The ProGlas initiative went public last week with a set of minimum conditions that are necessary to hold the next elections in Serbia. The conditions, that is, the requirements, are generally known to the public in advance, and they include the arrangement of the voter list, media pluralism, as well as the holding of all local elections at the same time. In addition, it is requested that, in the future, signatures of support for candidacies be certified exclusively by notaries public or judicially, as well as that the names of people who are not candidates in the elections cannot be found in the name of the electoral lists. The determination of legal and political responsibility for all the irregularities that were determined in the December elections is also requested. Otherwise, if the stated conditions are not met, it is completely pointless to participate in the elections, say dignitaries gathered around the popular initiative.
As expected, the government reacted violently to the set of minimum conditions, indicating that the opposition admitted its impotence. But even the critical and oppositional public is not unique when it comes to ProGlas's public appearance. None of the latter questions the content of the minimum conditions and their justification, but possibly points to complex political implications. The Democratic Party, Zajedno, POKS and parts of the civil sector have unequivocally supported ProGlas' action, while others have either refrained or publicly/semi-publicly indicated that it actually means a call to boycott the local elections that will be held in some local governments in the spring, given that it is difficult to expect that requests can be realized in such a short time. They also believe that it would be better if the entire critical public and the opposition worked out a common strategy, which would include what exactly to do if local elections are boycotted or if they are held, before involving the wider public. In addition, it is indicated that the boycott could also be the seed of discord within the opposition, which is barely gathered in one place, and even within the parties. Among other things, the question arises as to why, for example, the citizens of Novi Sad and Niš would not have the right to have their own (opposition) representatives, unlike Belgrade (if the elections are not repeated there) and some other cities and municipalities.
We talk about these questions and some other things with one of the founders of ProGlas, full professor at the Faculty of Law in Belgrade, Miodrag Jovanović.
"WEATHER" The list of minimum conditions for new elections published by ProGlas last week provoked a fierce reaction from the authorities: The president also reacted., and the Prime Minister, and other high-ranking progressive officials, practically with insults addressed to both ProGlas and the opposition. The government attacks your request the most, which was previously known to the public, that the name of the list cannot contain the name of someone who is not a candidate on that list. Supposedly, so is the opposition, according to the regime, admitted her impotence before Vučić. Can you explain to us why this request is important?
MIODRAG JOVANOVIC: This, as well as the other conditions, are of a principled nature and are properly explained. Namely, both domestic and international observers highlighted the disproportionate representation of the president in the media as one of the central phenomena of the December elections, even though he was not a candidate in any election. Not only did he illegally obtain a privileged status for the ruling party, but he also actively violated the rules on the prohibition of official campaigns. This request by ProGlas is only one of the measures that, in the long run, should ensure that voters opt for real candidates and relevant political programs, which would consequently affect the greater legitimacy of representative bodies. In this respect, it would be even more significant if, in the future, elections for different levels of government were necessarily held at different times, because that way citizens would get used to taking into account the specifics of each of the electoral processes during elections. For example, what are the actual constitutional powers of the President of the Republic; which policies are conducted at the local level and which at the national level; are there sufficiently recognizable candidates on the party election lists...
No, in general, the rhetoric of the authorities in the post-election period, when numerous fraudulent electoral acts were disclosed and proven, significantly worsened, it would be said that it is now completely identical to the one from the nineties. Therefore, xenophobia row, internal row, external enemy ranks, personality cult order, a line of primitive anti-Western propaganda, order of Russophilia, order to mock democracy... Vučić's welcome speech was a direct return to the nineties, and even it seems that even Milosevic would not allow what he said. To whom, in your opinion, that rhetoric intended?
First, that rhetoric has an exclusively internal function. Furthermore, it is aimed exclusively at Vučić's electorate and its consolidation and homogenization. Because that body also became aware of the fact that external factors, and above all the European Parliament, expressed themselves extremely negatively regarding the regularity of the December elections, thus calling into question their legality and legitimacy. At the same time, confused messages are sent to that electorate - first the EP resolution is belittled and dismissed as "resolutions come and go", and then it is compared to the ultimatum from 1914 and called for the supposed defense of freedom and sovereignty. On top of everything, along with the demonization of the European Parliament, Vučić continues to say that "Serbia is firmly determined to continue and accelerate its European path", which is a statement after the meeting with Mitsotakis. All that would be the subject of serious and critically intoned journalism in the country of free media. However, the Serbian media space - especially that with national coverage - is dominated by lies, spin and total propaganda. That is why the average Vučić voter does not see anything problematic in the aforementioned inconsistencies.
Some say that now the Vučić regime is faced with a choice - either they will accept the democratization of the country or we will become a Balkan Belarus. Supposedly, time has passed "deals" with everyone, in which he gives up everything just to keep infinite power.
This is where we come to the question of Vučić's rhetoric and attitude towards external factors. That relationship is characterized by a more aggressive cooperativeness, not to say servility. The other day, for example, during a meeting with the chairman of the OSCE at the Munich conference, he said that he "again calls on the Government of Serbia to seriously consider all the recommendations of the ODIHR and the OSCE for future elections." There is, however, a significant difference between this statement and the previously stated readiness in principle for Serbia to fulfill all ODIHR recommendations. While those earlier promises mostly ended up as a dead letter, Vučić is now faced with the EP Resolution, the invitation to the European Commission to launch an investigation into the December elections, as well as the expected negative final report of the ODIHR. Of course, this should be followed by continuous pressure from domestic political actors and civil society. In such a situation, I expect Vučić to relent and take the path of democratization, because, I am sure, he is aware that any form of isolation of Serbia would lead to its even faster end.
Let's go back to ProGlas' minimum election requirements. Part of the public actually saw your list of demands as a call to boycott the next local elections, given that it is difficult to expect that the requests will be fulfilled in the next few months. Is that so?? And what exactly could a boycott of the elections bring? - What would be the benefits?, and what dangers?
Allow me, first of all, to turn things around and ask a simple question: if that part of the public, which you are talking about, is also of the opinion that the elections on December 17 were held in extremely irregular conditions, as evidenced by the proceedings initiated before the Constitutional Court for annulment elections at all levels, are any of the authentic opposition parties and their voters ready to participate in new or repeated elections under such and such conditions? If the answer to that question is completely logical - no! - what does he further imply? It implies that at least some of the election conditions must be changed. And ProGlas did exactly that - based on the final report of the Line, the Preliminary Conclusions of the International Election Observation Mission and the Resolution of the European Parliament, it created what it considers a set of minimum conditions for the legality and legitimacy of new or repeated election procedures. After all, didn't all Serbian leaders against violence do the same thing in a letter to the European parliamentarians dated February 14, asking them to "insist on the fulfillment of ODIHR's recommendations, especially those that call for checking the voter list before holding any what future elections".
Would a possible boycott introduce some kind of disproportion?? That is, would practically citizens from some local self-governments lose the right to have their own (opposition) representatives in local parliaments, in contrast to those cities and municipalities where elections were held in December? Or that broad boycott action would mean that the opposition withdraws from other parliaments as well?
I will repeat once more: ProGlas calls for a change in election conditions and will actively fight for it together with political parties, the civil sector and disaffected citizens. This tendency to interpret the struggle for conditions for fair elections as an anticipated call for a boycott rests on a loser mentality according to which it is not possible to achieve anything from the regime of Aleksandar Vučić. That, first of all, is not true. Because, when clear and targeted demands were made, which were accompanied by appropriate pressure from the public, Vučić was forced to step down. Finally, it is a new moment that international actors have shown their determination to deal with the electoral engineering that culminated in the December elections. In such circumstances, it makes sense to insist on a minimum set of conditions for fair elections.
Which are, in your opinion, the most effective mechanisms to meet the minimum set of conditions?
The only effective mechanism is continuous and coordinated pressure on the regime of Aleksandar Vučić. As I said, it implies the cooperation of all domestic actors - opposition parties, the non-governmental sector, ProGlas and citizens - with the active contribution of international officials. Each of the mentioned factors will contribute to that goal in different ways - ODIHR by compiling the final report, the European Commission, I hope, by sending a credible investigative mission, domestic actors with various actions and protest events. At the same time, it should be clean. The ProGlas list is something that can be used to start the fight for freer and fairer election conditions, but within and beyond it there is room for numerous nuanced proposals and solutions that would be reached in the political process. At the end of the day, political decisions - including those about (not) going to the polls - are in the hands of political parties, which are guided by considerations specific to political organizations only.
Given the reputation of ProGlas, can your requests be fulfilled?, that is, still a call for a conditional boycott, actually introduce some kind of confusion among the voters and within the opposition? That is, are they, as some say, "hasty", that before that, a broad discussion within the critical and oppositional public should have been held, which would include a clear strategy on further joint action in an attempt to normalize and democratize the country?
photo: marija janković...
If anything has characterized the opposition political scene all these years, it is an extreme "unhurriedness", which was reflected in the fact that it is always Aleksandar Vučić who imposes the themes and rules of the game, and the opposition actors, then, from a deep defensive position, make some kind of reactive moves . Despite the unequivocal evidence of systemic electoral machinations, Vučić was ready to act this way this time as well. However, he did not count on the strong reaction of international actors, and above all the European Parliament, and this is what significantly changed the dynamics of the post-election events. ProGlas believed that we should not wait for Vučić to come up with some half-hearted solutions and rotten compromises, with which he would try to fool European officials, but that he should use the momentum and play more offensively. I would also like to mention that ProGlas has already talked about this set of conditions at several meetings with opposition parties and representatives of the civil sector, so it does not represent something that our partners were not familiar with.
Your requests have been supported by some parties (Together, DS and POKS). Has support also arrived from other addresses?, either political, either from the non-governmental sector? And whether, in your opinion, the attitude towards the eventual boycott of the spring elections can undermine the barely achieved unity of the civil opposition, and even lead to conflicts within the parties? Let's say, that the Novi Sad and Niš committees do not agree with the eventual position of the party to boycott the local elections?
We developed the conditions in close cooperation with Crta and based on their final report. Crta itself threw out three groups of conditions without which "there is no discussion about elections" and they concern the voter list, improving the work of public media services and establishing indiscriminate responsibility for illegal actions related to election procedures. Some parties, like DS, Zajedno and POKS, as you said, openly supported ProGlas' conditions. However, I also expect those who have not done so publicly to actively engage in the fight for fairer and freer conditions for the next/repeated elections. Everything that has been done so far - submitted individual constitutional appeals, initiated proceedings before the Constitutional Court for the annulment of elections, as well as the successful mobilization of the European Parliament - rests on the premise that new election procedures cannot and must not be based on the old conditions of falsification of support for electoral lists, manipulation of voters lists, electoral migrations... Therefore, insisting on the story of some kind of boycott smells dangerously of the readiness to give up on that premise and to act contrary to the well-known saying that only a fool he trips over the same stone twice.
At the end, what are the next steps of ProGlas? How will he profile himself in the coming period?
Our work on the film about election manipulations on December 17 took a little longer, but it will be finalized and ready to be shown to the wider public in the near future. In addition, when your readers hold this number in their hands, we will already have one, potentially massive, action to put pressure on RTS, to finally start performing its legal role of true, timely, complete, impartial and professional information to citizens, to which each of us citizens is authorized by Article 51 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. Finally, ProGlas will return to the practice of public forums in places where local elections await us, and when the need arises, they will not shy away from organizing large protest rallies, similar to the one on December 30.
