Parliamentary groups used Prime Minister’s Questions to raise a broad range of issues – from the economy, European integration and public finances to security, the rule of law, identity-related matters, regional development and local problems affecting citizens – according to the second part of an analysis by the Centre for Civic Education (CCE) of the questions addressed to Prime Minister Milojko Spajić from the beginning of his term in office until 6 July 2026.
The analysis also points to a clear difference in the approaches taken by the ruling majority and the opposition. Parliamentary groups belonging to the majority generally used Prime Minister’s Questions to promote the Government’s policies and present its development projects and achievements. By contrast, the opposition predominantly used this mechanism to scrutinise the Government, raising questions concerning the Prime Minister’s accountability, public finances, staffing and appointment policies, the security sector, European integration and the functioning of the Government.
MPs from the Europe Now Movement (PES) used Prime Minister’s Questions to ask largely supportive questions, focusing primarily on the Europe Now 2 programme, European integration, strategic development, the Development Bank, the Mateševo–Andrijevica motorway, the Velje Brdo project, investment, tourism, fuel prices, relations with Brussels and the use of EU funds. Their questions were generally framed so as to allow the Prime Minister to present results and plans and respond to criticism concerning inflation, public debt and the sustainability of economic programmes, with an overall positive tone towards both the Government’s policies and the Prime Minister himself.
The New Serb Democracy (NSD) parliamentary group most frequently raised issues relating to infrastructure, tourism, investment, energy and public finances. Its questions focused on traffic during the tourist season, the Sunčani Grad and Velje Brdo projects, the Bar–Boljare motorway, energy arrangements, investment disputes and arbitration proceedings, as well as the effects of the Europe Now 2 programme on public finances and citizens’ living standards. The tone was largely development-oriented and supportive, including in relation to arrangements with the United Arab Emirates, although questions concerning fiscal risks and the state’s responsibility in investment projects were occasionally raised.
The Democrats focused on the security sector, organised crime, corruption, vetting, the judiciary, the prosecution service, cigarette smuggling, housing allocated to public officials, the misuse of state resources and the legacy of previous governments. Their questions were often politically framed, seeking to present the fight against crime and corruption as a key task of the Government and as an area in which the Democrats were making a significant contribution. The tone was supportive of the current Government and its security policies, while remaining critical of previous practices and structures.
The Bosniak Party placed particular emphasis on the development of the north, demographic trends, employment, capital investment, the diaspora, infrastructure and an agreement with Germany on the recognition of driving licences. Its questions focused on Rožaje, Plav, Gusinje, Petnjica, Berane, Bijelo Polje, Pljevlja, Mojkovac, Kolašin and Andrijevica, as well as projects such as the Štedim ski resort, the Rožaje–Peć tunnel and investments in Bijelo Polje. The tone was policy and development-oriented, with an emphasis on reducing regional inequalities, while value-based and foreign-policy issues were also occasionally raised.
SNP-CIVIS had a predominantly social, institutional and policy-oriented profile and maintained a supportive attitude towards the Government. Its questions concerned agriculture, the protection of competition, labour rights, public debt, European integration, the public warning system, a specialised court, the judiciary, freedom of speech and the benefits of EU membership.
The Democratic People’s Party (DNP) also used Prime Minister’s Questions as a means of exerting pressure from within the parliamentary majority, seeking clearer positions from the Prime Minister on issues that constituted political priorities for the party. It primarily insisted on identity-related, constitutional, legal and regional issues, including dual citizenship with Serbia, the status of the Serbian language, the population census, relations with Serbia and Croatia, war crimes, judicial and prosecutorial proceedings and constitutional amendments. It also raised infrastructure-related matters, particularly the motorway, the development of the north, public spending, the Botun issue and air connectivity.
URA used Prime Minister’s Questions as a distinctly oppositional mechanism of scrutiny. Its questions focused on the Prime Minister’s accountability, staffing and appointment policies, the security sector, the National Security Agency (ANB), the Do Kwon case, public borrowing, hedging arrangements, the number of public officials and the costs of the 44th Government. It also raised issues relating to price increases, pensions, compensation for former workers, the Pljevlja Thermal Power Plant, motorways, airports, tourism and Sveti Stefan. The tone was sharp and highly personal in its criticism of the Prime Minister, while focusing on transparency, legality and the management of public resources.
The Special Parliamentary Group had a thematically diverse but clearly scrutiny-oriented profile. Its questions covered the Europe Now 2 programme, crypto-assets, the work of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, the population census, the pension system, the responsibilities of the reconstructed Government, the purchase of a hotel in Donja Gorica for conversion into student accommodation, airports, strategic investment, immigration policy, the bridge over the Bojana River, a gas pipeline, an LNG terminal and energy infrastructure. Identity-related issues were also raised occasionally.
The Democratic Union of Albanians (DUA) and the Croatian Civic Initiative (HGI) combined issues of local development, minority rights and good-neighbourly relations, adopting both a policy-oriented and scrutiny-based approach. Their focus included the Public Enterprise for Coastal Zone Management (Morsko dobro), coastal governance, the development of Ulcinj and Velika Plaža, the VAT rate for the hospitality sector, relations between Montenegro and Croatia, the position of the Croatian community and the status of the Boka Navy, among other issues.
The European Alliance, and previously the Social Democrats (SD), adopted an oppositional and scrutiny-oriented approach. The most frequently raised issues included citizens’ living standards, the employment rate, wages, inflation, purchasing power, economic growth, European integration, relations with neighbouring countries, social divisions, historical revisionism, the ANB, legalisation and border-related matters. Questions were often aimed at testing the Prime Minister’s economic promises, as well as examining the impact of identity-related and regional tensions on Montenegro’s European path.
The Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) used Prime Minister’s Questions as an opposition mechanism for scrutinising the Government, adopting a distinctly critical tone and focusing on the Prime Minister’s accountability, the cohesion of the Government and risks to Montenegro’s European path. The dominant issues included European integration, NATO, foreign policy orientation, citizenship, relations with Croatia, the functioning of the parliamentary majority, the security sector, public administration, the prosecution service, the pension system, healthcare and public finances. Questions frequently examined how the Government could maintain Montenegro’s Euro-Atlantic course in view of the differing political positions within the parliamentary majority.
The Albanian Forum and the Albanian Alliance had a pronounced local and regional focus on the south of the country and border areas. Their questions concerned the reconstruction of the Ostros–Vladimir road, the bridge over the Bojana River, decentralisation, municipal authority over the coastal zone, the Adriatic–Ionian Corridor, improved connections with Albania, Ulcinj, the Ulcinj Salina, capital investment, the fiscal position of coastal municipalities and the status of the Albanian community, among other issues.
The data show that Prime Minister’s Questions were not used solely for political debate, but also provided a forum in which the sectoral priorities of parliamentary groups and their respective attitudes towards the Government were clearly reflected. Groups belonging to the ruling majority more frequently used the mechanism to promote and explain Government policies in the fields of the economy, infrastructure, European integration, security and regional development, as well as to address other matters of importance to their voters. The opposition predominantly used it to scrutinise the Prime Minister, assess whether promises had been fulfilled, and examine public finances, security policy, Montenegro’s European course and institutional accountability.
Nikola Obradović, Programme Associate