It was March 15, 2020, when he was the president of Serbia Aleksandar Vučić declared state of emergency on the territory of the entire country. Nine days earlier, the first case of covid-19 was recorded in Serbia. While he was reading the decision on the introduction of the state of emergency, behind Vučić stood the then Speaker of the Assembly Maja Gojković and Prime Minister Ana Brnabić. "Surrender is not an option, surrender has never been an option, and it will not be an option for Serbia. We will fight and we will win," Vučić concluded at the time.
Five years later, the president of Serbia continues to fight - this time not against the coronavirus pandemic, but against, as he says, the "colored revolution". Protests in Serbia have not abated for months, and the situation escalated in mid-August, when the streets across Serbia recorded the greatest police violence since the protests held in July 2020. Demonstrators, who had been peacefully protesting against the debauched regime for months, began openly clashing with the police and thugs armed with clubs crouching behind the cordon, ready to break the teeth of anyone who gets in their way. And all this in full view of those who are supposed to protect public order and peace.
In several cities, the premises of the Serbian Progressive Party were completely demolished, while the premises of the Socialist Party of Serbia, the Socialist Movement and the Serbian Radical Party fared only slightly better. At night, cannon shots and stun bombs echo through Belgrade, while armored vehicles loaded with Gendarmerie cruise the streets. Demonstrators knock down and set fire to containers, respond to tear gas with flares and firecrackers, and new testimonies about beaten people arrive every morning.
IT'S RUMBLING, SUSKA
In such circumstances, it is no wonder that the term "state of emergency" is being used more and more often as a way for the regime to regain control over the situation. Since March 15, there have been rumors on the sidelines that the government could resort to this measure to suppress the demonstrations.
However, in a recent address, Vučić said that the state of emergency is a measure of last resort, which has not been considered so far. The president of all citizens then announced the "decisive action of the state" in the coming days. Admittedly, in the same address, while the deadly serious Ivica Dačić and Dragan Vasiljević were sitting next to him, the president also talked about some old woman from Transylvania, satanic rituals and the Vučićs, who are "famous fighters".
"We did not consider the introduction of a state of emergency and the introduction of a state of emergency is a complicated procedure. The consent of the president, the prime minister, is required, but it must go to a session of the National Assembly because the state of emergency is declared by the National Assembly. We did not consider it, it is Article 200 of the Constitution. We have enough measures that we can take in accordance with the law," said the President of Serbia.
However, civil protests escalated on a random weekday in the middle of summer, a period traditionally characterized by deadness and a lack of political energy. This time, it took less than 24 hours for the mass mobilization of citizens, and the chaos on the streets lasted for nights.
Such an unstable state in the country does not give room for long-term forecasts, so even statements by government officials that there will be no state of emergency do not inspire absolute confidence. If this measure were to eventually come to pass, what would it mean for further political life in Serbia? And finally - can Vučić afford such a decision at this moment?
"COMPLICATED PROCEDURE"
First, the alleged "complicated procedure" for declaring a state of emergency is no guarantee to anyone that such a measure cannot be introduced - unless, perhaps, you have been living under a rock for the last decade. Although the Constitution of Serbia requires the National Assembly to declare a state of emergency, Vučić did so on March 15, 2020, with the signatures of the aforementioned Presidents of the Assembly and the Government, Maja Gojković and Ana Brnabić.
In fact, in 2020, the Serbian Parliament made the decision to introduce a state of emergency only on April 29 - almost a month and a half after the president informed the public about it. Officially, the state of emergency ended already on May 6.
How is this possible?
Although the Constitution stipulates that the National Assembly declares a state of emergency, it leaves open the possibility that, when the Parliament is unable to meet, the decision to declare a state of emergency is made jointly by the President of the Republic, the President of the National Assembly and the Prime Minister. In that case, it is necessary for the National Assembly to confirm this decision within 48 hours of its adoption. That is, as it is added, "as soon as it is possible to meet". Since five years ago, due to the pandemic, the parliament was not able to sit for more than a month, the signature of the President of the State, the Government and the Assembly was sufficient to introduce a state of emergency. That, at least, is what the Constitutional Court concluded at the time, despite numerous appeals.
That is why it is possible that the signatures of Parliament Speaker Ana Brnabić and Prime Minister Đur Matsut would be enough for Vučić to declare a state of emergency this time - if he finds him, because there is no sign or voice of the constitutionally most powerful man in Serbia. Apart from general announcements, since the beginning of his mandate, in the midst of the biggest socio-political crisis during this government, Macut has hardly made any announcements. If he doesn't find it, there is a solution: let Vučić simply sign the paper instead of him, since he has certainly already taken on all the other obligations of the prime minister.
Such a decision is not supported by the fact that the situation in the country is completely different from what it was five years ago. Back then, at least at the time of the declaration of the state of emergency, most people were frightened by the virus and were ready to respect the decisions prescribed by the state. At the present moment, such a measure could ricochet and add fuel to the greatly ignited anger of the rebellious citizens.
Even if he tried to comply with all procedures and instructed Ana Brnabić to call an extraordinary session of the National Assembly, the question is whether it could be held, and under what conditions - it has only been a few months since smoke bombs flew through Serbia's highest representative body.
WHEN IS IT DECLARED?
Therefore, since we have considered how the president of the state, if he wanted to, could introduce a state of emergency, let's move on to the next question: under what conditions is this measure declared?
Lawyer Marko Pantić tells "Vreme" that, hypothetically, legal mechanisms for such a step exist.
"The law is sometimes so broad and complex that it can be explained with various platitudes, such as: endangerment of the state, vital national interests, suspicion of the emergence of terrorism... If you were to look at it on paper, it could very easily pass," says Pantić.
Indeed, the Constitution of Serbia states that a state of emergency is a special circumstance in which "a public danger threatens the survival of the state and citizens." "Public danger" is more closely defined by the Law on Defense, which in Article 4 states: "A state of emergency is a state of public danger in which the survival of the state or citizens is threatened, and is a consequence of military or non-military challenges, risks and threats to security. Non-military challenges, risks and threats to security manifest themselves in the form of: terrorism, organized crime, corruption, natural disasters, technical-technological and other accidents and dangers."
Therefore, the term "public danger" is defined by law quite broadly, and the word "terrorism" immediately catches the eye, which public officials of the ruling party and media workers close to the Serbian Progressive Party have been using every day in recent months in dealing with the rebellious part of society.
LIMITATION OF A NUMBER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Furthermore, what if a state of emergency is declared? How would it affect the everyday life of citizens? The interlocutor of "Vremen" explains that such things cannot be predicted in advance, because that is exactly the purpose of the state of emergency - government is governed by the Government's decrees, which can change from day to day.
"It would probably be a curfew, at least in the cities, because I believe that the main goal would be a ban on gatherings. It is relatively easy to go to a protest if you know that nothing will happen to you - or, at least, it shouldn't happen to you. If a state of emergency were declared and a decree was set for a ban on gatherings, I believe that many fewer people would decide to break the ban and go to a protest. This would make it much easier to suppress and prosecute the demonstrators," adds Pantić.
As for limiting media coverage, the lawyer points out that in situations of emergency, "some form of censorship is always resorted to, which could be seen in 2020 as well."
At that time, the Government came to a conclusion which, under the rationale of protecting citizens from the spread of fake news, centralized informing the public under the jurisdiction of the Crisis Staff for the Suppression of the Covid-19 Disease, headed by Prime Minister Ana Brnabić. The conclusion was withdrawn after just a few days due to the stormy reactions of the domestic and international public, but not before the journalist of the portal nova.rs Ana Lalić was arrested on the charge of having committed the crime of causing panic and disorder. The reason was the text in which she stated that KC Vojvodina was facing a "chronic lack of basic equipment and completely chaotic working conditions during the pandemic".
In addition to freedom of movement and freedom of the media, in a state of emergency it is possible to limit a whole range of rights, the lawyer of the Committee of Lawyers for Human Rights YUCOM Milena Vasić analyzed in 2020. These include: the right to freedom and security, supplementary rights in the event of deprivation of liberty without a court decision, rights related to detention, duration of detention, equal protection of rights and legal remedies, inviolability of the home, secrecy of letters and other means of communication, protection of personal data, freedom of opinion and expression, right to information, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and other rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Serbia which are not expressly excluded from the possibility of restrictions.
In other words, declaring a state of emergency would bring unprecedented repression. There could be a complete ban on protests, mass arrests, increased powers of the police and security services for surveillance, wiretapping, and certain restrictions on the work of the courts. In this sense, Vučić's regular reckoning with the judicial branch of government sounds ominous.
THE MYTH OF STABILITY
Although the disbanded government would welcome greater powers of the state in dealing with "blockaders" and "occupational media workers" (a phrase coined by the president himself when talking about independent media), how much is the introduction of a state of emergency a realistic option at this moment? From the political-propaganda aspect, how profitable is it?
"That would be a bad solution. Any introduction of a state of emergency is a suitable ground for autocracy, because the state thereby generates much greater power and much wider powers than it has under normal circumstances. In addition, the government does not have a strong justification for the introduction of a state of emergency because people function normally throughout the day and only go out into the streets in the evening. Therefore, we do not live in continuous chaos," Pantić points out.
Zdravko Ponoš, president of the Serbia Center party (SRCE), recently stated that Vučić would introduce a state of emergency, but that "he knows that he does not have enough strength to implement it. That is why he decided to implement measures of a state of emergency, but not formally declare it. He is content with sowing fear in the hope that he can solve the crisis that way", wrote Ponoš on the social network X.
Apart from the still insufficiently strong reasons for the government to justify the introduction of a state of emergency, there are several other obstacles to such a decision.
First, the regime would thereby send a message to its own electorate that the state is not strong enough to deal with "terrorists" and "foreign mercenaries", but that it must resort to drastic measures in order to regain control. Second, a message would be sent to Europe and the world about a shaken stabilocrat.
As former ambassador Nebojša Vujović told N1 a few days ago, during his recent visit to Belgrade, Austrian Chancellor Christian Stocker conveyed to Vučić the position of the European Union and warned him not to use excessive force against students and the media. Officially, the Union continues to stop at statements of "concern" about the situation in Serbia, but the question is how long Brussels will tolerate the events in Serbia before it realizes that Vučić has long ceased to be a factor of stability in the region, and that he is slowly becoming someone who cannot smoothly ensure the implementation of the desired projects. The declaration of a state of emergency would certainly hasten that realization.
In the end, we come to the project over projects, the mezimcheta regime and the black hole in the budget of Serbia - the Expo 2027 project. Perhaps, if the government were to introduce a state of emergency, it could speed up the work in Surčin. But the risks would be too great - a state of emergency would threaten the international image of Serbia, which would potentially mean the withdrawal of the participation of certain countries or investors in the specialized exhibition. Furthermore, companies and foreign investors involved in construction or financing could withdraw if they judge the political environment to be unstable.
That is why the government will continue to feign stability even at the cost of escalating protests and open conflicts with citizens. The alternative would be to admit defeat.
