Citizen participation in decision-making processes (ME0083)

A brief description of the obligation

The obligation aims to increase the participation of citizens in decision-making processes, especially those directly related to the lives of citizens, in order to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the work of institutions.

Defining the problem

1. What problem does this obligation aim to solve?

The problem that this obligation seeks to address relates to the limited and insufficiently effective participation of the public in decision-making processes. Key challenges include a low level of transparency in the work of public administration, a lack of available and timely information, as well as poor communication between citizens and institutions. This situation leads to formal rather than actual citizen participation, which means that even when citizens participate in consultative processes, their influence is often minimal or non-existent. The problems are primarily reflected in the lack of awareness of citizens about the holding of public consultations and public debates. It is not enough to publish announcements only on the website of the ministries, but it is necessary for the announcements of public consultations and public debates to be published through other communication channels, social networks, media, in a way that is most accessible to the general public. The problems are also reflected in technical and organizational barriers, such as inadequate consultation times, insufficient use of available digital platforms for citizen engagement, and poor practices in responding to their comments and suggestions.

The identified challenge affects all citizens, including different age and socio-demographic groups, with a particular focus on young people and members of national minorities, who often remain marginalized due to technical, educational and cultural barriers. These groups have more difficult access to information and less opportunity to have a real impact on decision-making processes. The problem occurs in various local communities across the country, indicating its prevalence and systemic character. The lack of transparent, timely and easily accessible information further reduces their ability to actively participate. The feeling of distance and distrust towards institutions is reinforced by the lack of response to their suggestions and the perception that their participation has no real impact.

The defined problem has been going on for a long period of time and is the result of deep-rooted structural weaknesses in transparency, digital infrastructure, legal frameworks and the work culture of institutions. Barriers at the lowest level include difficult access to electronic information due to a lack of digital literacy and the lack of single, transparent websites, while at higher levels the challenges include uneven digitalisation of institutions, outdated procedures and poor document exchange. While significant progress has been observed in the process of opening up public administration and increasing transparency, citizen participation continues to fluctuate and barriers remain.

The impact of the problem is continuous, as citizens have not been able to achieve full participation for a long time, which hinders the development of democratic processes and reduces trust in public institutions. A permanent solution requires a systemic and multidimensional approach that includes the adoption and implementation of clear legal frameworks on free access to information, intensive digitalization of public services, continuous education of both citizens and employees in the public sector, and the establishment of efficient channels for two-way communication and transparent data exchange.

Only through such a comprehensive approach, which includes technological, legal, educational and organisational measures, can real, inclusive and responsible citizen participation in decision-making be ensured. This strengthens the democratic capacity of society, increases trust in institutions, and builds an open and transparent public administration that respects and actively involves its citizens.

2. What are the causes of the problem?

An analysis of the problem of limited and insufficiently effective participation of citizens in decision-making using the Five Whys method indicates the following:

Why is public participation limited and inefficient?
Because citizens rarely receive timely and accessible information about decision-making processes.

Why do citizens not receive timely and accessible information?
Because institutions do not publish data proactively and transparently, in a receptive way and easily visible to citizens, and the digital infrastructure is poorly developed.

Why do institutions not publish data proactively and why is the digital infrastructure poorly developed?
Because there is an inconsistent application of the existing legal framework, technical and organizational barriers, including regulations that need to be improved in accordance with standards that will enable greater transparency and accessibility of the work of public administration to citizens, outdated technologies and uneven digital capacities.

Why are there such legal, technical and organizational obstacles?
Because a systemic approach to reform has not been established, which would include the adoption of new laws, intensive digitalization and education of employees and citizens. The Public Administration Reform Strategy 2022-2026 envisages numerous solutions regarding transparency, but it is poorly implemented.

Why has a systemic approach to reform not been established?
Because there is some resistance to changes within institutions, insufficient political will and a lack of resources for the consistent implementation of the necessary measures.

To sum up, the main causes of limited and ineffective public participation are related to the lack of transparency and availability of information, insufficiently developed digital infrastructure, legal and organizational weaknesses, as well as insufficient support and willingness to implement reforms within the public administration.

Description of the obligation

1. What has been done so far to solve the problem?
Over the past ten years, Montenegro has recognized the importance of transparency of public administration and the active participation of citizens in decision-making processes, and has launched a number of reforms and initiatives aimed at solving existing challenges. Despite structural weaknesses that continue to be observed, some institutional, legislative and technical advances have been made, in particular through cooperation with international partners, civil society and local communities.

1. Legislative framework and institutional support
One of the key steps was the adoption of the Law on Free Access to Information, the implementation of which played an important role in raising awareness of citizens' right to information. However, the

implementation of this law faces numerous challenges, and activities are underway to revise it in order to bring it into line with European standards. At the same time, the reform of the Law on Local Self-Government is underway, with the aim of further strengthening accountability and openness at the local level.

2. Digitalisation and technological progress
On the technical front, Montenegro has established an e-government portal and an open data platform data.gov.me, which enables electronic search and access to certain databases. In addition, digital transformation pilot projects have been launched in several municipalities. However, digital infrastructure remains unevenly developed, and system interoperability and data standardisation remain an obstacle and not at a satisfactory level.

3. Capacity building and education
Within the framework of cooperation with the Council of Europe and the EU, ReSPA organization, trainings and workshops for civil servants on the topic of transparency and access to information were organized. These activities are important for strengthening administrative capacity, but they remain sporadic and insufficiently coordinated, which limits their impact. It is necessary to institutionalize training programs and increase their frequency in order to build a stable staff capable of proactive communication with citizens.

4. Budget transparency and public reporting
According to the Open Budget Survey (2023),12 Montenegro achieved relatively good results in terms of budget transparency, but at the same time very low scores (13/100) when it comes to citizen participation in budget processes. Such results indicate that transparency often remains formal, without real involvement of citizens in the planning and control phases of public spending.

2. What solution is proposed?

Upgrading what has already been done in Montenegro does not imply completely new approaches, but rather deepening, expanding and integrating existing tools and policies, but with an emphasis on quality, accessibility and inclusion. In order to ensure the real, and not just declarative, participation of citizens, it is necessary to approach this challenge through a comprehensive, systemic approach that integrates legal, technological, organizational and educational measures.

Creating mechanisms for real citizen participation requires transforming existing formal consultations into inclusive, transparent and two-way processes. The issue of digital inclusion and accessibility remains crucial. Although portals such as eGovernment and data.gov.me are a significant resource, their use must be adapted to all citizens. The development of mobile applications, as well as the installation of local information points in local communities with internet access, can significantly improve equal access to information.

One of the foundations of sustainable change is continuous education and strengthening of human resources. Public servants should be provided with mandatory training on transparency, digital communication and participatory governance, while citizens, especially young people and members of marginalized groups, should be empowered through workshops, campaigns and civic education in formal and non-formal education programs.

Evaluation and monitoring of progress must become a regular practice. The introduction of annual transparency and participation reports, as well as independent monitoring mechanisms that monitor specific indicators, would allow for better performance assessment and identification of room for improvement.

3. What results do you want to achieve with the realization of this obligation?

The implementation of this commitment seeks to improve the quality and availability of mechanisms for citizen participation in decision-making, through strengthening two-way communication and empowering civil society. The aim is to create a more open, transparent and inclusive governance process, in which citizens have a real say in public policies. A special focus is on digitalization, education and integration of good international practices.

Obligation Analysis

1. How does this help to promote transparency?

This commitment will directly contribute to greater transparency as it implies the development of new and/or improvement of publicly available tools and platforms for citizen engagement, the publication of information in a clear and accessible way, and the establishment of feedback mechanisms. This will allow the decisions of the institutions to be visible, understandable and subject to public scrutiny, which strengthens citizens' trust and the accountability of the authorities. With the introduction of regular reporting and open consultations, it will be evident how citizens' proposals are taken into account and influenced public policies.

2. How does this work promote accountability?

Namely, this obligation introduces concrete tools and mechanisms and standardizes practices among institutions, which reduces fragmentation and an ad hoc approach, and puts the focus on monitoring and evaluation, thus allowing the public to see not only whether institutions are responding, but how and with what effect.
The implementation of this commitment reinforces political and operational accountability, as the commitments made in the OGP plan become public and measurable in the international context.

3. How does this task improve the participation of citizens in the definition, implementation and monitoring of solutions?

With the introduction of new participatory tools, citizens will have the opportunity to have an earlier and substantial impact on the shaping of policies, programmes and decisions that directly affect them.
By transparently publishing plans and activities by institutions, citizens and the civil sector will be able to monitor how decisions are implemented in practice, and through open communication channels they can point out problems and suggest corrections on the fly.
By establishing mechanisms for two-way feedback, citizens become active monitoring actors, not just passive observers of the process.

Commitment Planning
Key steps: 1. Formation of an interdepartmental body for citizen participation
Expected outcomes: An established body with a mandate to define, coordinate and monitor measures to promote civic participation
Expected period of completion: Q2 2026
Stakeholders: Coordinator: Ministry of Public Administration, OT Open Government Partnerships; Players who support the implementation: Government: GSV; OCD: /; Second: /

Key steps: 2. Development and adoption of guidelines and standards for citizens' consultations
Expected outcomes: Practical Guide for State and Local Authorities to Conduct Public Consultations (including Online and Offline Methods)
Expected period of completion: Q3 2026
Stakeholders: Coordinator: Ministry of Public Administration; Players who support the implementation: Government: GSV, Human Resources Directorate; OCD: OT members from the NGO sector; Second: /

Key steps: 3. Organisation of thematic forums (online and live) on public policies
Expected outcomes: At least 2 forums per year with citizens, representatives of the government and civil sector, and marginalized groups (youth, minorities, citizens from rural areas (online and face) on public policies with the aim of ensuring a continuous dialogue between citizens, civil society and institutions.
Expected period of completion: Q4 2029 (continuous)
Stakeholders: Coordinator: Ministry of Public Administration; Players who support the implementation: Government: Line Ministries, Resource Center; OCD: OT members from the NGO sector; Second: /

Key steps: 4. Improvement of the eParticipation system
Expected outcomes: Online dashboard with a record of
Expected period of completion: Q2 2027
Stakeholders: Coordinator: Ministry of Public Administration

Key steps: for monitoring and publishing the response of institutions to citizens' suggestions, as well as enabling citizens to send comments directly to the platform
Expected outcomes: comments received and how they were taken into account; % of consultations that publicly report on how the contribution of respondents to the consultation has been used; Anonymized datasets on entries and results of public consultations published for public analysis
Expected period of completion:
Stakeholder: Players who support the implementation: Government: ; OCD: ; Second: /

Key steps: 5. Trainings and Capacity-Building Campaigns for Citizens and Civil Servants
Expected outcomes: At least 100 trained officers through seminars, workshops, and online courses; At least 500 trained citizens through seminars, workshops and online courses
Expected period of completion: Q2 2028 (continuous)
Stakeholder: Coordinator: Ministry of Public Administration; Players who support the implementation: Government: Human Resources Directorate; OCD: OT members from the NGO sector; Second: Donors - international organizations