Centre for Civic Education (CCE) once again warns of the consequences of the non-transparency in the election of associate members of the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts (CANU), ahead of the Assembly session scheduled for 23 December 2025, at which this process will be finalised, to the detriment of the CANU institution itself as well as the public interest.
Previously, CCE pointed out the grounds for gender-based discrimination and the closed nature of CANU, as well as an example of the election of one member through the Department of Arts that was not based on objective references. Furthermore, the process was framed in a way that eliminated competition for a pre-designated member,Branislav Mićunović, by blocking the other two candidates from further consideration, despite the call being for two members in that category.
A similar situation was recorded in the Department of Natural Sciences, for which as many as ten scientists applied for a call announced for three members. However, at the Department’s meeting, only one candidate was selected, Prof. Dr David Kaljaj, even though several of the remaining nine candidates had indisputably relevant credentials. The meeting minutes contain no information indicating that the candidates’ references were discussed prior to the secret ballot, nor was the selection of only one candidate further explained. This outcome was also criticized at the session itself, as noted in the minutes, which record that the majority of members expressed dissatisfaction that more candidates were not approved by the Department. Consequently, legal interpretation of the Rules on the Election of CANU Members was requested.
These controversies were also publicly highlighted by Prof. Dr Gojko Joksimović, one of the ten registered candidates, in his article “Decapitation in the Temple of Science”, published in Vijesti on 20 October 2025. He explains that five out of the ten candidates were nominated by two academics each from the Department, and that at the initial session they received a majority of votes to be included as official Department proposals, while at the subsequent session, at which all potential candidates were decided upon, they did not receive support. Professor Joksimović also recalls that, three years ago, he was a Department candidate who reached the final phase of the election and at the CANU Assembly session received 19 out of the 20 votes, which he describes as “a curiosity since the establishment of the Academy”. Three years later, the same scientist did not receive a sufficient number of votes even for the Department’s support for his candidacy. Given that Prof. Dr Joksimović’s references have remained unchanged, this raises questions about the criteria by which academics decide, when the outcomes of voting in two different calls for associate membership can be so different. Prof. Dr Joksimović also rightly questions thepurpose of announcing a call for three members in this Department if, as a rule, in the last several election cycles only one candidate is selected, expressing suspicion that calls are announced in a way that enables the secure election of a pre-determined candidate at the CANU Assembly.
CCE points out that this further supports the assessment that CANU is a closed institution, and that the public deserves an answer to the question of why fewer academics are elected than the envisaged number and whose privileges are thereby being protected.
CCE calls on CANU to provide a detailed explanation of the decisions related to the elections in the Department of Natural Sciences, and to clarify to the public whether the procedure was conducted in accordance with the minutes, whether the requested legal interpretation of the Rules was sought and obtained, what the content of that interpretation is, who signed it, and whether it was acted upon.
CCE emphasises that the highest state institution in the field of science and arts must not be a place where influence is traded, decisions are made without justification, and where professional and scientific references are not subjected to reasoned debate. As long as this situation persists, CANU does not deserve the current level of budgetary allocations it receives, and CCE expresses hope that MPs of the Parliament of Montenegro will take this into account when voting on the Budget for 2026.
Sara Čabarkapa, Active Citizenship Programme Coordinator