SELF-MANAGEMENT ONCE AGAIN?

Controversy of Montenegro and Serbia over Privatization

Economic issues are increasingly listed among the disputes between Serbia and Montenegro. The beginning of this year was marked by polemics occasioned by transferring of prerogatives from the republican to the federal level in the sphere of criminal legislature. Then alarm was sounded due to the announcement of drafting a federal law on the abolishment of the Bar Association of Montenegro, and especially due to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court which contested the valid provision that state of emergency could be proclaimed only with the provided opinion, that is, agreement of the republican assemblies. The burden of misunderstandings is suddenly growing during the discussion concerning draft federal law on enterprises, which is becoming more interesting every day.

It is a document adopted by the Federal Government back on February 16, but put into the procedure only in March. Adoption of this law was officially scheduled for the beginning of summer. The need for a new definition of relations in the economy, and therefrom the new law on enterprises is as old as this country. Even Dr Ljubomir Madzar while he was a minister in Mr Panic's government tried to have the new law on enterprises adopted, but the whole project failed together with the failure of the entire government. Kontic's government amused the public and the business people for a long time by first announcing and then abandoning the elaboration of this law. Finally, after monetary and economic system became comparatively stable thanks to Avramovic's program, Dr Mirko Vasiljevic, professor of Belgrade Law School, was entrusted with the project of the new law, and practically he has all the rights to sign the new text as its author.

Even before the complete text of the Draft Law was revealed, the professional public was agitated because of the alleged comeback of selfmanagement, restoration of social ownership and excessive rights of the employees guaranteed by this law. The announced provision which was supposed to prescribe that the employees in all enterprises, even the privately-owned ones should form a third of the membership of management boards was the specially impressive cause of agitation.

Central discussion about the Draft Federal Law on Enterprises in Montenegro was organized by the Chamber of the Economy. The main dilemma which divided the experts, politicians and businessmen was the following: did the law provide excessive rights of the employees, that is, were not the prerogatives of the directors and the owners too limited?

While the directors warned that the rights of the emploeyees (to membership in the management boards, to election of members of the enterprise council and similar) brought back the memories to the old times of selfmanagement and that they could slow down economic development, the author of the law pointed out that it was the matter of civilization heritage and that the employees in highly developed market oriented countries had even greater rights that those proposed in the new draft law on enterprises. Including the workers into management, according to Vasiljevic was a world trend, and that was why labour and management should not be opposed. The polemic continued with a counter-argument that the rights of the employees in the West were the result of the economic and social development there, and that in this country, copying of such norms could be retrograde because it restores old unproductive habits in the economy.

But, this primarily ideological and political polemic acquired an additional, perhaps at this moment the most significant character of inter-republican discord after the assessment of the Montenegrin Government leader, Milo Djukanovic. The broadening gap between the course and the nature of the process of privatization in Serbia and in Montenegro is generally known. In short, what is too much for the one is too little for the other, what is too quick for the one is too slow for the other. In fact, dut to these, ever since the time of border barriers near Bijelo Polje, least dicreetly expressed differences in viewpoints of the economic policy between the two federal units, Djukanovic started his assessment of the Draft Law with a firm stance that he would "uncompromisingly oppose any solution which could cause interruption or slowing down of the transformation pace Montenegro is treading along". This is really quite a large problem. While in Montenegro, the possibility of further survival of socially-owned enterprises was completely abolished by the Law on Transformation of Ownership, Draft Federal Law on Enterprises offers detailed norms for the existing situation, that is, for operation of socially-owned entrprises. That is what the Prime Minister's more or less clear evaluation resulted from that the Draft Law was preserving social ownership and that "possible return to workers' selfmanagement would bring nothing but a prolonged illusion that the workers are controlling social ownership, which in fact was never the case."

Apart from such assessments of the first man of the Montenegrin Government and quite sharp criticism by the Montenegrin Chamber of the Economy, the most significant opposition parties in Montenegro also expressed disagreement with the Draft Law. The Nationalists, for instance, dissatisfied with the text of the Draft Law and afraid that it might be adopted by the voting machinery of the ruling party of Serbia, insist that the Law be adopted, not in the usual procedure, but by simple majority in the Chamber of the Citizens, but also by two-thirds majority in the Chamber of the Republics.

• This is a normal Constitutional possibility which was used before - Predrag Drecun, President of the Executive Board of the National Party says - In October 1992, six laws were adopted in this manner at the proposal of the Montnegrin Assembly. We sent our initiative to the Assembly, and here I see it on the agenda which I have just received for the session scheduled for April 26.

The Radicals believe that the Law is written in the Socialist, or even Communist tradition and that it is an ideological basis for restoration of social ownership. - With this Law, Drago Bakrac says, President of the Serb Radical Party for Montenegro, - workers' councils and selfmanagement are reintroduced behind our backs. Because of such views of the Law and because of expectations that it will be impossible to change the text of the Law, the Serb Radical Party will vote against the Law - Bakrac says.

The Social Democrats conclude that the Law does not affirm the process of accelerated withering away of socially-owned enterprises, but on the contrary is a tragicomic defence of an unsuccessful form of ownership, which speaks of the intention of the federal authorities to additionally squander national wealth under the pretext of protection of social ownership. - This law - Rade Bojovic, President of the Executive Board of this party says - directly jeopardizes development interests of Montenegro and deprives the current process of ownership transformation of all meaning. Disputable issues - Bojovic believes - are the result of the choice of the ruling party of Serbia which wishes to protect obsolescent economic forms through the federal government, to inhibit entrepreneurship and guarantee unscrupulous rule for itself through control of socially-owned enterprises.

That is how it became quite clear that all the parties from Montenegro represented in the Federal Assembly have essentially quite close, if not even joint viewpoints of the key problems connected with the Draft Law which ranks first after the Constitution.

Contrary to that, in Serbia, the Law was criticized mainly by the scientific and the professional public, while the businessmen and certain political parties already gave a favourable assessment of it. The President of the Chamber of the Economy, for examle, supports the Law "especially because it insists on an efficient enterprise, regardless of it being socially-owned, mixed or privately-owned". "Heavy Armament" was also introduced into the game when a statement was published which states that the ruling, Socialist Party of Serbia, "supports the conception and the text of the Draft Law".

Montenegro, of course, also pulled out its trump cards, and right after the Prime Minister's stances about the Law on Enterprises were published, a series of interviews followed with Montenegrin officials who more bluntly than usual started speaking about current economic misunderstandings with the other member of the federation. Minister of Power Industry, Miodrag Gomilanovic, accused Serbia of an unjust attitude towards Montenegro in distribution of domestic power sources, and the Director of the newly founded Montenegrin airlines, Zoran Djuricic, to a question whether JAT as the official owner of the airports in Tivat and Podgorica, would allow landing of Montenegrin planes, unusually clearly answered "that it would be as if your neighbour forbade you to park your car in your own yard".

This current conflict between the republics which is linked to the fundamental issues of arranging economic life in the country, contrary to the usual ones, does not have an ethnic, but primarily an ideological, political and economic dimension. Does it offer an opportunity for a more rational approach to seeking a solution?

What next? The only way to change the Law are amendments, which means that the socialistic-realistic conception it is based on cannot be changed. An offer for a compromise came from Montenegro in the form of a proposal that the part referring to socially-owned enterprises be removed from this Law, that is, that it be replaced by new provisions which would refer to republican laws on transformation. But, for such a combination to "pass", too many consents are necessary, from coordination of internal relations within the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS), through other parties in Montenegro, all the way to Serb parties.

Due to difficulties with coordination, the federal state fails to adopt some of the key system laws such as the one on labour relations, ownership transformation, securities, strike etc. A completed Draft Law on Ownership Transformation of Enterprises was recently revoked from the procedure due to disagreement in viewpoints and aspirations of the two republics. Unofficially, the story goes that the Draft Law on Enterprises will have the same destiny. The old custom that the fundamental problems are not resolved, but postponed, however, speaks more about the state itself than about the law on enterprises.

Dragan DJURIC (AIM)