Fighting for Power

A session of the federal parliament chamber of citizens was scheduled for May 31 with changes to the law on electoral districts for election to the chamber of citizens on the agenda. The changes were to introduce an increase in the number of districts to 27 in Serbia and 12 in Montenegro. That session wasn't held. Although the law on electoral districts was supposed to have been adopted by a simple majority, which is disputable in itself because the constitution says federal laws on the election of members of parliament are adopted by a two-thirds majority, it turned out that the ruling parties have a problem securing the 17 votes which would make up the simple majority. The Nikola Pasic Radical Party shied away and without their votes the authorities don't even have a simple majority. The session was rescheduled for June 4 but the bargaining with the Pasic Radicals wasn't done by then and we don't know when the chamber of citizens will convene. In the meantime, the authorities realized that they would face an even more favorable situation if Serbia had 29 districts and Montenegro seven. They are expected to submit amendments to that effect.

Professor Pavle Nikolic one of the most prominent Yugoslav experts on constitutional law and DEPOS MP prepared to speak on the law at the May 31 session. He wanted to say:

"The proposed changes to the law on electoral districts under which 27 districts (instead of nine) will be formed in Serbia and 12 (instead of one) in Montenegro is no surprise.

Under the proposed changes the authorities are indirectly changing the adopted principle of proportional representation turning it into a majority system.

The law on electing federal MPs to the chamber of citizens explicitly established the proportional system (articles 3, 86, 88) and now another law violates that. They're turning to the majority system which allows one, in this case the ruling, party to win a larger number of seats in parliament than it would get under the proportional system. Of course, that is not only illegal but absurd from the point of view of democracy. The official explanation that the proposed changes contribute to more frequent contacts between MPs and the electorate sounds ridiculous.

There is another important reason why this law would be unconstitutional.

The law should be adopted with a two-thirds majority as the federal constitution clearly states in article 90, paragraph two, which says federal laws on electing MPs to the chamber of citizens are adopted with a two-thirds majority vote by all MPs in the chamber. In that regard, it is totally unimportant whether one, two or three laws regulating elections are adopted. The elections issue is unique and electoral districts are one of the most important parts of the electoral system which is used to realize some of the most vital electoral principles.

The fact that electoral districts are the subject of a separate law is a factual question. It can but it does not have to be a separate law. If there are several laws, all have to be adopted with a two-thirds majority.

The constitution had to cover the entire elections issue when it stated that the law on electing federal MPs to the chamber of citizens is adopted by a two-thirds majority. The constitution did not list the precise name of the law but the matter of legal regulations.

There is also no proof that the existing law on electoral districts of 1992 was adopted by a simple majority. A transcript of the 11th session of the chamber of citizens in 1992 states that the law was adopted by a majority with two votes opposed. Since that law was the result of an agreement between the ruling party and opposition at a round table debate, undoubtedly it enjoyed general support in parliament and that is shown by the fact that just two votes were opposed and no one abstained.

This law on changes has to be adopted by a two-thirds majority and if that is not done and it won't since the ruling parties don't have that majority, the law will be unconstitutional."