As they state, the fight against crime must be a common interest of all citizens and institutions, because it is not an activity over which any government should have a monopoly. Without diminishing the importance of the fight against all types of decades-old crime and corruption, it must not become an instrument for building a system that actually embeds arbitrariness as the basis for decision-making in this extremely sensitive area.
"That is why the way in which the proposed and adopted amendments to the Law on Internal Affairs and the Law on the National Security Agency (ANSA) were implemented is worrying. Instead of an open debate and the involvement of the professional public, we have witnessed the sensitive security system being further closed and in reality subjected to political control. Without a serious professional debate, without presenting adequate comparative experiences and without answering key questions, primarily how to build an institutional balance between the level of authority and control to prevent the abuse of those authorities, the government
"He wants to create a system in which criticism of the work of the security apparatus will become risky, and perhaps even punishable," Perić said.
Therefore, these laws were not written in an atmosphere that would respect someone's knowledge and experience, where the professional public would gather and offer sustainable answers to the challenges of high levels of crime, but in which individuals who will be able to turn this sensitive matter into political marketing at any moment are empowered, said Perić.
"The extent to which this business has rushed towards complete control is shown by the fact that wiretapping and the possibility of being left without a job have now been reduced to the level of full discretionary decision-making by people who, with political support or background, enter or break through this system."
Particularly irritating is the thesis about the police purge being carried out by cadres who
have advanced in their careers during the previous regime, without existing
mechanisms for someone to control them in an effective and verifiable manner, except
the party that controls them.
"That is why the assessment of the constitutionality of the disputed norms of these laws, and in the second step, the correction of legal solutions, is the only way to repair the damage that has already been done, which has essentially and practically closed the door to the idea that people from the integrity profession, who are not primarily guided by party but general interest, should be controllers of the process that is now being implemented by one party," said Srđan Perić.
