The Centre for Civic Education (CCE) calls on MPs in the Parliament of Montenegro, when considering the election of the Rector of the University of Montenegro (UoM) at a session of the Committee on Education, Science, Culture and Sports, to be guided by the interests of the academic community and the autonomy of the University, rather than by the interests of any current or potential candidate or particular interests associated with them. Changing the model for electing the Rector is justified, and it is important that this be done before a new call for applications is announced.
CCE has for years maintained that the Rector of the state university should be elected by the Senate rather than the Management Board. This position was not prompted by the current election process, nor does it depend on who the candidates are.
CCE emphasises that any intervention in the legislative framework must be systemic, transparent and clearly justified, while respecting the procedures currently in force. This entails amending the Law on Higher Education to change the body responsible for electing the Rector before a call for applications is announced, as well as making corresponding amendments to the Statute of the UoM, which requires the consent of the Government of Montenegro.
Over the course of several amendments to higher education regulations, CCE has proposed to different governments that the Rector of the state university be elected by the Senate from among full professors, on the basis of a public call, a programme for the development of the University and clearly defined criteria. During last year’s public consultation on the Law on Higher Education, we also submitted this proposal to the Ministry of Education, Science and Innovation, both orally and in writing.
The Senate is the UoM’s highest academic body and decides on matters of fundamental importance to academic life, including appointments to academic ranks. It has the institutional capacity to assess candidates’ academic credentials, development programmes and contributions. The Rector is not merely the head of a large public institution, but the academic leader of the University, which is why the academic community should have the decisive say in their election.
By contrast, the UoM Management Board has 15 members, of whom only one third, five members, are required to be academic staff holding academic titles. Five members are representatives of the Government as the founder, three are student representatives and two are employee representatives. Such a structure does not provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that the selection of the University’s academic leader is based primarily on academic criteria, while also leaving room for political and other inappropriate influences, as has been witnessed in the past. The Management Board should have a strong supervisory and oversight role, including oversight of the legality of the procedure, but it should not be the body with the final say on who will lead the academic community. That responsibility should rest with the Senate.
At the same time, CCE does not consider the direct election of the Rector, as proposed by some members of the UoM academic staff, to be in itself a guarantee of greater democracy, transparency or academic autonomy. Such a model raises numerous questions – from the nomination process and the conduct of campaigns within the University, through voter mobilisation and the differing weight of individual organisational units, to potential political, vested-interest and other forms of pressure.
The University is not a political arena, and the election of the Rector should not be turned into an electoral campaign resembling a party-political contest. The key question is not which model produces the largest number of voters, but which enables the most competent, independent and accountable assessment of candidates’ academic credentials and their capacity to contribute to the University’s development. CCE believes that the Senate is best placed to fulfil that role.
Consistency is also important. Some members of the current UoM leadership, including the incumbent Rector, publicly questioned the model under which the Rector is elected by the Management Board before assuming their current positions. Arguments concerning academic autonomy should not change in value depending on whether they are made before someone takes office or while they hold that office.
CCE does not take a position on individual candidates, nor does this initiative advocate for any potential candidate. The problem is the model, not the name. The position on how the Rector should be elected must therefore be principled and consistent, regardless of who happens to be a candidate, Management Board member, senator or Rector at any given time. Amendments to the Law on Higher Education can provide an opportunity to establish a better model for the governance of the state university in the long term. If we want a UoM that is genuinely autonomous from political and other centres of power, the method of electing its Rector must safeguard that autonomy in practice, rather than merely proclaim it formally.
Snežana Kaluđerović, Senior Legal Adviser