Do not fit the pistons in the wrong wheels

Arguments in support of the boycott and going to the elections have already been presented widely and at length. There is nothing new to say.

The biggest flaw in the reasoning in favor of boycotting the elections is that the key argument is that Vučić would "have to" agree to the demands to postpone the elections and order that the election conditions be improved by autumn, while the question remains open as to why he would now had to, when he didn't have to until now, as well as what that pressure would look like.

There was then talk of an "active" boycott, but no one explained what that "active" boycott would consist of, as opposed to a "passive" boycott. A boycott of the type "we will not participate in the elections, so the turnout will be so low that they will be illegitimate" would not appeal to Vučić, but it would certainly not force him to risk schemes worth tens of billions of euros related to EXPO 2027 and other lucrative businesses and jobs in Belgrade, Novi Sad, Niš, Zrenjanin, Čačak, Valjevo... Nor would Brussels or Washington lift a finger because of this.

All in all, meeting the demands for fair and democratic electoral conditions for this regime would mean cutting the branch on which it sat. Well, they won't do it. Not now, not until autumn, never.

In the meantime, the call for a boycott was reduced to not turning out for the elections in Belgrade, because the headquarters of the parties calling for a boycott gave their local committees the freedom to decide for themselves whether they would go to the elections and if, with whom, and in some places, they would do so. , the more or less mirrored coalition "Serbia against violence" that disintegrated in Belgrade will come to the elections.

A boycott that could possibly produce real pressure on the government would be a risky all-or-nothing game for political actors and those who would follow them: restoring the parliamentary mandates in the National Assembly, calling for civil disobedience, organizing mass demonstrations, physically preventing the holding of elections... But there was no talk of it, no one was ready to take responsibility for such a thing.

As far as the election boycott is concerned, now the whole story boils down to what would have been, if it had been.

Disadvantages of going to the polls

Because what is is that six members of the former coalition "Serbia against violence" are running for elections. Sava Manojlović's Start-change movement also applied. There will be added some other factors, the so-called real opposition, and there will be regime products in opposition guise. That is the current political reality.

The biggest disadvantage of going to the elections is that it can be safely assumed that this government will not give up the advantage it creates for itself through various fraudulent and manipulative actions. And that, in the meantime, there is very little time left for the campaign.

Part of the opposition estimated that this is still less harmful in the fight against the regime than leaving 88 local units at the mercy of this government for the next four years. They believe that the government would ignore the boycott threats, that it would certainly hold the Belgrade elections on June 2, and perhaps even postpone the local elections to the fall, but that there would be no substantial improvement in election conditions.

Whether that's true or not, we'll never know.

On the same side of the front

Both "boycotters" and "voters" are convinced that they are right. Supporters of the boycott believe that they have been tricked, put in front of a fait accompli and are angrily shooting arrows in the direction of former coalition partners and allies. They are telling the citizens to get busy because going to the polls under these conditions is a rush to inevitable defeat and only lends legitimacy to the fraudulent regime. They say that those who go to the polls ruined a sure victory in the boycott and broke the unity of the opposition.

They tell the "voters" that they go to the elections in order to secure some positions and functions for themselves, which, to say the least, is not nice, because it is necessary to start from the fact that both sides act from conviction, and they are certainly on the same side even after the split. front.

In this sense, it should be assumed that all those advocating a boycott would be happy if it turned out that they were wrong and the rest of the opposition managed to inflict the first defeat on the regime parties in some key cities and municipalities after 12 years.

That is why, if they are going to run aground, they should be allowed to do it themselves in a gentlemanly manner, and not be put on their feet just to prove that they are guilty of blowing the "certain" success of the boycott in Belgrade, after which they would the regime tower crumbled as if it were made of cards. Even after the election, there is time for accusations, arguments and jubilation.

As far as the turnout, number and diversity of participants are concerned, the Belgrade and local elections on June 2 will certainly have full legitimacy. That is why it makes no sense for the part of the opposition that is boycotting the elections in Belgrade to push the wheels in the wheels of the other part of the opposition that is participating in the Belgrade elections as well. Both of them have the same goal, they just took a different path.