"Will the EU insist on the implementation of the main policies and principles of values, such as the principle that free and fair elections are a value of the European Union?", that was the question put forward by the Slovenian Kleman Grošelj during the debate in the European Parliament on the elections in Serbia. Then he continued: "Or will we be politically pragmatic and sacrifice the democratic hopes of the Serbian people for the sake of quasi-geopolitical stability?" For me the answer is simple, but I know that for many in the EU it is complicated. If we really care about the future of Serbia, the Western Balkans and the EU, we must support that Serbia has free and fair democratic elections".
From the elections until today, this way of weighing the international community - between democracy and stability - represents a key determinant of the relationship not only towards the elections, but also towards the Serbian Progressive Party.
His statement is based on several main premises that determine the dynamics of modern international relations. The first is that, at least on paper, the European Union is based on basic values. The second is pragmatism, which was adopted for geopolitical stability. Further, and perhaps crucial for thinking about the path towards conflicts and wars on which the world is moving, Grošelj uses the term "quasi" to evaluate the current form and processes in the creation of such and such stability at the world level. Fourth, the complexity of the answer - which is clear to him, but he notes that it is not for many - shows the questionability of democratic values and principles in democratic circles. And finally, it is important that he does not address supporters of the right and autocracy, but only those in his own ranks.
REASONS FOR BLINDING
The first premise concerns European values, which are clearly defined in the founding documents of the European Union. They should represent a set of principles on which this community rests. Values include democracy, human rights, rule of law, equality, freedom of expression, respect for human dignity and solidarity. Even within the European Union itself, there are challenges in applying those values. For example, issues such as the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary have caused tensions between the EU and some member states, such as Poland and Hungary. Also, issues related to the treatment of migrants and refugees, social equality and media freedom are some of the areas where the quality of respect for European values differs within the European Union itself. Just as the full application of basic values and ways of dealing with their collapse in some countries is questionable, so is the insistence on them outside the borders of the EU, including in the Western Balkans.
Another question that arises is pragmatism regarding the importance of the basic principles of democracy, which can be observed in a wider context than the European Union, ie. advocacy of these values by democratic countries, including the US. Pragmatism comes into focus when decisions are made on other important issues such as, for example, trade deals, energy or migration. Tony Barber, a journalist from the "Financial Times", published an article in mid-January entitled "Why is the EU soft on Serbia?". Barber cites three reasons: migration, lithium and Kosovo. First, the EU wants Serbia's cooperation in controlling migration, especially after the refugee crisis of eight years ago. The EU has on several occasions praised Serbia for preventing illegal migration, and the fear of new migrations is not abating. Second, Serbia has reserves of lithium, which is crucial for the production of batteries for electric vehicles. Possession of lithium independently of China, which is currently the largest supplier of this metal, has been set as the EU's main goal to end its geopolitical dependence on China. Third, the European Union is taking a soft approach towards Serbia over Kosovo, seeking a compromise that would stop future conflicts, including recognition of Kosovo by Serbia in exchange for autonomy for the Serbian minority in Kosovo. According to Barber, this is seen as crucial for stability in the region, especially at a time of tensions in Ukraine and the risk of Chinese actions against Taiwan. The only objection to Barber's text could be that the same reasons for a soft approach can be attributed to America - with less concern about migration, but more concern about Russian influence on Serbia and a balancing approach to prevent it.
LOCAL IS GLOBAL
The next element of Groschel's speech is the use of the term "quasi" when he talks about geopolitical stability. This expression highlights the skepticism towards the current approach of the EU (and not only the EU), which balances between the promotion of democracy and the maintenance of geopolitical stability. An approach that compromises fundamental democratic values cannot lead to sustainable stability. If democracy is neglected or weakened in the name of geopolitical stability, it can lead to long-term problems - weak institutions, massive human rights violations and erosion of the rule of law. And in such an authoritarian environment, we cannot talk about any stability. In the context of Serbia and the Western Balkans, the international community, in an effort to maintain stability and prevent potential conflicts, turns a blind eye to brutally undemocratic practices. Bearing in mind that the world has long since become a system of merged courts, without democracy in Serbia, stability in the region, in Europe, and at the world level is collapsing.
The fourth premise presented by Grošelj refers to the "complexity" that many in the EU experience when it comes to the situation in Serbia, in contrast to his clear position on the importance of advocating for democracy. In the EU, different states and political factions have different views on what should be a priority – often democratic principles are compromised for short-term or pragmatic goals. This diversity in priorities and approaches creates a constant tension between maintaining democratic values and adapting to international politics, which (unfortunately) often relies on pragmatism. In addition, the question arises of ambivalence towards democratic principles within the democratic circles of the EU and the easy understanding of democracy and the basic values of the European Union.
In the end, it is quite clear from Grošelj's speech that he is addressing only the democratic currents within the European Union, although those who supported the ruling regime in Serbia, such as right-wingers from France and Austria, also took part in the debate. Democracy is not being brought down by authoritarian leaders, the right or organized crime - although this is the most widely held opinion because of their understandable desire for the absence of the rule of law, human rights and separation of powers. Democracy depends primarily on those who stand for it. If we choose pragmatic action and compromise action instead of democracy, we are the ones who stifle it. When I say we, I mean all those who claim to stand for democratic principles and basic European values: politicians, civil society, the academic public and all citizens for whom freedom is more important than idolatry.
In the last month, there has been a lot of reaction to the elections in Serbia, which is good news for us. After the elections in Serbia in December, both the EU and the US called on Serbia to address the electoral process. Independent monitors have uncovered troubling irregularities, including vote buying. More than 20 high-ranking European politicians from the field of foreign affairs called on the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to investigate allegations of fraud in the December elections in Serbia. The US State Department said it was reviewing the findings of the OSCE observer mission and called on Serbia to cooperate with the OSCE to resolve the "unfair circumstances" surrounding the election process. In the past decade, the international community's silence on our internal processes, both electoral and anti-democratic, only contributed to the parties in power. Now it is obvious that there is no more silence, but the debate surrounding the elections in Serbia is not only about us, but also about democratic postulates on a global level. We should all fight for democracy at home, so maybe at some point, Serbia will become the tip of the scales in world processes.
