Centre for Civic Education (CCE) warns that the manner in which the Government of Montenegro prepared, presented and adopted the package of legislative amendments within the announced “Euro Model” raises serious questions of accountability, the quality of governance and fiscal sustainability. Increasing salaries and living standards is a legitimate goal of any government, but the path to that goal is just as important as the amounts promised. When systemic measures with long-term consequences are adopted without a previously presented comprehensive financial assessment, broad consultations and procedures within institutions, this constitutes a pattern of political populism: the benefit is presented immediately, simply and as a concrete amount, while the costs, risks and responsibility for the consequences are shifted into the future. The risks are also heightened by the visible positioning of the political scene ahead of the next elections.
CCE recalls that on 17 September, without holding a regular session, the Government adopted six draft laws concerning local government financing, corporate income tax, labour, mandatory social insurance contributions, personal income tax, and pension and disability insurance. These are regulations that directly affect salaries, taxes, labour costs, pensions, municipal revenues and the stability of public finances.
Decisions of such scope require thorough debate within institutions, expert assessments and social dialogue.However, even some ten days later, the public has not been provided with comprehensive projections, particularly regarding long-term consequences, nor with an overview of the consultations and expert analyses that preceded the adoption of this package. It is particularly concerning that Finance Minister Novica Vuković did not express a position during the decision-making process, and that, after the Government had already adopted the draft laws, he stated that he needed time to analyse the proposed programme and that the Ministry of Finance would state its position later in the process. He also did not deny Prime Minister Milojko Spajić’s attempt to relativise the matter by saying that the minister had not received the WhatsApp message on time.
At the same time, the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (PIO Fund) stated that it had not participated in the preparation of the “Euro Model”, even though the proposed package abolishes PIO contributions and changes key elements of the pension system. Consultations with social partners were also absent, although the proposed measures directly change minimum wages, labour costs, the tax burden and the social insurance system. Experts have also stated that all public policy procedures were disregarded. The “Euro Model” was not envisaged in the Government Work Programme for 2026, the Fiscal Strategy, or the Guidelines for Macroeconomic and Fiscal Policy adopted only a few months earlier.
There are also concrete reasons for caution. The proposed model abolishes mandatory PIO contributions, while pension entitlements remain linked to earnings, years of service and personal points. At the same time, no new pension reserve fund, automatic fiscal correction mechanism, long-term projections or developed crisis scenario have been identified. International comparisons show that a 0% PIO contribution rate does not in itself mean that the system is unsustainable, but countries applying similar solutions have a different pension system structure and additional safeguards. New Zealand, which among the systems analysed is the closest in terms of financing from general taxation, has a predominantly flat-rate public pension based on residence, a large government reserve fund and additional pension savings mechanisms. The Montenegrin proposal retains entitlements linked to earnings and years of service, while introducing no comparable new safeguards. The existing public debt burden also requires additional attention. The Government’s Guidelines for the next three years envisage EUR 3.2 billion in new borrowing, around three quarters of which would be intended for repaying previous debts, while approximately EUR 1.12 billion in debt falls due in 2027 alone.
The key question is not only whether the state can finance the promises in the first year, but who will bear the political and financial responsibility if the optimistic projections are not realised, with pensions being adjusted four times a year. A responsible government must also plan for an adverse scenario, while an irresponsible one plans only for the scenario that allows it to maintain its promise until the elections.
CCE recalls that the very manner in which the Government decided on this package is part of the same problem. From the beginning of its term until 18 September 2026, 259 out of a total of 393 Government sessions (65.90%) were held by telephone. Between 28 May and 18 September, as many as 49 out of 61 sessions, or more than 80%, were held by telephone. Telephone sessions and decision-making through messaging applications are becoming a model of governance that obscures the individual responsibility of ministers and deprives the public of the opportunity to see who proposed, challenged or supported what, and on the basis of which analyses. CCE has continuously warned of the shortcomings of such an approach to decision-making on matters that directly affect citizens’ lives.
Citizens have the right to assess political offers with full information not only about what they gain today, but also about how much it will cost tomorrow, and the approaching elections must not lower standards of accountability. On the contrary, the greater the promises and the stronger their political effect, the greater the need for verifiable data, independent assessments, institutional procedures and public debate.
CCE calls on the Government to publish a comprehensive analysis of the “Euro Model”, its long-term consequences, the opinion of the Ministry of Finance, information on the institutions and social partners consulted, and alternative scenarios in the event that the expected effects fail to materialise. It is also necessary to publish how the members of the Government stated their positions and to explain why decisions on six systemic draft laws were taken without holding a regular session.
Parliament, for its part, should not treat these systemic amendments as a package that merely needs to be approved. It is Parliament’s responsibility to ensure a serious parliamentary debate and demand the answers that the Government did not provide before adopting the draft laws. Higher salaries can be good news only if they are backed by responsible and sustainable policy. Otherwise, today’s political popularity may become tomorrow’s bill for citizens.
It is therefore not enough for the Government to say how much citizens will receive. It must be known who made the decision, on the basis of which analyses, who assumes responsibility for it, and who will bear the consequences if the promises prove unsustainable.
Nikola Obradović, Programme Associate