The proposal presented in her interviews by the co-president of the Green-Left Front, Biljana Đorđević, to establish coordination for the creation of a unified front against the regime between currently unconnected and autonomous actors, and to define their mutual relations, was greeted with malice by the pro-regime media, which wrote about the total war of the two currents of blockaders, and on the other hand, with guardian and protective concern for the purity and autonomy of the student movement and the student struggle. Once again, what we have known for more than two thousand years has been shown, that in raging civil unrest, language is the first to suffer and that "the usual meaning of words, in relation to actions, is arbitrarily changed".
Anyone who thought that coordination means the organization of different elements or activities of a complex system in order to work together more effectively or the coordinated strategic interaction of several actors in order to achieve an optimal equilibrium is mistaken. Namely, in Serbia, the call for coordination between the opposition and the student movement does not mean a call for "coordinated action" or "coordinated strategic interaction", but depending on the political perspective of the observer, that word means what the speaker chooses to mean, so a call for coordination can also mean a call for division, strife, collapse, smuggling, profiteering and, with minor exceptions, all sorts of bad things.
WHAT THE THEORY SAYS...
In theory, the request for coordination is treated as quite mild and does not imply deeper connection and cooperation, building formal coalitions or stronger alliances; it does not even imply a requirement for a fair distribution of burdens, obligations and profits. It is a requirement for strategic coordination of actions in order to achieve some common goal, similar to traffic, sports competitions or other important spheres of social life. Different actors have always had to establish coordination mechanisms, tacit or formal, about whether to drive on the left or right side, how to signal the direction of movement, how many players will be on the field, when there is a foul, and so on.
Alternatives to that are the so-called non-cooperative games, which imply imposition when one actor monopolizes the game, and other actors are forced to follow his strategy. It is about subordination, that is, the establishment of a hierarchy according to the strength of the actor or the independent pursuit of different individual strategies that compete with each other, and sometimes are in conflict.
Aligning the strategies of different actors is a demanding job and involves several things. One is the recognition of the autonomy of the actors and the differences between them, and the other is the definition of a common goal, interest and outcome that the actors care about. The third is the exchange of relevant information through the creation of a common information base on which decisions are made and, finally, trust that all parties will follow agreed strategies and not use them only for their own benefit. At every step there is a landmine or more of them and therefore it is necessary to talk, which is another notorious word when used in the Serbian political context.
AND WHAT DOES PRACTICE SAY?
Bearing all this in mind, the key question is not whether there is, at least for some of the political actors, a common goal. There are at least two: the first is to remove the stone from the neck by demolishing the freak regime in the elections, and the second is to establish at least minimal assumptions for the functioning of institutions, primarily those on which fair and free elections depend, but also those related to the normalization of life in Serbia. That is to say: decriminalization, freedom from party influence, equality before the law, fair opportunities, and many similar things.
The key question, at least at this moment, is whether there is a dominant actor with a dominant strategy capable of achieving these goals, without coordination with others, or at least imposing his strategy on other actors to achieve them.
From this point of view we can see the importance of coordination. For example, if an actor can win an election by himself, and for that he does not need coordination with others, then there is no need for coordination. If some actor has such power to force other actors to subordination, then there is also no problem of coordination, but there are other problems. So far, for example, only the Serbian Progressive Party has succeeded in doing so in relation to its "partners" in power, but only when it came to power and usurped resources and institutions. In all other conditions, at the very least, coordination is required or we will be faced with suboptimal outcomes or, to put it more simply, with minor or major failure.
In relation to the political situation we are in, there are two suboptimal outcomes. One is the survival of the regime in power with all the tragedies and disasters that it entails, and the other is to win, but not to change anything fundamentally. The first option is worse than the second, but the second also carries with it risks that can have different consequences - perhaps less tragic, but quite unpleasant.
The biggest gain from coordination is certainly clearing the ground and strengthening the front lines according to the regime. Many issues that have so far burdened the so-called opposition and rebellious public can be swept under the carpet, at least temporarily. The student movement is a student movement, it enjoys a lot of support and it will be transformed, at least in part, into a political organization that will run its own list in the next elections, with candidates that they believe meet the conditions that the students themselves determined and according to the procedure that they defined themselves. Therefore, the question of whether someone wants to smuggle himself onto the student list is not relevant.
Likewise, the question of everyone's unconditional support for that list and the creation of a single front is not on the table, at least at this moment. We know of some opposition right-wing parties who have informed us that they will go to the elections and of the position of the majority of others who see the demand for unconditionality - in a situation where many things are unknown - as a demand for subordination and the abolition of political autonomy, but at the same time they are open to support.
The least important thing here is that unknown people are on the list - more important issues are the form of the future political organization, the way of decision-making, what will be the mandate of the government, etc. Despite widespread belief, political parties, at least some, have their own values, policies, procedures and decision-making forums and cannot commit to anything beyond that. Everyone will individually decide whether they want to follow their own or someone else's individual strategy or if they want to coordinate their strategy with others and with whom exactly, and they will be responsible for their choice. In the meantime, it is possible to define and clarify mutual relations and, accordingly, to open space for coordination on many issues and close ranks on the front before the elections are called.
EXAMPLES OF COORDINATION
There are several areas in which such coordination can produce results, because the regime will fall more easily if there is coordinated pressure or coordinated defense of different front lines. Here are some ways activities can be coordinated.
INCREASING PRESSURE ON THE AUTHORITY
The student movement has shown an enviable ability to exert pressure on the authorities on the street, in social networks and through various social groups with which it coordinates. On the other hand, opposition parties have shown that they can mobilize significant support for protests, know how to use procedures and institutions to exert pressure, and what is even more important considering the nature of the government - to exert pressure in international forums in which they participate and in contact with sister parties. Better coordination in this regard can lead to important developments on many topics, and many opportunities, such as the timely election of new REM members, have already been missed.
PROTECTION OF VICTIMS BY AUTHORITIES
The uncoordinated protection of victims of the government led to unequal treatment of citizens who rebelled against the regime, depending on which group they belong to. This is especially important due to the increased and now indiscriminate repression of the regime. At some point, it was no longer known who was in custody and what they were accused of, whether they had anything to live on, who all lost their jobs... The most painful example is the shameful neglect of a group of activists from Novi Sad accused of trying to destroy the constitutional order on March 14, half of whom cannot enter the country under the threat of an insane indictment, and half of whom are under house arrest. But there are also other people whose fate is not so much in the focus of the public, and some have been irreparably damaged.
INFORMATION EXCHANGE
The most important condition for making good decisions is the informational basis on which decisions are made. Different groups and individuals have different experiences, access different information and share it in different ways. This often produces misunderstandings and leads to predictable forms of abuse. Social networks complicate the problem. Coordinated verification and sharing of collected information can alleviate this problem, but also lead to more effective action on all fronts against the regime. Parliamentary parties, for example, have access to information that allows them to be present in institutions through parliamentary questions.
ELECTIONS AND ELECTIONS
In addition to not knowing when they will be announced, it is also uncertain under what conditions they will be announced, what the election day will be like and what the day after the election will look like. Experiences from the local elections in Zaječar and Kosjerić, as well as the upcoming ones in Negotin and Mionica, show that the government is not ready to organize fairly fair elections, nor can we be sure that the ruling regime will hand over power "only on the basis of the election results".
There is no doubt that the government will use all resources to "stay in the saddle", and the answer to that will require a high degree of engagement of all actors on all fronts: street, institutional, legal, international.
NON-ATTACK
This is the minimum coordination needed to address more voters who want to change sides or who have not gone to the polls so far, and less to each other. Confusion created by constant disqualifications and accusations, most often collective, can lead to doubts about success, and can be resolved without one-way communication.
The author is a member of parliament from the ZLF
