In its latest review of Prime Minister’s Questions, the Centre for Civic Education (CCE) notes that this mechanism should not be assessed solely by the number of sittings held and questions asked, but also by the importance and substance of the issues on which the Prime Minister is expected to account publicly. Alongside politically attractive or expedient topics, Prime Minister’s Questions must provide a forum for discussing matters that directly affect citizens’ quality of life – healthcare, young people, crisis situations, social cohesion, dealing with the past and the protection of democratic values. It is precisely for this reason that the Prime Minister, as the person who bears overall political responsibility for the work of the executive, must answer questions on these issues.
CCE’s analysis, covering questions addressed to the Prime Minister from 28 December 2023 to 6 July 2026, shows that the dominant topics were the economy, the Europe Now 2 programme, European integration, public finances, security, infrastructure, regional development, identity-related issues and relations with neighbouring countries. These are legitimate subjects of parliamentary scrutiny, but Prime Minister’s Questions should be used far more extensively to address matters that often remain outside the focus of day-to-day politics, despite being of crucial importance to citizens and to Montenegro’s democratisation and Europeanisation.
For example, young people were the subject of only a few questions, mostly in the context of the Europe Now 2 programme and the benefits of EU membership, while employment, housing, young people leaving the country, political participation and institutional support were almost entirely absent. Although some of these issues fall within the remit of individual ministries, they require a coordinated response from the Government as a whole and must therefore be addressed through questions to the Prime Minister.
The same applies to healthcare, which was raised only sporadically, even though access to healthcare services, waiting lists, the position of medical staff, conditions in hospitals and the sustainability of the healthcare system should be among the priority topics of Prime Minister’s Questions, alongside regular scrutiny of the relevant minister.
Civil protection and rescue, emergency situations and crisis response were addressed almost exclusively through a question on introducing a public warning system. There was no broader discussion of the state’s preparedness for fires, floods, earthquakes and other emergencies, even though it is the Prime Minister who should explain how coordination among all competent institutions functions.
It is particularly concerning that the two mass killings in Cetinje were not directly addressed during any session of Prime Minister’s Questions. Tragedies of such magnitude should be subject to the highest level of parliamentary scrutiny, not for the purpose of politicisation, but in order to establish what the state has learned, what has changed and how similar events will be prevented in the future.
With regard to democratic values, questions raised the issues of historical revisionism, the promotion of the Chetnik movement, the glorification of war criminals and the denial of international court judgments. This also raised the question of the Prime Minister’s responsibility for the country’s political and societal direction in terms of values, his influence on social cohesion and Montenegro’s European character. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has never provided a clear response to these questions – either because certain sessions of Prime Minister’s Questions were not held or because the answers given avoided the substance of the issues.
CCE recalls that parliamentary groups belonging to the ruling majority primarily used Prime Minister’s Questions to promote and support the Government’s policies, providing the Prime Minister with an opportunity to explain policies, announce projects and defend the Government’s record, while the opposition predominantly used it as a mechanism of scrutiny and criticism. However, this division was not absolute. Some parliamentary groups from the ruling majority raised difficult identity-related, fiscal, local and regional issues, while opposition groups, in addition to criticising the Government, also highlighted systemic problems requiring institutional solutions. Furthermore, only 14 of the 21 sessions envisaged under the Rules of Procedure were held. This mechanism was particularly neglected during the Prime Minister’s first year in office, with certain improvements becoming evident only in 2026. This means that one in three opportunities for direct parliamentary scrutiny of the Prime Minister went unused.
Prime Minister’s Questions must not serve merely as a political stage or a forum for reaffirming predetermined party positions. It should be a regular, predictable and substantive mechanism of public accountability, demonstrating the Government’s priorities, the Prime Minister’s willingness to answer difficult questions and whether Parliament is exercising its oversight function in the interests of citizens. Questions must therefore be more specific, systematic and focused on obtaining verifiable answers, deadlines, clearly defined responsibilities and results.
The strength of Prime Minister’s Questions is not measured by the number of questions asked, but by the quality of the answers and their contribution to more accountable governance. The Prime Minister should therefore respond to such questions in a specific and substantive manner, providing data and deadlines and clearly assuming political responsibility, while MPs should use this mechanism as one of the most important means of public scrutiny of the executive, in the interests of all citizens.
Nikola Obradović, Programme Associate