"The modern state is based on the division of power into legislative, executive and judicial. If you disturb their balance, you have abandoned the principles of civil democracy. Our balance has been disturbed for a long time. Executive power, embodied in the absolute power of the president of the state, with the condescending secondment of one and a half parties, has subordinated the legislative power, and is trying to subordinate the judicial power as well. Although the Constitution stipulates that the judiciary is independent, there is little, if anything, left of its independence. And so, like the mythological Dažbog or, as one song tells us - "the Lame Daba of the world's bastard", the demon of evil is ravaging our messed-up earth and creating a new one according to his own measure. He declared war on law and justice," says the Novi Sad lawyer and vice president of the Center for Judicial Research (CEPRIS) at the beginning of the interview with "Vreme".
"WEATHER" Some say that Serbia is currently at a watershed. If the judiciary is subjugated by the executive power, that we are moving from an authoritarian system to totalitarianism. Do you agree with that??
photo: vanja fifa...
FREE BELJANSKI: It's almost like that. A totalitarian dictatorship, at least in theory, requires, in addition to a leader, a monopolistic party, a police state, the erasure of the distinction between the state and society, as well as terror and isolation and control of the individual. A lot is already there, but not everything yet. You can still publicly mock both the president and his party, albeit at the risk of being put through a defamation retort by their media, without going to jail. Although surveillance is expanding. We have almost become a society of informers, eavesdroppers and the eavesdropped. Wired eavesdroppers should not be turned off either.
Entire generations have grown up blackmailed, bribed or simply slavishly minded. And what do you expect from such? Victory in the elections? Deposing from power those who create and nurture them just like that?
Da, that's exactly what I wanted to talk about. is not, do not like, only the judiciary under attack but practically all those who are not obedient enough, whether it is a university, or science, culture, art... Is this also a sign that we are sliding towards totalitarianism??
We are on our way. Arbitrariness, nepotism, corruption, money laundering, and other types of crime are attributed to the regime. Although I believe that such suspicions are not without foundation, I consider the second danger to be the primary one. It is an attack on culture, education, science and art. What the power holders do not understand, they consider equally dangerous and unnecessary. Along with that goes the obliteration of meaning and consideration. Destruction of rationality and moral choice.
Can you clarify what exactly you mean?
I have in mind, to put it simply, stupidity, both on the part of the givers and on the part of the recipients, by means of which power has been relatively successfully won and preserved here for decades, if not centuries. Namely, the argumentation used by the highest representatives of the government in an effort to justify their biases is extremely mundane. And they themselves are like that: they have not reached the level of calculation at which the audience is underestimated, but they are simply not in a better condition. In other words, they do not recognize that the arguments they reach for are mere nonsense. If they are convinced of the success of such explanations, they either have little power of reasoning themselves or count on the scarcity of such power in those they address. In the first case, logic fails, and in the second – ethics. I would say that there is no alternative, but only a combination of both possibilities, with a significant predominance of the first one.
Do we have any concrete examples to support your claims? Let's not stay only on theoretical insights.
There are plenty of examples. Here are a few from this year. During the promotion of the Movement for the People and the State, the president announced that we need new energy, strength and plans in order to shape the future we all want, so he invited all wise, honorable and educated people to join him. That would be fine, provided that he meant what could only be concluded from his words: that both he and his all-powerful party failed the exam, because they lack desirable qualities. But such a thing did not cross his mind. Despite the sheer nonsense, in December of this year, he pushed the somewhat already written-off idea of the saving Movement, without any calls for an encore, onto the political stage again.
At the end of August, he claimed that he did not want to shut down the N1 and Nova S televisions, about which he normally "thinks the worst", because if he did, they would have been shut down a long time ago. He didn't realize, or he didn't care, that he was admitting that the further survival of these televisions depends solely on his will, that his wishes and not the right are the only condition for freedom of expression, and that it makes sense to want what, in his opinion, every normal person should abhor.
After a tour of the works at GAK in Višegradska, he said that there will be violence at the student demonstrations on November 1st, but nothing will happen, and their popularity will plummet. He added that he has nothing against it, that he wishes them successful work and that they continue to do so. He forgot that violence cannot be called a big deal, that when it comes to violence, you must not say that you have nothing against it and that you wish the contractors successful work and the continuation of the same work, and that, if violence is considered an acceptable price for a drop in the ratings of political opponents, it is acting against the Constitution, which proclaims the right to freedom and security, prohibits discrimination, and entrusts the president with the mission of embodying national unity, which is assumed by every party interest.
In November, he said that he would not talk about the content of the conversation with Diana Hrk because "honorable people do not broadcast private conversations." At the same time, he called on the VBA, which recorded the conversation without authorization, to publish it in its entirety. What can we say about nonsense like the claim that citizens who erase wildly painted flags from the facades of their buildings are hitting our tricolor. They don't seem to realize that their explanations are contrived and shallow. Or perhaps, even if they are within reach of this consciousness, they are convinced that the mass of organized supporters, who keep a decent distance from all prudence, will rather follow their authority than see infallibility.
Despite the decline in popularity, it seems that his propaganda nonsense and nonsense are still falling on fertile ground with some citizens?
Not only that, but they also find high theological coverage. Here, in the Easter epistle, the patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church says that we are in error if we try to determine our personality by mental powers and self-awareness, that the solution is not in thinking individuality that approaches life logically, but in the transfer of church or liturgical experience into everyday life, and that the liturgical way of life, which implies opposition to individualism and takes as a model the life of apostles, ascetics and martyrs, is the only essential answer to the problems of the modern world. In other words, suppress the need for subjective identity, don't think critically but believe, don't oppose but obey, be humble, suffer and suffer!
What consequences can arise from all this?
Loss of ability to reason logically, envy, malice and bigotry as motivating factors and blind loyalty. An old maxim Divide and conquer in our country it would necessarily be enriched with: dumb down, bribe and rule. Critics of the regime are declared enemies of the state and destroyers of the constitutional order. The phrase about "haters of everything Serbian" became popular. Thus, regime, constitutional order and belonging to one nation are put on the same plane. I don't know how Nietzsche, for example, would have spent his time, who called Germany gay, boasted of his contempt for the Germans and their simplicity, to the extent that he considered the "German spirit" to be bad air near which it is difficult to breathe. Or Bernhard, who said that the Austrians deserve nothing but chaos, saw the homeland as an iron cap and considered it a patriotic prison, and the state as horrible, characterless and shameless. Theirs did not give them up, on the contrary, they serve for their pride.
Let's get back to judicial topics.. How do you view the fierce media campaign against the holders of the highest judicial positions? It is an interesting thesis that is constantly repeated - to the judiciary, "criminals in it","torn away from the state"?
You should read the matter differently. The cry of today's political elite "we will not give Serbia", has no other meaning than - "we will not give power". The biggest threat to the democratic constitutional order is an authoritarian government that is identified with the state. If the judiciary broke away from the fusion of party and state symbolized in that way, we could only welcome it, even celebrate it! It would be a significant step towards the affirmation of the rule of law.
What are the real intentions of the regime? What do they want to achieve??
To stay where they are at any cost. If you do not choose the means and justify your fanatical orientation by claiming that you are the guarantor of survival and progress, and that everything else leads to ruin, then the constitutional order that proclaims equality before the law, freedom of speech and political pluralism is over.
To what extent is this "war against justice" related to the great civil rebellion that started in November last year and continues in various forms to this day?
I would say that the civil rebellion, and before it the resistance of the prosecutors Paunović and Savović, encouraged a good part of the holders of judicial functions, that the initiation of criminal proceedings against some ministers and associates of the Government failed the expectations of the top authorities, that their initial and behind-the-scenes warnings were in vain, that the government then embarked on an open and primitive discrediting of certain prosecutors and judges and on the action of abolishing the Prosecutor's Office for organized crime. Thus, for the good of this country, the "war" began.
In parallel with this, it also lasts "war within prosecutors' offices". The other day we read a very harsh statement by Nenad Stefanović, which is the answer to the interview of the president of the High Prosecutor's Council, Branko Stamenković, to our newspaper. The announcement practically announces the dismissal of the Supreme Public Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac and others "ineligible" prosecutors from the Supreme Court. Is what has been claimed in public for a long time unquestionable?, that Stefanović is an exponent of executive power in the judiciary?
From the news that has reached the public, it can be concluded that the conflict within the prosecutor's office has far more to do with the division of the sphere of influence than with law. Indirectly, the outcome of the conflict will fundamentally affect the application of law, since the sphere of influence implies polarization between supporters and opponents of the prosecution's susceptibility to impermissible external influences on their work. The government, of course, forces the forces that are ready to serve it, and this means that the principles of the public prosecutor's function are betrayed. The second stream, whose victory should be wished for, as far as I know, is professionally and intellectually stronger. Unfortunately for us, it is not a decisive advantage here. But it can become if it increases in numbers and remains persistent.
Representatives of the executive power and the media close to them are running another campaign, to change the way of electing the supreme and other high prosecutors. They cite examples of some others, Western countries, in which the president or the minister of justice appoint prosecutors. What would you say to them??
There is no universal model. And not everything depends on the formal political system, but also on its entrenchment, on the history and culture of the society. In developed democratic countries, with traditionally strong integrity of public professions and high sensitivity to abuses of power, the solutions you mentioned are possible and work well. We are far from that. Hence, our approach must be such that the greed for power, tendency to abuses and merciless intentionalism, as everyday and taken-for-granted phenomena, are minimized in advance by prescribing special conditions, procedures and preventive restrictions.
At the beginning of July, the President of Serbia pardoned the attackers of the protesting students. In question are four SNS activists who beat students with baseball bats in Novi Sad, as well as the girl who drove her car into a group of protesters. This decision was heavily criticized by the professional public and there was talk of abuse of constitutional and legal powers. Now Vučić, however, announces that he will absolve all those accused in the case "General Staff". Is this really an abuse of power??
The granted and announced ex officio pardons testify to the fear that the judiciary will not be obedient. Apparently, the president is not aware that by acquitting him of criminal prosecution, he indirectly admits that he does not trust the judiciary, because he knows that until now the judiciary could be influenced from the top, but that recently the success of such patronage is uncertain and that the guilt of those pardoned would be proven in the regular procedure. Otherwise, there is an obvious misuse. The sources of mercy must not be personal interests, but forgiveness towards the accused or convicted person because of his real remorse, rehabilitation or previous merits, or because of a handicap caused by illness, old age or some family trouble. In this case, it is about the interest of the pardoner to protect members or sympathizers of his party from criminal liability.
How, according to your insights, prosecutors, judges and lawyers react to all the mentioned events? Is there a strong and sufficient force for the profession to resist these pressures?
The signs of resistance are becoming clearer. When it comes to strength, it manifests itself in the number and position of those who are ready to express their position and stand up for it openly. Mere consent or affection alone is not sufficient. I am convinced that the vast majority in the judiciary share the beliefs of those who today resist the pressures, but for various reasons, as a rule of careerism, conformity or fear of risk, they still shy away from exposure. The rebels, unfortunately, are still in the minority. Although I cannot say that it originates from the rebels, I believe that it is simply about conscientious people, the news that an indictment has been filed against Minister Selaković is encouraging. By the nature of things, resistance to bad government is easier and more pronounced among lawyers.
Related to that, do you believe that the prosecution will, or judiciary, really succeed "push" until the end "big" objects such as falling canopy, possible corruption related to the tragedy, case "General Staff"?
With this kind of government, I don't believe it. I could say even with resistance to pressure, just with this kind of government - I believe. By changing the law and acrobatics in personnel deployment, the ruling majority is still able to immobilize the prosecution. But the prosecution also has the opportunity to turn to the facts and the law and conscientiously approach its work. Sometimes it's useful to be utopian.
Let's go back to the holders of the highest prosecutorial positions. In the public eye, Zagorka Dolovac has long been the personification of the ineffectiveness of institutions and the inaction of the prosecution, in the sense of good cooperation for the executive power. And now suddenly, she and her associates became "enemies of the state" i "foreign agents". How do you explain that turnaround and do you think that the independent public should support Dolovac at this moment?
We are witnessing a small paradox. The judiciary was bad and is still bad. But from the moment the political elite moved against his entrenched factions, former critics suddenly became inclined to defend him as he is. What is it about? It is an old wisdom that fallen heroes of the spirit grow in reputation. Although here, apart from a few exceptions, there are no heroes, and there is even less "spirit", sometimes it is enough that in the face of oppression there are sanctified, encouraged, opposed. Bad justice can be fixed. This government, however, has neither forgiveness nor correction.
And what is the reason for the fact that investigations against high-ranking state officials have only started since the fall of the canopy??
There is a large-scale disaster in the middle, which reverberated far away and caused a justified revolt. After it, the competent authorities could not be bypassed in determining the chain of responsibility. Other abuses, although they could and should have led to the same moves a long time ago, took place in secret.
In this whole story, we learned that there is also a problem of cooperation between the prosecutor's office and the police? How can that problem be solved and whether it can be solved under the current circumstances?
The Law on Police stipulates that the police in pre-investigation and investigation procedures apply the police powers established by the Code of Criminal Procedure and act according to the orders and requests of the public prosecutor and the court. In practice, this thing does not go exactly as prescribed. The recent police thwarting of the investigation into the so-called Ćaciland. The prosecutor's office sees the solution in the formation of the prosecutor's police. I am not convinced that it would produce the desired results. In the current circumstances, the question is to whom the police, no matter who they are nominally, would be realistically loyal to. The government will not allow the existence of a police force that is not under its external control. And that is one of the reasons for the noisy compromise of the prosecution's part, after which the question would follow - should we give such scum to the police? If we turn the matter around, we would ask ourselves: and who is she now loyal to?
European Commission and, in general, representatives of the EU are extremely critical of the situation in Serbia's judiciary. Required, for years, reduction of the executive power's influence on the work of judicial bodies. To what extent can the EU help the citizens of Serbia and the prosecutors, judges, lawyers to resist this attack by the executive on the judiciary?
We cannot say that they did not provide help in that area. Unfortunately, to our credit, without significant results. Perhaps they would have helped more if they had not so many times given the regime the opportunity to recover and continue on the same path through hesitation, prudence or even helpfulness. In my opinion, the main task of this government was accession to the European Union. In this, she showed consistent incompetence and was a complete failure. Both in the consolidation of the democratic state and in winning over citizens. Thanks to dilettante-led politics, duplicity and self-obstruction, but also to the increasingly dramatic threat to civil liberties and rights, we are further and further away from the EU.
