now Movement (PES), includes former DF and Democratic party members.

When asked about the role of international actors within Montenegro’s internal political sphere, Vuković likens the country to “a house without a host,” emphasizing the lack of control over its internal dynamics.

Under DPS leadership, Montenegro was viewed as a respected partner on the regional and international stage, prioritizing good-neighborly relations, Euro-Atlantic alliances, and EU integration—decisions made independently considering national interest. He reminds the audience that even the 2006 referendum was conducted in defiance of many traditional allies.

Initially, the EU opposed Montenegrin independence; however, this stance evolved as the referendum approached. Miroslav Lajcak, the EU’s special envoy at that time, acknowledged this shift.

Vuković elaborates that while part of the ruling coalition led by Mandić aligns closely with Belgrade’s interests, several Western allies are actively working to mitigate what he calls a “malignant influence” on Montenegro’s security and political landscape.

Vuković critiques the Prime Minister Spajić, who he feels has not grasped his role, highlighting the president’s diminishing political clout following questionable decisions regarding governmental formations.

Asked whether Montenegro possesses a functional legal and political system with independent institutions validating state sovereignty, Vuković notes that building such institutions requires time and conducive socio-political environments.

He emphasizes that institutions are not abstract entities functioning independently of their surroundings, a misconception often criticized by those blaming the DPS for inadequate institution-building. He draws attention to the enduring reality that democratic development is ongoing and fraught with potential regressions and abuses.

In Montenegro, a nation marked by a turbulent political history, the evolution of institutions relies heavily on the socio-political actors’ commitment to the process, a matter of pressing concern post-2020.

Vuković contends that political purges and rampant party appointments have eroded the institutional foundations established post-referendum, resulting in a decline in professionalism and operational efficacy.

Who “benefited” from independence?

Former People’s Party leader Predrag Popović views Montenegro’s state independence achieved in the 2006 referendum as intrinsically compromised.

He states that a century ago, Montenegrin independence was not a contentious issue, but today’s version has been marred by a repudiation of its former identity, emphasizing the motto of the independent Montenegro: “Montenegro is not for sale.” Fear of beneficial decisions being made elsewhere led to this sentiment.

Popović reflects on the persistent issues regarding organized crime, corruption, institutional disregard, and other societal anomalies, noting that political elites appropriated independence merely to entrench their power, glorifying servility towards Western interests as the pinnacle of governance.

“They reaped immense benefits; independence served not the state but the elite,” he claims.

Regarding Montenegro’s capacity for independent decision-making, Popović argues that the new government has adopted a passive, colonial relationship in its interpretations.

While he notes some domestic policy shifts indicating independent thinking, he maintains that foreign policy continues to adhere to previously maintained scripts.

On identity divisions within society, Popović cites both a lack of dialogue from the prior government—eschewing the opportunity for reasonable compromise—and a forced environment where dissenting voices were marginalized.

He asserts that the dominant narrative framing Montenegro as under threat from Serbia persists but has lost significant traction since the 2020 elections.

Some factions within the ruling coalition are attempting to enshrine the Serbian language’s official status and adjust citizenship regulations to permit dual citizenship with Serbia, rationalizing their actions without broad consensus by citing previous DPS practices.

Popović articulates the distinction between independence and sovereignty, suggesting independence can exist without substantive autonomy—citing examples like Bosnia and Herzegovina and the EU—but true sovereignty is rooted in self-governance aligned with national interests.

Voters legalize “underground crime”

Writer Nikola Nikolić describes independence as a mere “sublimation of legal and political facts,” while sovereignty holds a deeper, more concrete essence.

He critiques the Montenegrin state as lacking legitimate institutions, pointing out that the underlying principles are based on partitocracy and nepotism rather than expertise and competition.

He draws parallels with historical governance, suggesting past leaders were more legitimate than the current cabinet of unknown officials appointed without public scrutiny, leading voters to merely legalize what he describes as a type of underground crime undermining the social fabric.

Nikolić observes that Montenegrin independence still remains polarizing, with a faction perceiving it as a temporary aberration. This vision, he argues, stems from ignorance and regional pressures aimed at undermining the Montenegrin identity.

He contends that those opposing statehood are ultimately working against their own dignity, perpetuating status as unwitting participants in another’s agenda.

The conditions for sovereign fiscal policy did not even exist

On the topic of sovereignty and economics, Montenegro struggles with substantial public debt and import reliance. According to the Ministry of Finance, total public debt in 2024 reached 4.573 billion euros, equating to 61.32 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), with external debt at 4.183 billion euros and internal debt at 331.3 million euros.

In trade, from January to July, Montenegro’s exports totaled 330.8 million euros against imports of 2.336 billion euros—imports thus outpacing exports by a ratio of seven to one, with only a 14.2 percent export coverage rate.

Economist and President of the Montenegrin Employers’ Association (CUP) Vasilije Kostić argues that the Montenegrin economy prioritizes survival over sustainable growth, criticizing the portrayal of this approach as successful.

He emphasizes that the focus should shift from mere survival to efficient economic growth that is environmentally sustainable. If the public ever prioritized economic efficiency over survival, the resulting feedback would demand accountability from the government.

Kostić posits that a country’s competitiveness hinges on productivity rather than the mere presence of a strong production base, asserting that systemic issues stem from a lack of coherent industrial policy and an excessive emphasis on social populism for political gains.

He notes that no nation can be wholly self-sufficient but can enhance its sovereignty through well-thought-out development strategies that strengthen its economy over the long term.

Regarding Montenegro’s capacity for autonomous fiscal policy, Kostić asserts that the necessary conditions for sovereignty are absent, acknowledging even healthier economies face limitations.

He attributes these challenges to inherited institutional inadequacies, suggesting that no government starts with a clean slate and each is bound by the legacies of its predecessors, thus impacting its responses to contemporary issues.

Nikolić: Cultural identity on glass legs

Nikolić reflects on Montenegro’s cultural identity, labeling it “undefined and disoriented,” indicative of a culture unsure of its direction.

He questions the viability of cultural identity amidst the perceived threat of aggression towards cultural sites, meager funding for cultural initiatives, and subpar institutional standards, making it easy for politicians to exploit cultural narratives for their gain.

Art, in his view, barely transcends everyday consumerism and lacks the capacity for significant change.

Ultimately, he feels current artistic discourse exists only within an insular circle, engaged in superficial exchanges.

Vuković: Populists are counting on the disappointed

Regarding the need for citizen trust in institutions to uphold sovereignty, Vuković identifies eroded trust in political systems and mainstream parties as a major challenge of our era.

This deterioration has fueled the popularity of populist parties, which promise simple solutions to complex issues, notably problematic in nascent democracies like Montenegro.

Vuković illustrates this trend through the actions of the current ruling PES and its disregard for constitutional protocols.

He warns that the violent denouncement of all aspects of the previous DPS administration has inadvertently opened avenues for populist movements like PES.

Kostić: Economic efficiency is a condition for social justice

When asked about the feasibility of balancing economic efficiency with social justice in Montenegro, Kostić asserts that genuine dialogue around social justice is unachievable without a foundation of economic efficiency.

He foresees little prospect for harmony between social spending and system efficiency given the current political orientation skewed towards immediate personal interests.

Kostić concludes that societal interests will need to take precedence for any future improvement, emphasizing that the public must reject short-term political maneuvers that undermine systemic integrity.

News