An analysis by the Centre for Civic Education (CCE), building on the review of 612 parliamentary questions from eight special sessions of the Parliament of Montenegro for which questions are available on the Parliament’s website, shows that parliamentary groups use the same parliamentary mechanism for different political purposes. Opposition groups more frequently use parliamentary questions to scrutinise Government performance, highlight delays and demand accountability, while parliamentary majority groups generally use questions to provide Government members with an opportunity to present the results, reforms and plans of their respective ministries. Smaller and minority parliamentary groups more explicitly link national policies to the specific needs of the local communities they represent. Parliamentary questions are therefore not merely a mechanism for obtaining information from the Government, but also a reflection of the political positions and priorities of those asking them.
Security and police work emerged as the most prominent area, while healthcare, infrastructure, education, the judiciary, public finances, tourism, European integration and local development were also among the topics frequently raised. Differences among parliamentary groups were evident not only in their choice of topics, but also in how they approached them and the political function their questions served.
DPS with the broadest agenda and a strong oversight function
The Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) had the broadest thematic agenda, with its questions covering almost all key Government portfolios. Particular attention was paid to healthcare, security, public finances and education, as well as agriculture, tourism, energy, the judiciary and European integration.
The DPS adopted a pronounced oversight approach towards the Government’s work. Its questions frequently sought specific data, explanations of decisions, information on the implementation of the budget and projects, and deadlines for institutional action, while highlighting delays, problems in policy implementation or discrepancies between announced and achieved results. This was particularly evident, for example, in questions concerning healthcare waiting lists and financing, implementation of the capital budget, public-sector employment, police work and obligations arising from the European integration process.
The Democrats focused primarily on the security sector, police work and internal affairs, which also corresponds with the fact that MPs from this parliamentary group most frequently addressed Minister of the Interior Danilo Šaranović. Their questions concerned police results, security checks, reforms and planned institutional changes. Overall, this group’s questions more often served to present the activities and plans of a ministry headed by a politically aligned Government member.
New Serb Democracy (NSD) most frequently raised issues related to tourism, infrastructure and transport, the judiciary, spatial planning and state investment, combining development, local and identity-related issues. Particular attention was paid to tourist centres, winter tourism, transport accessibility, state property and projects in the north. Infrastructure and development questions tended to focus on deadlines and concrete activities, while questions concerning the judiciary and international relations more often carried a pronounced political and value-based tone.
The Europe Now Movement (PES) had a more diverse agenda, with a strong focus on healthcare, European integration, education, social policy and public finances. Questions concerning the Reform Agenda, negotiation chapters, EU funds and the state’s administrative capacities were particularly characteristic. Their formulation often provided Government members with an opportunity to present progress achieved, next steps and the expected benefits of Government policies, particularly in the EU accession process.
Local needs as a political priority
The Bosniak Party (BS) had a strong local and regional focus. It frequently linked security, infrastructure, education, healthcare, culture, public finances and agriculture to the needs of northern Montenegro. Questions concerning transport infrastructure, healthcare institutions, schools, capital investments, the landfill in Rožaje or the police outpost in Gusinje illustrate the use of parliamentary questions as an instrument for representing the specific interests of the local communities that constitute its electoral base.
Civic Movement URA devoted considerable attention to public finances, healthcare, spatial planning, state property, security and infrastructure, taking a more pronounced critical approach. Its questions frequently challenged the use of public resources, appointments in state-owned companies, the legality of institutional actions and Government accountability. Some included direct political assessments, but a significant number also focused on specific infrastructure, energy and local issues.
The Social Democrats/European Alliance (SD/ES) most frequently raised issues related to security, foreign policy and defence, energy, the economy, healthcare and tourism. Their approach was characterised by linking specific decisions to their broader political, economic or international consequences and insisting on explanations, combining both oversight and policy-oriented elements.
SNP-CIVIS focused primarily on security, the judiciary, competition policy, agriculture and economic issues. Its questions often sought information on specific measures planned by the relevant ministries, while in some cases also criticising the work of institutions and highlighting unresolved problems, thus combining support for certain policy directions with demands for concrete action.
The Special Parliamentary Group had a distinctive focus on education, healthcare, infrastructure and regional development, with particular attention to access to public services and the needs of local communities.
The Democratic People’s Party (DNP) focused on infrastructure, transport, energy, the economy and the judiciary, combining specific development issues, particularly those concerning the north, with broader political and international topics. Some of its questions had a stronger political and polemical tone.
Among minority parliamentary groups, the local dimension was even more pronounced. The Albanian Alliance focused on Ulcinj and surrounding areas through questions concerning public finances, infrastructure, environmental issues, tourism, spatial planning and security. The DUA-HGI parliamentary group linked spatial planning, state property, infrastructure, the economy, culture and education to local interests and the position of minority communities, while the Albanian Forum most frequently raised security, infrastructure and education through the lens of local needs.
The majority more often asks what the Government has done, the opposition why it has not
A comparison of questions submitted by the parliamentary majority and the opposition points to differences in the political function of this mechanism.
Parliamentary groups supporting the Government more frequently asked about plans, results, reforms and next steps, providing ministers with an opportunity to publicly present and promote the policies of their respective ministries. This was particularly evident in the areas of security, European integration, social policy and institutional reforms. Opposition groups more frequently used parliamentary questions as an instrument of parliamentary oversight – to scrutinise Government performance, highlight delays and inconsistencies, challenge decisions and demand accountability. Critical introductions were often followed by very specific requests for documentation, data, deadlines or explanations.
European integration provides a good example. Majority groups more frequently approached this topic through progress, next steps, EU funds and the expected benefits of reforms, while the opposition more often scrutinised the quality of implementation of commitments, delays, accountability and the gap between Government announcements and concrete results. The same topic thus served both to promote the Government’s European policy and to scrutinise its performance.
From national policy to local roads and schools
Local and regional issues constituted an important part of parliamentary agendas. Among the places frequently mentioned were Budva, Podgorica, Nikšić, Cetinje, Rožaje, Pljevlja, Ulcinj, Andrijevica, Bar and Bijelo Polje, while questions covered roads, municipal infrastructure, healthcare, schools, spatial plans, tourism, environmental issues, waste management, employment and state investment.
Larger parliamentary groups had the broadest geographical coverage, while local representation formed a more pronounced part of the political profile of minority and regionally oriented groups. The BS focused on the north, the Albanian Alliance on Ulcinj, while the NSD, DNP and Special Parliamentary Group frequently raised infrastructure and development issues concerning northern and less developed municipalities.
These findings therefore provide a map of the political and institutional priorities of parliamentary groups rather than a definitive assessment of their work. They show not only what MPs asked, but also how they used their questions to shape their relationship with the Government – from promoting policies and representing local interests to exercising parliamentary oversight and demanding accountability.
The analysis confirms that parliamentary questions are not merely a technical instrument of parliamentary work. The choice of topic, the formulation of a question and what it seeks from Government members reveal the political priorities of parliamentary groups and the different ways in which the parliamentary majority and opposition understand their respective roles in relation to the Government.
Nikola Obradović, Programme Associate