The Association for Responsible and Sustainable Development (UZOR) analysis titled “A Civic State with Inflammatory Rhetoric” finds that in Montenegro, political leaders frequently accuse opponents of spreading hatred while simultaneously employing the same rhetorical strategies to discredit dissenting voices.
Due to a widespread misunderstanding of proper argumentative standards in the public sphere, politics often takes on a negative connotation, seen as a realm dominated by insincerity and double standards.
Indeed, differences in society are often treated only as a proclaimed asset. This is evidenced by claims from hardline pro-Serbian political circles that the Montenegrin nation is an “artificial construct,” arguing that Serbian identity is inherently natural for Montenegro’s inhabitants, while Montenegrin nationalism is viewed as a later invention by political elites aiming to distort the original demographic reality. Terms like “Dukljanin,” “Montenegrin,” and “Milogorac” are often used within this rhetoric.
Conversely, within pro-Montenegrin political narratives, Serbs are frequently portrayed as disloyal to the state, with Serbian identity equated to being a traitor or fifth columnist. Demands for the affirmation of Serbian national identity are interpreted as threats to Montenegrin statehood.
For a long time, Croats and Croatia’s government were not central in Montenegrin public discourse. However, following the adoption of the “Resolution on genocide in the Jasenovac, Dachau, and Mauthausen camps” and increasing tensions between Montenegro and Croatia, a polarizing rhetoric targeting Croatia and Croatian people has emerged. This includes both overt and covert comparisons between the current Croatian government and the former fascist NDH regime.
Bosniak and Muslim political actors are often depicted through a suspicious lens of religious fanaticism, with their actions framed as attempts to Islamize society, undermine secular values, and destabilize the civic order.
Since the Kosovo War, Albanians in Montenegro have been subject to a persistent narrative portraying them as a group seeking to undermine national sovereignty and stability, alleged to be acting under a long-term plan to create a “Greater Albania” through territorial expansion.
In public discourse, NGOs are frequently framed as the extended arm of foreign influence, purportedly working to weaken state sovereignty. Because the NGO sector is largely funded by international donors, the narrative suggests these organizations are not rooted in the people and do not serve public interests, but instead act as hired agents implementing foreign embassies’ agendas.
It is evident that public dialogue is dominated by labeling and moral alignment rather than a quality exchange of arguments. This underlines the urgent need to improve media literacy and enact normative reforms in public discourse.
Additionally, in the coming period, we must strengthen institutional mechanisms for identifying and suppressing hate speech in order to preserve freedom of expression and political dissent as fundamental democratic values.
The full analysis can be found at the link above.
Maja Nikolić, UZOR Program Manager
