"The problem of our society is that it is not divided enough, therefore, it is not politically profiled enough from the inside. The only division I see here is the division between the ruling team, which usurped public space and introduced corruption as the only institution, and citizens, on the other hand, who do not have access to public space, and that is why they go out into the streets," says philosopher Zoran Dimić.
We often hear that Serbia is a deeply divided country, that Serbian society is split down the middle, polarized to such an extent that these poles cannot meet in any way. This was also stated by Tonino Picula, a member of the European Parliament, after an unpleasant stay in Belgrade. On what basis did Picula conclude that Serbia is a "deeply divided society"? He met with the President of the Assembly on the one hand and the opposition leaders on the other, he listened to their conflicting stories - that's why he didn't even have to come - and in addition, Picula, by the nature of her job, closely follows events in Serbia. Anyway, where did he get that statement from? After all, on the basis of which analysis, insight, research, logical interventions, such a conclusion is reached?
In the 20th century alone, we had the Spanish Civil War, the partition of India, the Yugoslav wars, Rwanda... Of the four conflicts mentioned, only the Spanish split was along the lines of ideological division - fascists on one side, republicans on the other - while the other countries were divided along ethnic, tribal and religious lines. It is, therefore, about the divisions that destroyed those societies. None of the above can be observed in Serbia without reservation. The division that an alienated group in power tries to produce does not correspond to any of the mentioned models, and, to that extent, only the distancing of the government from its own citizens can be observed. So is it a question of division at all?
Every society is, after all, divided, and there is nothing unnatural or shameful in that circumstance. A harmonious society in which there is no conflict, a society with one body and one head, is only a wet dream of a dictator, which, from time to time, turns into a real nightmare like, for example, the Soviet Union. After all, did we have a more harmonious society in the twentieth century? We didn't. It was, metaphorically speaking, the harmony of a concentration camp, convincingly supported by a non-metaphorical gulag: whoever disturbed the harmony was free to go to Siberia (the state paid for the trip) and reconsider their "problematic" attitudes there.
After all, society is defined as a space where values and interests clash, and it is the key task of those who have the mandate to manage society to build channels through which social passions circulate. Or, as Machiavelli noted, society is made up of various moods i mood (perhaps passions), and today it would be said that free societies are recognized precisely by different, mutually opposed ideological projects: groups argue about the best way to organize society. Actually, it is precisely with Machiavelli that the modern articulation of politics begins, which ancient peoples believed must be under the supervision of rationality, and it is passions that must be banished from the public space. They believed that passions are dangerous because they cannot be controlled. Hence the hostility towards the sophists who conquered the public space not only with rational speech but also with rhetoric, passions, boldness, and even lies. Machiavelli, however, clearly sees that passions, as well as lies, cannot be banished from politics, just as, after all, they cannot be banished from private life either. People lie, as Dr. House said. Hence Machiavelli's praise of discord as a necessary driver of political life: not a harmonious, but a dynamic society. Not a dream of homogeneity, but an effective conflict. To that extent, the basic task of managers, or those who make decisions, is how to bring mutually opposing projects into such a relationship that they do not destroy the community from the inside. Hence the channels like parliament, institutions, opposition, finally (and actually in the first place) a free public space where you can gather and express your own opinion, without suffering the consequences. Republic, then. To that extent, the word "division" is not self-explanatory.
WHAT DOES DIVISION MEAN?
According to the ethnologist-anthropologist Slobodan Naumović, a scientist who dealt with the concept of disunity in Serbian public speech, division is a word that in this context always carries a negative charge, it is an expression of "bad differences". To our question about whether Serbian society is divided, Naumović notes that "the problem is itself a question, because it, first of all, assumes a perspective - it depends on how people perceive the divisions - and then the answer is also problematic because every attitude produces consequences. If someone believes that society is divided, he is already "working" on the division with his attitude. And vice versa". Philosopher Zoran Dimić shares almost the same perspective, who notes that divisions and differences in society are spoken of as something fundamentally negative. Sociologist Ivana Spasić, on the same track, draws attention to the fact that the problem of division is primarily "a matter of language": "What degree of difference shall we call division, schism, conflict?", she asks. "Then, what kind of division are we talking about? About ethnic division? Religious division? Ideological division? Economic or class division? It's always about some kind of relationship. All these divisions, in fact, already exist in societies because there is no homogeneous society. To that extent, when we talk about divisions, it is necessary to determine the angle of observation or at least make a disciplinary distinction in the analysis of divisions. The literary perspective, for example - I'm talking about Serbian literature - knows how to insist on the "tragic division" of the Serbian people. "Political science will focus on ideological or economic differences, while, it seems to me, the sociological perspective implies and presupposes divisions within society as the material from which the analysis just begins", explains Ivana Spasić and adds that because of this division is not an illuminating concept, it does not explain anything.
Moreover, division is a word that hides a constitutive duality. We share, for example, a cake in such a way that everyone takes a piece. But it can also be said that we share the same room, which means that we participate in the same space. This is why it is said that the social space is, by definition, divided, and any unifying project modeled after Slobodan Milošević, for example, as Zoran Dimić notes, is already questionable because uniting a social body, from the perspective of a dictatorship, means depriving it of its political substance, depoliticizing it. "Aleksandar Vučić, removing the possibility of conflict from the public space, suppressing divisions, incriminated and almost anathematized politics and the practice of politics. Because politics implies differences. He branded everyone who wants to be a citizen, that is, to participate in the public space, as something bad, muddy, shameful, leaving the public space only for himself. But a space in which there is only one person is no longer a public space. A space in which there is no division, difference and dispute is not a political space. I am sorry that even the rebellious students fell for that bait, which I consider one of the key problems of the student actions. In other words, by suppressing divisions, this regime introduced us to a pre-political state", says Zoran Dimić.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CONFLICT OF VALUES
Can we talk about a division along national lines, we ask Ivana Spasić, therefore, about a division between citizens who show understanding for the national substance and those who understand the civic substance as equality before the law, and not as belonging to an ethnic or religious group? Even here, answers Ivana Spasić, we are not starting from scratch, but from the layers of national self-understanding, which brings us back to the problem of perspective, that is, language. "In the same way, we can talk about the division between the first and second Serbia, about the division into those who would rather go to the West than to the East and vice versa, or about the division into modernizers and conservatives, into 'Europhiles' and 'Eurosceptics'... As we can see, the story of civilization is divided within itself, but I don't see a problem in that," says this sociologist, and explains how the problem arises when the division is ignored or used for purposes that have nothing to do with the content of the division. "Then the division becomes a very good fuel for manipulations", concludes our interlocutor.
Slobodan Naumović notes that differences are immanent in society, they are not a fault, an aberration: "This is precisely why a conversation about differences is necessary, and for a conversation to happen at all, a free public space is needed. Conversation is, in fact, what keeps divisions within the political community. In conflict theory, differences, or divisions, around interests and values are emphasized. Differences in interests are easier to overcome than conflicts over values because, in principle, it is easier to make concessions when it comes to interests. The bigger problem is the differences in values. Standing up for values is often uncompromising. But precisely because there is no arbiter in the conflict of values - unless, in some cases, it is the state - a public space open to discussing it is necessary".
The absence of a free public space in which divisions can be discussed leads to the fact that, for example, people are not guided by political beliefs but by fears, says Zoran Dimić. "That's why I think that the divisions that can be seen in our society are not of a political nature. There is no discussion of values. There is, in fact, no debate about anything. There is no articulation of different ideas. I think I could offer a somewhat paradoxical formulation here - the problem of our society is that it is not divided enough, therefore, it is not politically profiled enough from the inside. The only division I see here is the division between the ruling team, which usurped public space and introduced corruption as the only institution, and citizens, on the other hand, who do not have access to public space, and that's why they take to the streets," concludes Dimić.
To that extent, Ivana Spasić observes, talk about divisions is at the level of symbols, at the level of free-floating signifiers behind which there is no substance. "Someone," she says, "taught us that we are divided, which is echoed in the famous slogan 'only harmony saves the Serbs'." The only thing is that there is no particular discord. After all, lamenting over disunity is not a Serbian specialty. When you listen to, for example, the Kosovo Albanians, you will hear their laments that they are completely fragmented and not unified, unlike, well, the Serbs. So you see".
Less than two days of blockade - that's how long it took to see how weak and powerless the public media service is, both from the outside and from the inside. At the moment of writing this text, it is the eighth day of the blockade, and the sixth that RTS is not broadcasting its program. They also seem to be facing a strike inside the house. And the essence of blocking RTS is not in what it publishes, but in what it keeps silent
In the months after the fall of the canopy in Novi Sad, the flames of rebellion spread throughout Serbia. The first protests started in Novi Sad right after the tragedy. The authorities responded with arrests, police cordons and intimidation, but instead of calming down the protesters, new protests followed.
The rector of the University of Belgrade, Vladan Đokić, has been the target of top state officials and regime tabloids for months, who label him as an insidious instigator of student protests, an opportunist, "the face of evil" and "the leader of the criminal octopus." How and why a rector became "state enemy number one"
"I'm standing in the cordon, and my daughter is shouting at me 'aw, aw, killers'. What should I do? If they ordered me - I would throw down my baton and bulletproof vest and stand on the side of my child," a police officer from the south of Serbia, who works as needed in the Belgrade Police Brigade, told "Vreme"
The recent formation of the Đura Macuta government is part of the regime's revenge and cynicism. This can be seen most in the "black troika" of new ministers appointed to deal with the parts of society that are the leaders and symbols of the big rebellion that lasted for several months, the cause of which was the fall of the canopy in Novi Sad, which claimed 16 human lives. Education, universities, unsolicited media and parts of the judiciary that refuse to listen to orders, either publicly, with announcements, or hiding behind legal procedures, should be dismantled. Those who will have no problem doing everything they are told, even reinforcing the orders with their own inventions, are chosen for this.
RTS is blocked, universities do not work, and threats, insults and calls to the prosecutor's office and the police to arrest blockers, rioters and terrorists are pouring out from the top of the government. The Serbian state has turned into a farce
Anyone who condemns the regime's targeting of people from the media, the non-governmental sector, the opposition and universities, must not agree to this targeting of RTS editors and journalists either.
The government of Đur Mazut is "counter-revolutionary", focused on retaliation and state and street violence against opponents of the regime
The archive of the weekly Vreme includes all our digital editions, since the very beginning of our work. All issues can be downloaded in PDF format, by purchasing the digital edition, or you can read all available texts from the selected issue.
See all
