It is legitimate for EU Member States to be concerned that new members could destabilise the Union through misuse of the right of veto and by strengthening Russian influence. If Montenegro were to be perceived as a version of Serbia – a country balancing between the West and Russia – this could have serious consequences for its European path. This was among the key messages conveyed in the PROUDCAST of the Centre for Civic Education (CCE).
Željka Zvicer, Programme Associate at the CCE, spoke about the relationship between history, politics and national myths, and about how these shape Montenegro’s European trajectory, with Dina Bajramspahić, civic activist from Montenegro, and František Šístek, Czech Balkanologist and historian.
Although he completed his book History of Montenegro with what he describes as a “happy end”, namely Montenegro’s accession to NATO, Šístek warns that since 2020 historical revisionism has once again become strongly visible. “For a long time it seemed that Montenegro had managed to preserve multi-ethnic harmony and a rational, pragmatic relationship with the past, without rejecting its antifascist legacy. However, historical topics now dominate the public space, and in that sense Montenegro does not differ much from other South Slavic countries. One of the key actors in this process is the Serbian Orthodox Church, which could be said to have been the winner of the 2020 elections,” Šístek assessed. He also recalled that the Church’s influence had been built gradually, starting from the crisis of the socialist system. “Since the late Amfilohije Radović became Metropolitan, a wave of construction of new churches began, the number of priests increased, and the Church started to occupy a visible place in everyday life. Why did this happen? The answer is simple: the Church has always been interested in historical and identity issues, while political elites – both the current and previous ones—were not, so the Church filled the space that others had abandoned,” Šístek explained.
Šístek believes that Montenegro has not found a balance between critically confronting the past and its day-to-day political instrumentalisation. In his view, the academic community and independent intellectuals remain strong, but revisionism today also relates to the Second World War and the wars of the 1990s, whose negative aspects were long swept under the carpet – something that has now “come back to haunt” Montenegro.
On the other hand, Dina Bajramspahić points out that Montenegro is formally recording progress in the EU integration process and that this year it received the most positive European Commission report to date, but she also warns of the absence of effective reforms. “When it comes to Cluster 1 – Fundamentals, which is by its nature the most important and determines the overall dynamics of the negotiations, the situation is such that, although we formally have a very high overall assessment, substantive problems persist. Therefore, it can be said that this step forward is important for our overall path, but unfortunately it does not qualitatively produce the impact we would expect at an advanced stage of negotiations,” Bajramspahić explained.
She particularly highlighted the importance of dealing with the past, warning that historical revisionism directly undermines the rule of law and social cohesion, as it produces a sense of second-class citizenship. “This is not only about the past. It is about the present about the fact that we still face similar problems today, while taking the same old erroneous positions on issues that were already defeated once,” Bajramspahić underlined.
Šístek noted that eventual EU membership does not guarantee the resolution of these issues. “In Croatia we see eruptions of nationalism and revisionism. Look at Hungary, Slovakia and other countries. The past will never be fully resolved, but it is crucial that it does not undermine social cohesion or create excessively deep divisions. What is worrying is that the wave that has engulfed Montenegro is very strong and has a negative impact on the whole society,” he warned.
Speaking about accession negotiations, Bajramspahić said that the EU, having learned from negative experiences with some Member States that were not sufficiently prepared, has tightened the membership criteria. Those countries, she added, “used the opportunities for economic development, but the quality of democracy in those cases varied”.
“Therefore, among many Member States there is considerable scepticism about enlargement, because they are aware that new members can bring tectonic disruptions and join the bloc of so-called ‘troublesome states’ that occasionally destabilise the EU, show weaker solidarity and often align themselves with Russia,” Bajramspahić assessed.
She warned that this could represent an obstacle for Montenegro, as it is necessary to convince other Member States that the country is ready for accession. “Although the current atmosphere regarding enlargement is positive, no Member State can fully guarantee that changes in government, the electorate, or insufficient support in referendums will not lead to complications. That is why it is very important that we do not give any grounds for reproach,” Bajramspahić added.
Šístek considers these concerns legitimate, especially in view of the right of veto and past experiences. “We already have enough examples. Everyone will think twice: do we want another country that could be a ‘Trojan horse’, as states such as Hungary are described, particularly because of Russian influence? Montenegro is risky in this respect, because NATO at one point stopped sharing information with it. If Montenegro comes to resemble a version of Serbia – a country between the West and Russia – this could have serious consequences in the future,” Šístek warned.
Commenting on the idea that new members might accede with limited voting rights, Bajramspahić said she does not support it, but sees it as an attempt by the European Commission to calm the fears of Member States. “This does not mean that everything announced will immediately come into force, but it is an acknowledgement of the real state of affairs – an acknowledgement that they understand how fragile our institutions are, how vulnerable they are to foreign influence and various forms of destabilisation,” Bajramspahić believes.
Šístek concludes that such solutions would be discriminatory, but also a reflection of the EU’s previous experience with countries that, after accession, abused decision making mechanisms. “We had the example of Hungary, which in the 1990s was an excellent pupil and a very liberal country that joined without any problems. Then the government changed, and everything changed,” Šístek recalled.
The full PROUDCAST is available at: https://youtu.be/6WtoiWg_9SQ
This PROUDCAST was produced within the framework of the REGIONAL PLENUM 2025 – Cracks in Democracy: Nationalism and Clericalism in the Western Balkans, organised by the CCE, the Regional Academy for Democratic Development (ADD), the Faculty of Political Science of the University of Sarajevo, and the German Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES). The content of the programme is the sole responsibility of the speakers.
Maja Marinović, Programme Associate