Human Rights: Hostage To the State's Regression - Helsinki ...

Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
early 1990s – was not homogeneous in terms of ideology and political practice.
And yet, its representatives can be seen as advocates of the same ideological
current when one takes into account the character of the alternative power that
emerged with the Serbian Radical Party. The party and its immense social
impact in the first place testify that political options in Serbia are defined by a
specific criterion: by acceptance or nonacceptance of the model of European
civilization in the most general sense, the character of a state included, rather
than by the choice between conservativism, liberalism and radicalism as
Europe denotes those terms. Serbian authentic radicalism had built its program
of “people’s state” on patriarchal-collectivistic and egalitarian understanding
of freedom and democracy. And as such it was a negation of a modern state
and its elements. 9
Serbia – a failed transitional country facing numerous demands – is
neither capable nor wants to adjust itself to the standards and criteria of new
international circumstances. For, globalization threatens the existing structures
and social relations, while Serbia’s new political class would not risk the
prestige it seized under Milosevic’s rule. This gives rise to intolerance to any
otherness, the concept of EU’s multiculturalism in particular. And, at the same
time, this fosters radicalism in Serbia.
The parliamentary elections of January 21, 2007 did not change much
the positions of Serbia’s three biggest parties – the Democratic Party /DS/, the
Democratic Party of Serbia /DSS/ and the Serbian Radical Party /SRS/. SRS
won the majority of vote 10 (28.7%), DS gained 23%, while DSS only in coalition
with two extremely populist parties (one founded by Arkan and the other led
by Velja Ilic) managed to get 16 % of vote. Unlike after previous elections the
parties of ethnic minorities entered the parliament this time. However, it was
the Liberal Democratic Party-Civic Alliance of Serbia-Social Democratic Union-
League of Vojvodina’s Social Democrats headed by Cedomir Jovanovic that
made a real breakthrough in the Serbian political scene. This was the first
coalition that opened the door to the liberal and pro-European Serbia on its
own. With its 15 MPs the coalition will be a major moral corrective for the
Democratic Party in the first place, i.e. for the part of its membership close to
the coalition’s political stands.
9 Olga Popovic, “The Origins of Anti-Modern Political Culture in Serbia,”
Helsinki Charter No. 103-104, January-February, 2007.
10 Electoral results mirror Serbia’s realities. Mostly morally indifferent to the
issue of responsibility for wars and war crimes, Serbia’s electorate still supports the
promoters of warring policy, and ultranationalistic and populist individuals and parties.
The electorate is actually seduced by their nationalistic rhetoric, soap-opera archaism
and mythomania, and, generally, by their anti-capitalist and anti-Western demagogy.
Depending on petty political needs, their focuses oscillate from social issues to the
Greater Serbia project for pan-Serbian unification.
Human Rights: Hostage To the State's Regression
The absence of political will for fundamental change coincides with
the absence of political and social energy. The real progress Serbia can make in
the direction of the EU remains an open question when one takes into account
her frustrating experience. To overcome her post-imperial trauma Serbia needs
a more responsible and efficient political elite capable of solving her crucial
dilemma of today: to break with the past and move forward, or to resume her
patriarchal model. Regardless of their opposite stands, only the Radicals and
the Liberal Democratic Party manifest sufficiently convincing political energy
this dilemma necessitates.
Serbia’s overall problems are additionally weighted by the state’s
domination over the society and non-existent political system. The advocacy of
“one party, one civil society” concept actually aspires to block
institutionalization by preventing new factors from stepping on social and
political scenes. Apart from the thesis about the world’s conspiracy against
Serbia - i.e. the world is to blame for all evil that has befallen Serbia - the notion
of “inner enemy” is reintroduced. In the wake of the parliamentary debate on
Kosovo of February 14, 2007, a guest of the TV B92’s show “Kaziprst”
/Forefinger/ called Cedomir Jovanovic the enemy of the people because he had
not voted for the Resolution on Kosovo.
Though in late 2006 Serbia was admitted to the Partnership for Peace
and the major regional organization CEFTA, her overall relations with
neighbors and the world were negative. This was the more so evident since in
2006 the international community - via its relevant organizations and figures
directly involved – continued to endeavor to keep Serbia on the course of
Euro-Atlantic integrations. However, the official Belgrade’s response was
inadequate. On the one hand that can be ascribed to undefined democratic
processes weighted by Serbia’s patriarchal-authoritarian tradition – an
objective limitation that is hard to overcome. But, on the other, during the last
year of his term Premier Vojislav Kostunica manifested such disregard to
Euro-Atlantic integrations that finally disclosed his anti-European orientation.
And the entire cabinet’s policy was shaped by his tendency.
Therefore, the cooperation with The Hague Tribunal suffered a fiasco
as well. Not only Serbian authorities failed to arrest Ratko Mladic but, as it
turned out, did not intend to arrest him at all. Besides, Serbia was
uncooperative when it came to supplying The Hague Tribunal with relevant
documentation. One of the reasons was that in 2006 the process instituted by
Bosnia-Herzegovina’s charge for aggression and genocide entered upon the
final stage. Even the part of the documentation forwarded earlier to The Hague
Tribunal remained out of the reach of the International Court of Justice thanks
to an agreement with Main Prosecutor Carla del Ponte. 11 The fact that
11 Phon van den Biesen,”When it comes to Serbia’s responsibility for the
Srebrenica massacre the Court was in no position to conclude that Serbia had
22
23