Allegedly, one local "intellectual", who very actively participated in the wars of the nineties, had a specific sadistic approach to captured "infidel" soldiers and civilians. With rightfully scared and confused prisoners, surrounded by paramilitaries, he gave lectures on the social sciences and criticized them for not having read, say, Jacques le Goff or Gilles Deleuze.
Parallels can be problematic and insufficient, but certainly the recent statement by Aleksandar Vučić that the opposition will "collapse" if it boycotts the upcoming Belgrade elections - has a strong sadistic note in it. "Očinski" gives a lecture to those whom, using all permitted and illegal means, he placed in a filthy basement, tied up and surrounded by thugs. The worst of all is that, according to some of our interlocutors, there is some truth in his statement, at least to some extent.
The opposition, for one thing, has found itself at a crossroads where both turns are wrong. It's hard to judge how much she herself is to blame for that. It certainly bears responsibility to the extent that it sends citizens not very consistent and clear messages and creates confusion. This is due, among other things, to the fact that within the opposition, and even within individual parties, different opinions can be heard on whether or not the Belgrade elections scheduled for June 2 should be boycotted. There are even greater disagreements as to whether the boycott of Belgrade means automatically - which would be logical - and giving up participation in the elections in 88 local self-governments, including 23 city municipalities in Belgrade, Niš and Požarevac, which will be held no later than July 14. It would be somewhat silly to boycott the Belgrade ones, and to go out on the latter. At the same time, it does not seem realistic that the government will agree to move all these elections to the fall lex specialisa, as the opposition demands. And even less that the electoral conditions will improve significantly.
ADVANTAGES AND CHALLENGES OF BOYCOTT
There is no doubt that those who claim that going to the elections under the existing, mega-irregular election conditions would give legitimacy to the authorities to do as they please, trampling on earthly and heavenly laws, are right. The question is how willing citizens would be to go to the elections that they would consider lost in advance, and there would certainly appear numerous soul-stirring people on social networks who would claim that the opposition "betrayed the cause" because it went to the elections, and that it thinks only about their mandates. In addition, the threat of not going to the elections is a kind of additional pressure on the government to improve the electoral conditions as much as possible, and in this respect it is justified to some extent.
But it seems that the regime is not overly excited about it, even in combination with increased but not too decisive pressure from the West. He responds in the old way: we will form working groups and commissions, we will talk, but as you have learned from the previous 12 years in various areas - the situation will not improve, it can only get worse, with some extra crayon and mascara. Through arrogance and various other pre-election actions (some of which have reached the public), the government is actually increasing the intensity of the narrative that the elections will be stolen, thereby further discouraging non-regime voters.
On the other hand, what does the election boycott bring? Citizens know that the one from 2020 did not bring anything so good. It was believed that he was a kind of purgatory in the opposition political scene, but this is not entirely true. Four years later, it is shown that the opposition elements and those who participated in the 2020 elections are equal. Both for the elections and for the so-called active boycott should have highly mobilized citizens, numerous and ready for non-institutional political struggle. Now it does not seem that there is much energy for such a thing, but - experience teaches us - the situation can change quickly. In addition to all that, it should be said that the decision to boycott all local elections could lead to a split within the opposition bloc, and even within the parties. It would be difficult, for example, to explain to local activists that they should not go to the elections, while at the same time the opposition sits in the republican, provincial and many local parliaments. Not to mention that the opposition, even in such hellish conditions, has the possibility of winning power somewhere in the local area, which would be much needed, as symbolic as it is an important victory. In the end, if he does not participate in the elections, the opposition members will have less chance to show and prove electoral irregularities, which will obviously be in the tow trucks. As for the pressure from the West, it is unlikely that it will be strong, especially considering that it is "only" local elections.
Speaking of parallels, let's make another one. In the 2019 local elections in Albania, the opposition boycotted the local elections with similar arguments that we hear today in Serbia. Edija Rama's Socialist Party won in all municipalities and cities except for one small town (Finiq), where a group of citizens "dominated". The turnout, according to official data, was slightly less than 23 percent. The opposition even claims that it was lower - just a little more than 15 percent. And what were the results of the boycott? None, Edi Rama and his compatriots "rocked" the bar until the end as they wanted. Has the international community been shaken? It's not. The more natural learning is imposed by itself. It is also clear that Vučić's regime will add to the sea of irregularities the announcement of a higher turnout than the actual one, which will further try to make the boycott pointless.
WILL THE BOYCOTT THREATEN THE UNITY OF THE OPPOSITION?
Speaking about the advantages and challenges of not participating in the elections, associate professor at the Belgrade Faculty of Political Sciences, Dušan Spasojević, tells "Vreme" that by announcing a boycott, the opposition parties are trying to capitalize on the current situation, i.e. the international pressure on Vučić after the December elections and the dissatisfaction of a large part of the citizens. They actually want to force the government to improve election conditions. He believes that the current circumstances for a boycott are more favorable than those in 2020. According to him, the opposition raises the stake actually hoping that the boycott will not happen, but that the government will have to give in. Now or in the fall.
"This is understandable, because after the discovery of new types of irregularities, such as the relocation of voters, it is clear that the SNS can, without changing the election conditions, prevent the opposition from winning anywhere. On the other hand, although the elections for Belgrade are important, they are still less important than the parliamentary ones, so the pressure from the international community will be less intense. In addition, the government shows that it is resistant to both internal and external pressures. The third problem is that the opposition misses the opportunity to take power in the central Belgrade elections, possibly in Novi Sad, Niš and some other local governments. And that would be the first major victory of the opposition", says Spasojević.
If it boycotts the Belgrade elections on June 2, the opposition does not automatically have to give up the local elections that will follow, Spasojević believes. It can, for example, leave the decision on participation to local boards. But, even if they decide to participate in the elections, a boycott of the Belgrade elections would make their position more difficult because communication with the citizens would have to be very complicated.
"In 2020, the opposition decided to boycott at the request of the largest number of its voters. That boycott had numerous drawbacks. Now it seems that the opposition body is undefined and divided, among other things precisely because the boycott four years ago did not produce valid results. That's how things are in the opposition as well, I suppose. It can be divided on the question of the boycott, how it will be implemented, both until the election, on the day of the vote, and after that. The biggest challenge is, therefore, how to communicate the boycott and how to maintain a complex opposition structure gathered around 'Serbia against violence' in one place", says Spasojević.
VUCIĆ IS STILL THE PRIMARY GEOPOLITICAL PARTNER OF THE WEST
Political analyst Dejan Bursać claims that the opposition has put itself in a difficult situation. If you announce a boycott two months before the election, he says, and still decide to go to the polls, part of the voters will be confused, some will be motivated to boycott and angry that you went to the election, which they had previously labeled as irregular and in which your rights will be violated. political rights, that is, on which you will be "stolen".
"If you still boycott the elections, it is unclear what you will achieve." Four years ago we experienced an unsuccessful boycott. Part of the voters is not warmed up for the boycott precisely because of that experience. And then, let's remember, an active boycott was announced, but the opposition failed to implement it. And then, as now, she trusted in the Western factor, but that also had no results. Now the geopolitical situation is different, but not enough for the West to let Vučić down the drain because of the boycott of local elections. Yes, there will be condemnation from international organizations and institutions, certain political groups that are particularly interested in the situation in Serbia, such as the German Greens, but I don't believe that there will be dramatic pressure", says Bursać.
He points out that Vučić is still the primary geopolitical partner of the West in this region, regardless of what is thought of him. He is the one with whom you can negotiate, who holds all the power and can carry out the agreed upon. He has a lot to trade with: Kosovo, Republika Srpska, issues related to Russian influence in the Balkans...
"Vučić can offer some concessions, the position of his regime is not the same as Milosevic's, which had neither external nor internal legitimacy. A boycott cannot threaten him much", says Bursać.
NO POTENTIAL FOR A SUCCESSFUL BOYCOTT
Political scientist and co-chairman of the board of the "Together" party in Novi Sad, Radivoje Jovović, said in an interview for "Vreme" that the boycott would have made sense if it had been implemented at all levels - if the mandates of the republican, provincial and most local parliaments were rejected, and because of election theft. But even that, as he says, only in a situation where the government is concerned about legitimacy, and the opposition has a concrete plan for what to do in case of a boycott. Then, eventually, the boycott would be a real measure of the struggle for election conditions, and instead of the parliamentary pulpit, the street would speak, which would shake the progressive authoritarian structures. However, he notes that currently there is not enough potential for such a scenario.
"The idea of a partial boycott is primarily unprincipled and unconvincing. It disappoints and demotivates, because we should now leave the hard-won territories for which thousands of citizens and activists throughout the country fought. Also, part of the opposition leadership has only been talking about election theft for months instead of rolling up their sleeves and undertaking serious field work on the prevention of election theft - actions of mass de-registration of phantom voters, preparation of election control in and outside polling stations, mobile teams, creation of a functional application for control elections, bringing as many foreign observers as possible... All that, and more, are our homework. At the same time, we had to, and must, seriously think about productive and sobering actions of the struggle for election conditions, about blockades, civil disobedience and the like. Record, non verba, it would have to become a method of opposition work", says Jovović.
He claims that another boycott would mean the collapse of the political influence and infrastructure of the majority part of the opposition, and that at the very moment when it started to stand on its feet after the difficult experiences of the boycott in 2020.
"Significant legal and legitimate bases for financing political work would be taken away, so important to all parties that do not represent branches of big capital, and whose activists' lives would be made very literally difficult by boycotting." The boycott would also miss the opportunity to win at least in the important Belgrade municipalities, and that's right now when the faculties have started to be freed, and the extended hand of the regime, bit by bit, has started to shorten. Also, not the least important, the boycott, as it was said in talks with officials from Western countries, is not supported by the European Union, which in the past months for the first time provided visible support to the fight against autocracy", says Jovović.
He adds that, all in all, the boycott would result in the regression of the fight against autocracy.
"There would be a drop in confidence in the existence of the plan and will to fight the opposition, demotivation and demoralization of activists and citizens, weakening of the infrastructure of the opposition. And the regime? The regime would breathe a sigh of relief, strengthened, and continue to do its dirty work," he says.
WHY ARE YOU CONFUSING THE VOTERS??
It is not clear to Bursać why the opposition confuses and demotivates the voters two months before the Belgrade elections by talking about the boycott. He says that this calls into question the success of the opposition in the December elections, that is, the record number of votes won after 2012.
"The opposition has expanded its circle of support, and with the boycott it will cut its own growth. It confuses and demotivates potential voters. If you are thinking about demolishing Vučić in some cities and municipalities, you have to address a wider circle of citizens. And to your traditional voters, and those 'loose', and disappointed, and abstainers, and undecided, and even 'loose' SNS voters. And by boycotting the maltena, you exclude all of them. The boycott may be understood by a part of loyal opposition voters, those who believe that Vučić's regime can be overthrown in this way and, in general, by non-institutional means. In fact, we saw in December that Vučić is not invincible, that success can be achieved with positive messages and raising hope. This is what the results in many urban areas tell us, but also in Ljig, where the victory was achieved. And now you are interrupting that positive wave and growth trend with the story of the boycott", says Bursać.
He believes that there is no possibility for the opposition to communicate the boycott well with the citizens. Even pressure from the West will not be enough to change something. At the same time, the opposition misses the chance to win some small but important victories, such as the expected successes in the central municipalities of Belgrade, the central municipality in Niš, possibly in Novi Sad and elsewhere.
"With those victories, it would be possible to build a positive narrative for the next elections, and at the same time, a base can be built on them. We know that the downfall of Milošević was preceded by the victory of the opposition in the local elections several years before the Fifth of October," says Bursać.
ONLY AN ACTIVE BOYCOTT WOULD MAKE SENSE
Spasojević believes that only an extremely active boycott makes sense. And that would mean that by the time of the election, the citizens are convinced that this is the only solution and that it will give concrete results. This again means that the campaign and public space are used to demotivate those voters who are hesitating whether to go to the polls. At the same time, pressure should be exerted on the international community, so that it can exert pressure on the government. In addition, it is necessary to activate the citizens for the sake of internal pressure on the regime.
However, he does not think that the opposition has enough capacity to prevent the holding of the Belgrade and possibly other local elections, as some have announced. Opposition-minded citizens will certainly not be ready for methods that have elements of violence in them, such as blocking polling stations or breaking ballot boxes. And more subtle, non-violent methods will not be effective enough. Spasojević, however, thinks that the degree of dissatisfaction in society is extremely high and that it will not be a problem to animate the citizens, whether they go to the elections or boycott them.
photo: Aleksandar Barda / FonetIS THERE ANY REAL DESIRE FOR AN AGREEMENT: I. Dačić and M. Jovanov at the negotiations with the opposition
"Enthusiasm has declined because citizens expected a lot from the previous election cycle. It is also the responsibility of the opposition, which promised victories that were realistically quite far away. I think that the citizens will still be active again, that is, that the opposition has enough space to mobilize them, because the time of post-election depression is passing," says Spasojević.
He points out that the boycott could have certain results only if it turned into a broad social action. This means that, in addition to the opposition parties, organizations such as ProGlas, student groups and the non-governmental sector must also be included in it. Thus the pressure would spread and intensify.
"Regarding the international pressure, apart from the fact that it will be less because it is a local election, it should be said that the elections for the European Parliament and the elections in the USA are ahead of us. Only when European institutions are formed and depending on how the American elections will go, we can expect the issue of illegitimate elections in Serbia to be the subject of more serious attention from the West. So, only at the end of the year or at the beginning of the next," adds Spasojević.
