Political accountability is the most specific type of social accountability for the fact that it lacks a normative legal aspect and that it derives mainly from the behavior, not from an opportunistic attitude or disclosure of specific subject in relation to the expectations of the body or institution or the relevant electoral body. Political accountability is the conditio sine quo non (indispensable condition) to a democratic system of government. Hence the Kosovo Government on the merits of the constitutional aspect has accepted this institute. It is precisely this institute of political accountability that will be the topic of this paper taking into account the responsibilities of the executive government in relation to the legislative, as well as the political accountability of those elected in relation to the voters. The accountability of the President will be treated in the framework of constitutional accountability, and that of the Government in the framework of parliamentary accountability.
This article analyzes the constitutional provisions and practices of the Kosovar process of forming a government in two scenarios: after a parliamentary election, and after a motion of no confidence. The factors that most prominently complicate this process are the proportional electoral system, extreme party pluralism, and ambiguous constitutional provisions. Leaving aside the first two factors, which have thus far resisted efforts to change them, the authors claim that the constitutional law dealing with the government-formation process has undergone both procedural and substantive changes as a result of interpretations and decisions by the Constitutional Court. The authors further note that these changes are constitutional constructions, rather than constitutional interpretations, and describe the novel, resultant practice as legitimized without amendment. These constitutional interpretations and constructions, their possible alternatives, and the relevant constitutional provisions are analyzed through doctrinal legal research. That constitutional judgments can be reinterpreted and abused by interim, and office-seeking (rather than policy-seeking) political coalitions seems a condition poised to engender future instability; therefore, the authors hold that the amendment of the constitution is the best insurance against political and constitutional crises when it comes to forming a government, either after elections or with the same legislature. The authors hope that this paper will contribute to the enrichment of the constitutional practice of forming parliamentary governments and the development of the doctrine of constitutional interpretation. ; U ovome članku analiziraju se ustavne odredbe i praksa kosovskog formiranja vlade u dva scenarija: nakon parlamentarnih izbora i nakon izglasavanja nepovjerenja. Čimbenici koji izrazito kompliciraju taj proces su proporcionalni izborni sustav, ekstremni stranački pluralizam i dvosmislene ustavne odredbe. Ostavljajući po strani prva dva čimbenika, koji su do sada odolijevali nastojanjima da ih se promijeni, autori tvrde da je ustavno pravo koje se bavi procesom formiranja vlasti doživjelo i proceduralne i materijalne promjene kao rezultat tumačenja i odluka Ustavnog suda. Autori nadalje primjećuju da su te promjene ustavne konstrukcije, a ne klasična ustavna tumačenja, te opisuju novu, rezultirajuću praksu kao legitimiranu bez ustavne promjene. Ova ustavna tumačenja i konstrukcije, njihove moguće alternative te relevantne ustavne odredbe analiziraju se doktrinarnim pravnim istraživanjem. Uzimajući u obzir činjenicu da se ustavne presude mogu reinterpretirati i biti zloupotrijebljene privremenim ad hoc koalicijama, koje se temelje na trenutačnim uskim stranačkim interesima, može se pretpostaviti da će to stvarati dodatne nestabilnosti u budućnosti. Stoga autori smatraju da je izmjena ustava najbolje osiguranje od političke i ustavne krize kada je u pitanju formiranje vlasti, bilo nakon izbora, bilo s istim zakonodavnim tijelom. Autori se nadaju da će ovaj rad pridonijeti obogaćivanju ustavne prakse formiranja parlamentarnih vlada i razvoju doktrine tumačenja ustava.
The topic of this comparative study is the republican character of the system of governance in Kosovo. In the public discourse and political communication, as well as in academic discourse Kosovo is considered a Parliamentary Republic, based on the principle "of the separation of powers and checks and balances between them." Although the constitutional definition of the relationship between the executive and legislative favors parliamentary republicanism, the constitutional powers of the president, the government and especially the constitutional and political power of the prime minister, significantly weaken the parliamentary character, in favor of a semi-presidential system. However, neither the current theories of government, nor constitutional provisions can rank Kosovo among semi-presidential systems, or pure parliamentary systems. Comparisons of competence powers relations in Kosovo, with similar relations and competences of the countries of the region and beyond, testify to the specific nature of parliamentary democracy in Kosovo. It is precisely the comparison of the Kosovo constitutional-legal system of governance with similar systems and theoretical analysis of parliamentary models facing Kosovo model which will be the basis of support of the hypothesis that Kosovo is not a typical parliamentary republic.
State reactions toward the COVID-19 pandemic differ from one country to another one across the world. Many countries have declared a state of emergency, where the power is mainly being concentrated on executive branches, while other countries have supplemented their existing legal frameworks, saving the balance of the power branches. This group of countries includes Kosovo and Croatia, two new democracies with similar constitutional systems, regarding the position and role of the president and provisions related to the declaration of emergency and restrictions of human rights and freedoms. Therefore, the similarity will also reflect on both the countries' reactions to the pandemic. It is evident that the presidential and opposition tendencies from both countries were able, to a certain level, to impose extraordinary measures within an ordinary legal order. Thus, there was no need to apply constitutional provisions concerning the state of emergency. This paper aims to tackle such political, professional, and academic approaches of both countries; in particular, it focuses on the approaches of governments, presidents, constitutional courts, and constitutionalists.
This paper analyzes the political and constitutional confrontation of Kosovo and Croatia with the COVID-19 pandemic. The similarities of the constitutional provisions governing emergency situations and possible restrictions on human freedoms and rights in both countries, alongside hybrid parliamentary systems with strong presidents, have produced the same approaches, respectively similar in political and constitutional terms as well as in the academic and professional aspect. Therefore, this paper is focused more on government responses to the situation, including divergences between presidents and governments, as well as constitutional court approaches and respective academic opinions on the subject axis: extraordinary measures within the ordinary or extraordinary legal order with a formal declaration of a "State of Emergency". Both countries set out for the first model, contenting themselves with amending legal frameworks without a formal declaration of a state of emergency. How and why, it happened is explained in the second and third parts of the paper, resulting in conclusions and recommendations. ; Ovaj rad analizira političko i ustavno sučeljavanje Kosova i Hrvatske s pandemijom bolesti COVID-19. Sličnosti ustavnih odredbi koje uređuju izvanredne situacije i moguća ograničenja ljudskih sloboda i prava u obje države, zajedno s hibridnim parlamentarnim sustavima s jakim predsjednicima, proizveli su iste pristupe, odnosno slične u političkom i ustavnom smislu, kao i u akademskom i profesionalnom aspektu. Stoga se ovaj rad više usredotočuje na vladine odgovore na situaciju, uključujući razlike između predsjednika i vlada, kao i na ustavnosudske pristupe i odgovarajuća akademska mišljenja o predmetnoj osi: izvanredne mjere unutar redovnog ili izvanrednog pravnog poretka sa formalnom izjavom o izvanrednom stanju. Obje su države krenule u prvi model, zadovoljavajući se izmjenama pravnih okvira bez formalne objave izvanrednog stanja. Kako i zašto se to dogodilo, objašnjava se u drugom i trećem dijelu rada uz zaključke i preporuke.
