Why do students shy away from opposition parties?

Students have so far, more than once, resolutely refused any connection with political parties. It is clear that they have nothing to do with the party that sends beaters to attack them. However, it is not entirely understandable why they refuse to cooperate with parties of civic origin when they share the same values ​​with those parties: freedom, respect for the law, the fight for equality.

Caution is in order because there is anything and everything on the opposition spectrum, but also, there is no political life without political parties.

We will remember that in the anti-Milosevic movement in 1996/97, students also went independently, walked along roads that did not coincide with the roads of older (fellow) citizens, but there was no distance from Zoran Đinđić, Vesna Pešić, Vuk Drašković and their parties. In other words, the political articulation of dissatisfaction is necessary.

Institutional channeling of passion

The origin of the students' departure from the opposition parties can be understood as a kind of echo of the wanton depoliticization of the public space, which has been at work for 12 years, and, consequently, a certain value disorientation. But - it cannot be said otherwise - not everyone is the same. This is the meaning of party pluralism: we choose the grouping that, in our opinion, is better or less bad than other groups.

Student plenums are demonstrations of direct democracy, but in multimillion-dollar political bodies, that kind of democratic decision-making is simply not possible. Hence the necessity of political parties.

In fact, the institutionalization of political parties is one of the greatest political inventions of modern times. Since the time of Aristotle, passions in politics have been considered harmful to the community, hence the efforts to banish passions from politics, that is, to organize politics as a rational activity. But, of course, that is impossible.

That is why a political community is sustainable that does not try to banish passions from the public space, but channels them in such a way that they have a place in public life, which means that they do not threaten to destroy that community from within. Those channels of passion are political parties.

Political ideas and non-ideal practice

A political party is an organization that brings together people of the same belief. This is not about determining rationally, before the actors take the public stage, whether one group of people is right (so they can enter the political arena), while another is not (so they can't). After all, who could determine that?

Rationality is not enough here because it offers ideal criteria for very non-ideal practices. To that extent, the criteria are determined precisely in the competition of different political projects in the free public space (republic). In that space, mutually opposing political ideas circulate, and it is up to the citizens, in fair and free elections, to decide on the set of ideas that they consider the best.

Let's just add that in free countries, the defeated political project is not extinguished, but exists as an institutional control of the winning option. That is the meaning of parties. Without them, passions have no channels and can erupt in the most unexpected places, which does not contribute to the stability of the community.

SNS is a phalanx

Communities with the experiences of one party - National Socialist Germany, socialist countries with communist parties in power, fascist Italy - are not free because there is no public competition, and political life is reduced to court (therefore private) intrigues, and collection centers for re-education are provided for opposition activities. . That is why the question is whether the National Socialist Party, the Communist Party, or the Fascists in Italy can even be called political parties. It is more about movements gathered around a leader and private interests.

SNS, to that extent, corresponds more to the definition of a phalanx than a political party. In the time of the ancient Greeks, the phalanx - which is at the root of the word palanquin - was a military unit characterized by a closed structure with prominent spears. The fascist phalanx of the Spanish dictator and first-rate criminal Francisco Franco was distinguished precisely by closedness, severe conservatism, clericalism, unquestioning loyalty to the leader, a firm hierarchical structure and a tendency to violence against dissenters.

Therefore, it is a violent structure that defends the private interest of the dictator, not a political party that offers ideas about the organization of society. The SNS also rests on the same absence of principles, the same unquestioning loyalty to the leader, the same propensity for violence and the absolute absence of any ideas.

Political rebellion

The student rebellion, like any public gathering, is political. The gap with political parties of civil origin, however - unless it is understood as a maneuver aimed at softening the regime's propaganda fire - is not justified.

The rebellion must be articulated politically, that is, party-wise, and if the students do not organize themselves as a political party, then it is up to the existing civil parties to articulate the rebellion in political terms and to base it on political demands for freedom, respect for the law and equality.