NYT: Critics say constitution faulty

NYT: Critics say constitution faulty

The problem, according to critics, is that the draft constitution is deeply flawed and was drawn up more to prove politicians’ bona fides on Kosovo than to set the country on the course to true democracy, Nicholas Wood reports from Belgrade.

“One of the most high-profile provisions of the draft says Kosovo is an “integral part” of Serbia. The draft constitution will not have any effect on Kosovo’s future, since the United Nations Security Council is expected to vote within the next several months on whether Kosovo can break away from Serbia. But the country’s leaders see the provision as a way of assuring Serbians that they are doing everything they can to hold on to the province.”

Many reformers in the legislature went along with the draft — although they dislike some of its undemocratic features — because they wanted to show support for keeping Kosovo. They fear that the United Nations vote will create a backlash that could lead to gains for the Serbian Radical Party, the leading nationalist party. They also agreed to rush through the drafting of the constitution so that it could be in place before the United Nations vote.

‘This is the most important piece of paper that has been decided on in Serbia in years, yet it is being used for completely tactical reasons,’ said a Western diplomat, who requested anonymity because he was not permitted to comment on the matter for attribution.”

The New York Times reminds that the new constitution is intended to replace one drawn up in 1990 by the government of Slobodan Milošević, who was ousted in the 2000 Yugoslav presidential election by Vojislav Koštunica, now Serbia’s prime minister.

“But many politicians and constitutional experts say the new document in some cases turns back reforms passed since Mr. Milošević left power. One area that is particularly worrisome for critics is the amount of power the government will have over the judiciary.

For instance, under the current Constitution, Parliament has the final say on who becomes a judge, but an independent council of judges, the High Judicial Council, controls who is promoted to higher courts. Under the new system, Parliament will retain the power to select judges, but will also appoint the majority of the members of the council.”

Another area of concern is the amount of control the central government will have over local government leaders. The national government will be able to fire democratically elected local officials. The new constitution would also give the power to appoint mayors to city assemblies, which are beholden to the country’s major political parties. Since 2004, mayors have been elected.

In addition, Parliament would gain the right to dismiss the president with a two-thirds majority, although the presidency, largely a symbolic post, is elected by popular vote. That constitutional change, among others, has prompted accusations that Serbia’s leading political parties are seeking to sustain the substantial powers garnered by the Socialist Party of Mr. Milošević, rather than to establish a state with complete separation of powers.”

The paper concludes that despite the criticism of the constitution inside Serbia, neither the Council of Europe nor the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have commented on the document, which has prompted some critics of the draft to suggest those groups were more interested in Serbia’s short-term political stability than its long-term interests.