Serbia against violence has split. On the one hand, there is the position that the government did not fulfill the recommendations of the ODIHR, so since there are no elementary conditions for even remotely fair and honest elections, they should not be held. The other side does not dispute the irregularity in which voting will take place on June 2 in Belgrade and other places. However, she believes that boycotting the elections would leave local governments without opposition representatives for another four years, and in most municipalities there are already eight. Also, that all political space would be left to the SNS without an active struggle.
Simplified: the current for the boycott is convinced that this would delegitimize Vučić and force him to give in substantially; the other is skeptical and believes that the dismantling of the progressive government must start from the bottom up through the takeover of local self-governments, the strengthening of party infrastructure and, in this way, increasing the involvement of citizens in political life.
In the end, Serbia against violence was left with two options - a boycott or going to the polls. The division is selected. But that's not the worst. It doesn't even matter who was in the majority and who was in the minority at the final vote within the coalition; everyone who knows anything about active opposition activity must stop using ratings like "Trojan", "sold soul", "bought by Vučić", "traitor", "useful idiot" and the like - the largest number of these people paid a huge personal and every other the price of his political engagement.
That is why the worst thing would be for both wings of the divided coalition to start a confrontation with Vučić and the progressives instead. And since their basic goal is the same despite the different view of the methods to reach it, it is necessary to respect both opposing positions and their representatives. Neither one nor the other is Serbia's problem - on the contrary.
And something else.
Regardless of all the resentment and mistrust, the question remains whether the last word against violence has been spoken in divided Serbia? It is to be hoped not.
The fact that they are no longer together does not have to mark the end of all cooperation. Both parties must still fight for normal electoral conditions. And since the information is coming that the local committees of the parties that are advocating for the boycott will still go to the elections in some places, I guess it is in everyone's interest that the opposition takes power there or achieves the best possible result and prevents the theft of the people's will.
Despite everything, there is room for cooperation and compromises, especially on the basic postulates of opposition activity. They also include mutual non-aggression. If it does happen, the guild will pay together.