| Montenegro gained its independence in 2006 on a popular referendum. Since then it had a pro-western course. All parties in the parliament share the goal of European Union membership, but some of the opposition parties reject the membership in the NATO and others pose as neutrals and opt for a referendum on the issue. The ruling coalition had, since the independence(and before), the majority of the seats in the parliament. Hence, the Government was able to follow the path of NATO membership without the support of opposition parties. Nevertheless, the opposition was also strong among the population, which includes the voters of the ruling coalition. For this reason, NATO issue was always presented to the public as a part of a EuroAtlantic integration. After the Wales summit in 2014, in which the Government′s expatiations that Montenegro will be invited to begin the accession talks were not realized, a pro-NATO campaigned was boosted and NATO became the main issue of Montenegrin politics. In 2015, Montenegro received the invitation. Full membership is expected during the 2017.The main research question asks: why did the attainment of NATO membership became a priority issue for Montenegrin government since 2012. Then I deleted the additional research question.The researcher did not find a paper or a research based explanation for these questions. There are numerous strategy papers on the importance of NATO for Montenegro and also numerous analysis and reasons given for why Montenegro should join. There are also many explanations given which argue against the NATO membership and which criticize the Governments reasoning. But none of those explanations, given as an analysis or as a verbal statement, focuses on the why question, rather the explanations either praise NATO membership or reject it as damaging for Montenegro.The main argument of the thesis holds that NATO issue in Montenegro exemplifies the polarization of Montenegrin society dating back to the split in Montenegrin leadership in 1997. The ruling party(DPS), which is on power since 1990, has been able to materialize this polarization on subsequent elections and preserve the dominance in political life of Montenegro. Constant accusation of corruption, nepotism and ties to organized crime, as well as strengthening of pluralism in Montenegro and the birth of civic parties diminish the power basis of the ruling party.With the emphasis on the NATO issue the focus has shifted from domestic politics on the foreign policy and the society is once again divided. This division has been falsely presented as correlated to the existing but fading divide and has been used to rejuvenate the aforementioned division. By attaching the issue of statehood and patriotism to the NATO issue the ruling party is once again trying to mobilize the divide, while also being able to legitimize their rule through the acceptance from the west(the formal invitation to the accession talks has been given to Montenegro on December the second, 2015). The paper connects the strengthened focus and present importance of the NATO issue to the parliamentary elections of 2016, which are due in October.This thesis includes 5 chapters. Chapter 1 is introduction. First, a short history of the WestBalkans since the dissolution of Yugoslavia is presented. Also, a present geopolitical situation is given with focus on Montenegro and its neighbors. Montenegro′s specific position and good relations with its neighbors is one of the grounds for the interest in the topic and the research itself. NATO is another topic of this segment. Here a short history of NATO is presented and the main ideas and purposes of the organization are given.Theoretical approach is also explained in the first chapter. A short analysis is given of Foreign Policy Analysis, followed by the explanation of Selectorate Theory. Bruno de Mesquita and his colleges focus on domestic issues as important factors influencing a country′s foreign policy. They state that every decision or action a Leader takes is at least not damaging to the Leader′s rule, and it usually has beneficial effect on him or her remaining in office. Diversionary Foreign Policy theory claims that, when the Leader is under domestic pressure, she or he might use foreign policy in order to shift public′s attention away from domestic issues.Process Tracing is a common methodological approach in case studies. It′s efficiency in explaining outcomes depends on a thorough understanding of the case in question and a deep analysis of the issue. Process tracing is focused on isolating specific influences on the decision making process and evaluation of their importance to the outcome. Its purpose is to separate causal from correlated effects. This paper uses PT in order to evaluate the Government reasoning for their actions. It also uses inductive approach in order to provide a new explanation for the researched topic.Chapter 2 elaborates developments of Montenegrin political scene from 1989 until 2016. The main part of the chapter explains in detail the elements of Montenegrin politics since the 1989 “Anti-Bureaucratic revolution” during which the old socialist elite has been replaced by a new and young leadership. This new leadership was embodied in the faces of Milo Djukanovic, Momir Bulatovic and Svetozar Marovic. In the 1990 the party changed its name in Democratic Party of Socialists(Demokratska Partija Socijalista), or simply DPS. Although Montenegro passed through twenty six years of democratization and pluralization, DPS remains in power even today. The ruling trio had connections to Serbian president at the time, Slobodan Milosevic. In 1997, Milo Djukanovic takes a left turn and distances himself from Milosevic′s politics. Bulatovic remained loyal to Milosevic and the split in the party ensued. The elections for the president of Montenegro in 1997 split the party and the population on two blocks – one for Milo Djukanovic and a more western oriented, Montenegrin orientation, and one for Momir Bulatovic and a pro-Serbian pro-Russian politics. Djukanovic won the election and Bulatovic left the party establishing a new one, People′s Socialist Party(Socijalisticka Narodna Partija), SNP. Polarization of Montenegrin society established during these years continued to drive political constellation of Montenegro even after the independence.In 2006 Montenegro gained its independence and began its course toward the Euro-Atlantic integration.The same year Montenegro became a member of NATO′s Partnership for Peace program. In 2008 Montenegro officially applied for the EU membership and on the 17 th December 2010 Montenegro became a candidate country.In 2009 Montenegro began its road toward NATO accession with the gradual implementation of Membership Action Plan.On December the second Montenegro was invited to start the accession talks for the NATO membership, but the opposition to this idea remains strong within Montenegro. Montenegro continues to be a polarized society and this polarization directly influences the elections. Last parliamentary elections were held in 2012 and the ruling coalition remained on power with the assistance of minority parties. Montenegro is expected to become a NATO member during the 2017. The parliamentary elections are due on October 2016.Chapter three and four are analytical parts of the thesis. In Chapter three the thesis evaluates the reasoning given to the public by the Government officials and pro-NATO block. Statements from various officials are collected(statement given on press conferences, in the newspapers, in the official pages etc.) and ordered in separated categories. Most often those statements and explanations refer to: Security, Economy, Politics and Normative aspects.This chapter examines the validity of above mentioned reasoning. First, the paper evaluates security threats to Montenegro as presented by the Government officials and pro-NATO campaigning block. Focus here is on terrorism and regional stability but some statements mention cyber terrorism, domestic security etc. The argument of the paper is that those threats are overemphasized in Montenegrin case, and do not mirror the strength of Government′s rhetoric.The economy related issues are analyzed in the second part. Most commonly, the officials who advocate NATO membership argue that by being a NATO country Montenegro will be more attractive to foreign investors as a secure environment. They also mention job creation and possibilities of a wider market. Other statements refer to costs of neutrality and having to provide for own defense and security. The argument in the paper is that some of the statements lack empirical explanation and objective analysis while others are based on hypothetical assumptions which may or may not have said impact on Montenegrin economy. They also may or may not be correlated to the NATO membership but are more likely to be in causal relation with the process of European integration.Chapter four builds upon the three preceding chapters. In this chapter all of the collected information is used to provide a basis for an inductive analysis in which an original explanation is given for the Governments actions and decision to seek NATO membership. In this chapter, the logic of the Selectorate theory, Diversionary Foreign Policy theory and the endemism of Montenegrin political constellation explained in chapter two, are combined to present a new explanation to the research question. The aim of this chapter is to give logical and coherent explanation for the Government’s decision to seek the NATO membership and to intensify the campaign on this issue in the last two years. The argumentation differs from the ones stated by the government officials. The paper focuses on domestic polarization which traces its roots to the split of 1997 within the DPS party and which divided Montenegrin society during the referendum on pro-independence and pro-union sides. This polarization remains influential today and it is both mobilized and emphasized by various actors in order to preserve their influence over the population and secure votes for the elections. This paper argues that NATO membership is such a question which mirrors the former and enduring polarization of Montenegrin political scenery. After the split in 1997, Europe and USA supported the ruling president and western oriented Djukanovic, which in return set the course of Montenegro on the path of Euro-Atlantic integrations. The NATO issue was strongly contested in the society and was thus silently been promoted as an inseparable part of a wider Euro-Atlantic integrations. The failure of Montenegrin government to gain the invitation during the Wales summit in 2014, have left the government and the ruling party without the much needed legitimization and have raised question of their ability to conduct needed reforms. Constant problems with domestic corruption, nepotism, unprofessional administration, ties to criminal organization and the fact that more and more civic minded parties have been formed and share the same ideals as DPS, but do not have the same baggage, has pressured the government to ensure the NATO invitation in 2015 due to the ensuing parliamentary elections. The NATO issue accentuate once more the polarization within Montenegrin society and enables DPS to utilize it. The invitation also gives legitimacy to their rule from the western countries, which in turn has positive effect on their voters.The last chapter comments on the findings of the research and sums up the process which led to it. This chapter also outlines strengths and weaknesses of the paper. This paper is one perspective on the issue and is focused on domestic factors. A further research on the foreign pressures would be complimentary and would ensure a broader explanation. |
PDF Full Text Request