Institutional prerequisites for reconciliation of constitutional and real powers of the president of the Republic of Serbia

Abstract

It is undoubted that the President of the Republic of Serbia represents the most controversial debating issue in constitutional theory and practice. We can find completely opposite attitudes toward the constitutional status of the President of the Republic: on the one hand, the prevailing opinion that the President of the Republic has an active role in the executive branch of the government, but on the other hand, the opinion that the President of the Republic is a figurehead and has only a moderating role. If we remain focused only on normative analysis, there is no doubt that we will be brought to a conclusion that the constitution-maker insisted on the moderating role of the President of the Republic making him an independent constitutional body providing the balance in the system of government. However, if we only analyze functioning of the system of government in practice, it is necessary to conclude that the president of the Republic has an active role in the executive branch. This gap between the written and the real Constitution is a consequence of mistakes and negligence in creating institutional physiognomy of the president of the Republic. Namely, the direct election of the president of the Republic is not followed by adequate powers. We can say that implementation of the semi- presidential system can be one of the possible ways to overcome shortcomings of the constitutional status of the President of the Republic of Serbia in the 2006 Constitution.

Nesumnjivo, predsednik Republike Srbije je institucija koja izaziva najviše kontroverzi prilikom teorijskopravnih rasprava. U teoriji se mogu susresti dijametralno suprotni stavovi o ustavnopravnom položaju predsednika Republike. Sa jedne strane, dominira stav da predsednik Republike predstavlja aktivnu vlast u okviru egzekutive, dok se sa druge strane zastupa teza da ova institucija ima ulogu moderatorne i pasivne vlasti. Ukoliko bi se zadržali isključivo na normativnoj analizi, nema dileme da bi zaključak bio da je ustavotvorac nastojao da od predsednika Republike stvori moderatornu vlast koja svojim nezavisnim ustavnopravnim položajem treba da doprinosi uspostavljanju ravnoteže u sistemu vlasti. Ipak, ako analizi podvrgnemo isključivo funkcionisanje sistema vlasti u praksi, neminovno bi zaključili da je predsednik Republike aktivni deo egzekutive. Ovaj raskorak pisanog i realnog ustava posledica je propusta i protivrečnosti pri ustavnom oblikovanju institucionalne fizionomije predsednika Republike. Naime, neposredan izbor predsednika Republike nije propraćen ovlašćenjima koja su prirodna posledica takvog načina izbora. Može se reći da bi uspostavljanje polupredsedničkog sistema mogao biti jedan od mogućih načina prevazilaženja nedostataka u ustavnopravnom položaju predsednika Republike iz 2006. godine.