In his text, Mr. Jalto nominates "capable bakers" as leaders of society. Capable of what exactly? For making bread? And what about incompetent bakers? The first one who knows how to make bread, he could, therefore, be in the government, and the second one, who kneads the dough poorly, he wouldn't? Is that the meaning of the adjective "capable"? And why would a capable baker be a better minister than an incompetent one? It's not because he kneads the dough well.
Respected Davor Dzalto asks an important question: how to organize society after the fall of the autocratic, corrupt regime of Aleksandar Vučić. His answers, however, invite polemical comment.
We encounter the first problem already in the circumstances that Mr. Jalto puts "authentic democracy" on one side, while he places "autocracy or a liberal conception of organization" on the other. What, however, is "authentic democracy", as opposed to inauthentic? If he had written "the semblance of democracy", in which Serbia has been living for almost 13 years, as opposed to democracy - there would be no problem. Either democracy is at work, or it isn't. The term "authentic democracy" means nothing. But that's a minor problem. It is greater that Mr. Jalto puts autocracy and liberalism ("liberal conception of organization") on the same side of the value scale, as if they were not opposing ideas and practices. Political liberalism is an idea that rests on a negative definition of freedom - no one tells me what to do in order to be free, and I am free to do whatever I judge to be good for me, provided that I do not restrict the same freedom of others - and the republic is the only organizational form in which liberal ideas succeed (which is empirically obvious). An autocratic regime that rests on a leader, a tutor, (inevitable) corruption and positive freedom - the leader or the regime announces what to do, what gods to believe in, what clothes to wear (what cloths to cover the head, for example) and which party to belong to (only one, of course) in order to be a "free citizen" - that is, on a monistic (not plural) understanding of the world and politics, it is the complete opposite of liberalism.
The next problem is the claim of Mr. Jalta that "not only the members of certain parties, but also some of the non-party figures who pretended to be beacons of libertarian thought, moral verticals and supporters of student protests, have meanwhile become party activists, and that the situation has not yet arisen in which they will vulture some more serious 'prey'". This claim is worth nothing if it is not backed up with names. Besides, what is so terrible if those who support student protests have become members of parties? (We assume Mr. Jalto is referring to the opposition parties.) They soiled their moral purity? Are you sold? What is this about? From the continuation of the text, it is true, it becomes clear that the idealism of Mr. Jalta borders on (inadmissible) naivety, but an experienced theoretician very present in the local public should not make arbitrary claims.
Below, the author offers three models for getting out of the crisis. The first is revolutionary, i.e. the establishment of socialism, which considering the historical experience of this country is not a serious proposal, or at least not seriously explained. On the one hand, Mr. Jalto advocates the overthrow of autocratic rule, on the other hand, he wants to replace one authoritarian form with another. What Mr. Jalto sees as the change is extremely puzzling. Another proposal is the creation of a morally pure political party, with eyes beyond all evil, made up of "non-corrupt people who previously did not hold positions in existing parties". Not only does this arbitrary claim imply that all members of existing parties are corrupt, but it is completely separate from the political field. What is it that recommends a moral person for political struggle? Just because someone is morally clean does not mean they will be good in the political arena. In the political arena, effectiveness counts, not moral purity (just as a good hairstyle doesn't). If it turns out that a politician is as skillful as he is moral - great, but putting morality as a condition for engaging in politics is perfectly naive. After all, who would determine the moral-political suitability for participation in political life? Mr. Jalto? Church? Commissioners? There is no necessary connection between moral purity and political action.
Then Mr. Jalto brings the Church into play, believing that it is the Church that could play a significant role in the current situation. Let's say so. The continuation of the text, however, does not support such optimism. With the statement that the SPC is divided, Mr. Gialto observes that "Patriarch Porphyry remained incomplete". Hmm... What exactly was left unfinished? Even when he messes up something that is not the most direct support for the regime, he wholeheartedly and unequivocally takes the side of brother Vučić (well, both Vučić brothers) and thereby attacks the very foundations of Christianity. Aren't love, justice and truth, and instinctive concern for the weak and subordinate (charity), in the foundations of Christianity? They are, of course. But which empire did Porphyry side with, without hesitation and unnecessary courage? To people who don't even know what love is, but because of this, with superhuman strength, they spread hatred towards their neighbors (and further away), who treat righteousness like excrement and who are not recorded as having spoken the truth, but that's why, as great believers, they are baptized wherever they go? Isn't it true that the Patriarch believes that it is enough to be baptized to be a Christian? Perić happily sided with the powerful, the greedy, the arrogant, the greedy, the envious, the angry, the batterers, those who did not omit a single mortal sin from their repertoire of wrongdoings and who destroyed the community to the ground (and the community is, to remind the forgetful patriarch, the community in God, won't it be a dog?), Mr. Perić, and not the poor who are most brutally and mercilessly abused by the powerful. We have not heard that the Christian Perić even once rebelled against the terrifying abuse of the poor at those sad gatherings organized by the Falange. Doesn't the arrogant Big Brother insult the poor wherever he goes and whenever he goes: the man who lost his son in Lucani, the one with whom he was chasing about 300 dinars (but what does the rich man know what 300 dinars are and how many bunches of parsley can be bought for that money), all those unfortunate people who lost their loved ones under the canopy? Instead of saving them from poverty. And where was the first man of the Church then? And the Church is a very hierarchical organization. The head decides which paths the body will follow. After all, where is the resistance to Perić within the government's favorite non-governmental organization (NGO)? So how will the SPC play a significant role in overthrowing the dictatorship and establishing a just order if it works wholeheartedly to maintain the dictatorship and the unjust order?
The height of naivety, however, Mr. Jalto shows in the final sentences of his text, when he notes that there is no need for an "elite" (quotation marks his), and that the liberation movement should be led by "people from local communities, honest and capable bakers, nurses, lawyers, waiters, teachers, farmers..." (where did he find lawyers when he rejected the judges just a few lines earlier?). Therefore, we can do without the elite. Okay, that should really be explained because the elite is simply the locomotive of a society. Maybe those capable bakers and waiters could, in the absence of the elite, push the composition, but it doesn't work that way. A worse proposal was put forward only by Plato, who came up with the idea that philosophers should (far from it) be at the head of communities. Also, what does "competent baker" mean? Capable of what? For making bread? And what about the incompetent baker? The first one, who knows how to make bread, could, therefore, be in the Government, but the second one, who kneads the dough poorly, he wouldn't? Is that the meaning of the adjective "capable"? Exactly the same confusion as with morally pure persons. Or a nurse as Minister of Health? (Okay, I admit, everything is better than Zlatibor Lončar). A lot of things were confused by Mr. Jalto. Politics is, to recall Max Weber's unpleasant insight, an invitation. Our key task is to create conditions (thus a republic) in which bakers, waiters, farmers and nurses will be able to participate in political life, and not to push them where they don't belong.
Finally, in the whole analysis and all this dissemination of ideas, Mr. Jalto misses the key point: the citizens of Serbia are fighting for a free, just society in which everyone is equal before the law, so they are fighting for the key principles of the French Revolution (liberté, égalité, fraternité), for the republic that the parastatal cartel of Aleksandar Vučić overthrew. Nothing more. And nothing less. Because people, in these few thousand years on earth, have not come up with anything better than a republic. This is why a republic is so difficult to establish and equally difficult to maintain.
