Resolute in the common determination to point out the necessity of profound and complete changes of the present constitutional system of the Republic of Serbia on long-lasting bases and in accordance to the historic position in which both Serbia and AP Vojvodina have found themselves after the disintegration of the “second Yugoslavia” and the disappearance of the federal states of SRY and Serbia and Montenegro, i.e. intending to point out the necessity of new self-constitution of historic constitutive entities of Serbia and Vojvodina into a joint, complex and internationally recognized state – Republic of Serbia, where the two will be integral and constitutionally equal parts;

Wishing to underline the most efficient ways and methods of bringing into being their strategically important aims, attitudes and political tasks that are the result of such goals,

The Participants of the Third Convention of Vojvodina
have agreed on the following

R E S O L U T I O N
I

At the constitutional referendum of 2006., Vojvodina firmly said NO to the current Constitution Act of the Republic of Serbia – due to the way of its passing and also its contents, and especially because of the position of Vojvodina in the Republic of Serbia. That Constitution does not give any guarantees to the autonomy of Vojvodina, but leaves her to the laws brought by the Assembly of Serbia by simple majority and in accordance to the instantaneous relation of forces within. By refusing such Constitution Act, Vojvodina has by plebiscite confirmed the attitudes of the First and the Second conventions of Vojvodina and the political aims of autonomist political forces active during the last two decades. In addition, Vojvodina has confirmed its attitudes by significant support to the pro-European political option, both on January presidential elections and on the May elections for the republic and province assemblies and local governments.

By such majority votes, the citizens of Vojvodina  have given substantional contribution to the victory of those forces in the Republic of Serbia, which have promised to accelerate the integration of our country into European community and emancipate it from Milosevic’s political inheritance; so – it voted for those political forces from which Vojvodina expects fundamental democratic reforms and new Constitution, which would include substantional essential change of the constitutional position of their Province.

Such expression of will by the citizens and nations of Vojvodina, and particularly their NO to the imposed constitution, have a much wider political and historic importance than it is a plain refusal of one octroyed constitution act.

The Third Convention of Vojvodina interprets this wider political and historic importance as follows:

VOJVODINA DOES NOT WANT

– monopoly of political parties in creating constitutive acts and bringing fatefully important decisions, as it is the right of all citizens and not only the political parties and its leaders;
– centralized and highly unitary organized state, nor uniform institutional solutions for different and specific communities and subjects;
– party rule over the whole of social structure, as well as the domination of partner party aristocracies in social events and public scene;
– forming the Government of the republic with one-party ministries and also one– party ruling in the wealthiest public companies with one goal: to share the plunder, on all the levels of government, which is a systematic precondition and source of  everywhere present corruption;
– domination of  executive over legislative and judicial power;
– unorganized and corrupt state and organized crime;
– reincarnation of clericalism and royalism;
– restoration of leader almighty authority, post-election triumphal self-importance and the autocratic reduction of clear support of the citizens of Vojvodina to the ideas o pro-European and pro-Vojvodina options to the support of singular political parties and its leaders;
– constitutional limitations to working, syndicate and social rights and the indifferent attitude of the power towards these rights;
– unscrupulous manipulation of the public by financial blackmail, personnel machinations and hiding or false presentation of data of public interest;
– continuation of two decade long misuse, drastic robbing and selling cheaply the resources , capital and property of Vojvodina;
– rapid fallback of Vojvodina in its development, and this annuls every perspective primarily to the youth within it, and also in its development in general due to the centralized system and bad governing of economy and state;
– beggar’s role of the provincial administration towards the executive power of the Republic and aggressive and humiliating glorification of the given “bits and pieces”;

VOJVODINA WANTS

– significantly different legal and constitutional system of the Republic of Serbia and the passing of the new constitution act, which would terminate the political system based on the Memorandum of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and which would make the Republic of Serbia a complex state, with a constitution in accordance to the modern political theories and contemporary European practice. This includes a new historic agreement of equal historic and constitutive entities of Serbia and Vojvodina on their self constitution and association in a mutual, complex and sovereign European state;
– Republic of Serbia as a democratic, civilian, secular and decentralized country, as a common Republic with its constitution complying with natural and historic complexity of its being: this means its regionalization and strong local governing and the respect of the principle of subsidiary organization of power;
– constitutional recognition of basic political subjectivity and regional identity of Vojvodina and irrevocable and constant historic right of equal nation and citizens who live in it to decide on their fate independently;
– the right of Vojvodina to, in accordance with the new principles of legal constitutional system of the Republic of Serbia,  independently bring its own constitutional act, which would ensure the equality of nations and citizens in acquiring full autonomy of  their province; to organize and perform full legislative, executive and legal power; to manage its own development and controls its own natural and by its own work produced resources, as well as its original income and property;
– the right of Vojvodina to, based on its full equality with Serbia as constitutive entity and founded on its full historic, political and economic specifics and arguments, consolidate a long– lasting bases of constitution and future organization of a common complex state and take over its own part of responsibility for its functioning and development, for the strengthening of its territorial integrity, its lasting internal stability and international security, respect and subjectivity;
– the right and obligation of Vojvodina to secure full equality of minor nations in all its legal acts and thus guarantee all forms of minority autonomy in its optimal results within the frames of defined autonomy of Vojvodina in its constitutional act;
– forming a common strategy of lasting economic, political, regional and general social development of  the mutual state of Serbia;
– returning of  the property taken from the AP Vojvodina and local communities by the 1996. Law;
– return of the acquired and recognition of modern work and trade unions’ rights and developed social function of the state;
– the right of Vojvodina to give its full effort in repatriation and to be responsible for the policy of integration of those refugees who were in great numbers inhabited in these parts;
– quickened process of full integration of the Republic of Serbia into the European Union and other European integrations and the international community as a whole;
– peace, stability and agreed solving of all problems facing the state of Serbia today.

II

The Third Convention of  Vojvodina estimates that the positions from this Resolution can be accomplished by:

1. The support of the voters of  the parties oriented towards Vojvodina’s autonomy, as well as of those parties that recognize its right to full constitutional autonomy on the next provincial elections so as to gain a significant majority in the Assembly of the Province. Such Assembly could demand and engage itself decisively towards the recognition of Vojvodina’s political subjectivity, as a crucial starting point for autonomous proclamation of the constitutive act of Vojvodina and a new Constitution of the Republic of Serbia.
2. The Third Convention of Vojvodina expects that among the first those political parties which participated in it would be the ones, together with other parties of European democratic orientation in Vojvodina and Serbia and with the support of non-government organizations of the same orientation, will provide full cooperation in the action of gaining the majority on local, provincial and republic elections in Vojvodina and in the whole country so as to be able to perform thorough profound constitutional and social reforms, i.e. the goals defined in the Resolution of the Third Convention.
3. The Third Convention of Vojvodina, in accordance with such attitudes, firmly supports the strengthening initiatives in Serbia and Vojvodina of the political forces, more growing as we go along, who have publicly declared that they are against the way that the Constitution was declared and who are against its contents, to form a common movement for constitution – initiate an action to animate the public, to lobby and extort a pressure which would schedule the elections for the Constitution– making Assembly and bring new Constitution Act.
4. The participants of the Third Vojvodina Convention, who represent the majority of the voting body which has given a significant support to the victory of Boris Tadic and the parties of European orientation on the last presidential, parliamentary, provincial and local elections, expect the President of the Republic of Serbia to fulfill his pre-election promises with full responsibility and consider the supports, messages and demands of the Second and Third Vojvodina Conventions; this means – to initiate as soon as possible the change of the Constitution and the accomplishment of new historical agreement based on which the Republic of Serbia would be formed constitutionally in accordance with its complex being and the modern European standards.
5. The Third Vojvodina Convention estimates that it would be useful if a Resolution of the Assembly of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina would be brought which would ensure a much higher responsibility of its members towards their voters and not only towards their political parties.
6. The Third Vojvodina Convention expects full support of European governments, institutions and democratic international organizations to its demands and orientations, because they support the implementation of the attitudes of the London conference, European Council, as well as those of Badinter’s and Venetian Commissions. Active support and aid of the international community would be considered as a contribution to the lasting stabilization of the region and therefore welcome by the Third Vojvodina Convention.
7. The participants of the Third Vojvodina Convention express their firm decisiveness to persist in their aims until they are democratically accepted and brought into being completely. Therefore they authorize and oblige the Initiative Board to organize the most efficient forms of coordination and cooperation in order to promote politically and internationally the attitudes and aims of the final document of the Convention and also to initiate cooperation with all political forces and institutions in the country and within the close surrounding, as well as those in the international community, who can accelerate its implementation.

Novi Sad, 20th December 2008.

(Link)

(www.magazinvojvodina.com)

(www.magazinvojvodina.com)

Panel discussion
VOJVODINA OR A STORY ABOUT ELECTIONS

Panelists:
Teofil Pančić, journalist
Mirko Đorđević, publicist
Milenko Perović, philosopher
Alpar Lošonc, sociologist

Moderator Dinko Gruhonjić, IJAV’s president

Theater Dobrica Milutinović, Sremska Mitrovica
Thursday, May 22nd, 2008, at 07.00 p.m. (19.00h)

Dinko Gruhonjić: Good evening. Today’s panel discussion deals with currently more than actual topic – the election results and the post-election combinations. In the first place we are dealing with Vojvodina that, which is now obvious, voted clearly and had its say. As regards Republic nothing is clear there at all or it is, possibly, all clear but they hide it from us. Expecting now the second round of the provincial ballots I invite Prof. Milenko Perović to tell us his impressions – where we are coming from and where we are going to. Please, Mr. Perović!

Milenko Perović: It is not easy to answer this question especially in the situation in which we live, with this edgy uncertainty about big deals now made in order to form new government and the provincial government and the local governments in the great number of towns throughout Serbia.
Some two months ago, I think, we organized a similar panel in Kula, before elections, and there I predicted, I sort of anticipated, and I was really unhappy that this anticipation in a great measure proved true, when I answered a question how I would evaluate the outcome of approaching elections and said that I didn’t expect any epochal and fundamental change in the political constellation of Serbia, therefore neither in the constitution of government, It is simply because during one year that had passed from the previous parliamentary elections not one of those crucial factors that constitute the political scene and model the protagonists and the possible combinations of the future participants in power – none of these has changed! During one year there was no change either in those deep tycoon layers that from background run economy and in a good measure also the political constellation of society, in certain services that also run from background certain processes all these haven’t changed, and not only that there were no changes during one year but they actually haven’t changed for some fifty years. And then, neither the political representatives of certain political ideas on the political scene of Serbia changed. That’s why, in my opinion, we have got results we could have absolutely expected.
Of course, that very election evening and those several days after elections created a sort of impression, an illusion that democratic or pro-European forces have won the elections. However, I guess it is already clear to everyone, that elementary mathematical operation shows that essentially it is not so. It is evident that the Democratic Party (DS) has achieved a great success and has made a big move forward, actually that it has won the elections with its coalitions but not enough to, in the state of Serbia, finally strategically rule, not only in the sense that they can form a new government or to become a hub of new government but neither it is so in the technical sense, tactically, it cannot form a new government. And thus we are now in the most incredible historical situation that on one party, or one interest group, once the ruling power in the state of Serbia that had completely ruined it, now depends the course the state of Serbia would take.
Why so? In the historical sense such a situation is not unusual, because from this perspective, during these eight years, it has been evident in this or that way that the so-called great 2000 October 5th coup, actually, in its essence, wasn’t coup, because actually after October 5th a kind of symbiosis took place between the former ruling groups and new groups. I have recently read somewhere, I think it was in Danas daily, one dialogue between the late Đinđić and Žižek, it was in 1999, in time when Milošević was relatively in the height of power, and it was for, I think, Suddeutsche Zeitung, which Đinđić ended with an unbelievable anticipation that subsequently was, in my opinion, fully confirmed during these eight years – that the fall, the nominal fall of Milošević or the collapse of regime of the personal rule of Milošević might bring no any fundamental change to Serbia, meaning that a part of protagonists in Milošević’s regime may disappear from the historical stage but that the essential functioning of Milošević’s political organization may continue in a sort of an unbelievable symbiosis between the protagonists of Milošević’s regime and those others who then, in 1999, were its opposition.
This is what actually has been happening all these years and is happening today. Thus October 5th didn’t lead to any necessary changes in the state of Serbia to be qualified as a really historical overturn. As from historical stage in the state of Serbia, those political groups and those deep-rooted organizations that were behind these groups that had led Serbia in 2000 to a disastrous historical position, probably the most stressful historical situation ever in Serbia’s history are not being purged. And when such a radical overturn isn’t complete then it is not historically unexpected that the so-called old forces against which this coup had been effected survive in this or that way, wait for their time and re-establish themselves in this or that way as the crucial factors on the political scene. Actually this is what happened and we today, after these elections, have just such a situation in which attempts are being made to design political development of the country by creating an unbelievable gemischt made of old Milošević’s political forces and the new democratic forces, which are less and less democratic and in many elements are more and more non-democratic. This means more and more inclined to dirty, utilitarian political calculations in which the leading political ideas in the state of Serbia are lost. Thus, Serbia hovers eight years. And after these elections, it still hovers and is still in a state of hanging over.
Of course I am not a prophet to be able to predict either who or how or in what way will exercise pressure on the group around the Socialists (Party of Serbia -SPS), around Dačić, who will be the first to grab a bride and with her help form the government. As it seems, this will be the so-called patriotic group, and then it will be clear in which direction Serbia goes. Even if, in my opinion, the Democratic Party somehow manages to persuade this group around the Socialists to form a government together this will be a problematic government to the utmost, it will be again a kind of feudal government, the government in which ministries are being assigned like feuds, the government which I think will not be able to lead a serious and consistent policy so that, simply, my anticipations are not very optimistic regardless of the final outcome of this negotiations about constitution of the government.
Regarding the provincial elections – I wouldn’t like to speak too long and take too much time – in my opinion they are not of any epochal importance either for Serbia or even Vojvodina. Why? Simply because the provincial governmental nomenclature has no any key leverage neither according to the Constitution of the state of Serbia nor according to the legacy of that famous omnibus-law – nor they have political or financial or economic or cultural or any leverage to be able in any way to have more serious influence on the organization of life in Vojvodina in whole or in any region of Vojvodina. In a way, the third possibility of forming a democratic government or a government of democratic forces in Vojvodina, is important in a psychological sense, but in fact it has no epochal importance, I repeat once more, simply because the provincial nomenclature has no serious political authority so that it is not crucial at all who will rule the Province from a simple reason – which I have already written in one of my articles – i.e. the dramatically opened question whether Vojvodina exists at all except as geographical concept. Does Vojvodina really exist as political society within the framework of the Serbian political society? Because Vojvodina is possible only as an organized political community with certain attributes of authority and Vojvodina in its essential sense has no such attributes of authority. We have a tendency, naturally, to live in illusions and thus also in an illusion that the autonomy of Vojvodina exists. In my opinion it doesn’t essentially exist. Therefore, who is to occupy what in an essential sense doesn’t exist is not of some special material importance. It can be of some psychological importance but certainly not of material one.
In other words, to sum up, we face time of great uncertainty and no matter how these concrete trade-mathematic calculations and scheming for a new government ends, this country will be staggering and staggering. Simply, we should prepare ourselves to who knows how many years of staggering. That’s all, for the time being.

Mirko Đorđević: Perhaps I shouldn’t speak at all, not for a long anyway because I speak too much. When I am tired with myself what is then with others, God forbid. However, if you give me the floor and until you cut me off, I’ll say few words.
Sure, I agree with reasoning of the colleague, but as it was it was – the results of these elections are and aren’t surprising. Not to spend much time on that, as perhaps at this very moment, or perhaps tomorrow, a tripartite pact is being made. Yes, yes, don’t be afraid, a tripartite pact, it’s in our blood! A tripartite pact against democracy, yes, yes, yes, everything repeats to us here … between Koštunica, Šešelj and Milošević, in fact just if you see who are today their representatives you see how things go. In any case, the shadow of such a pact hangs over Serbia and for a long time already, a long time surely, so that elections resolve something, also something they don’t resolve, but here however happened, within these elections, a surprise, a pleasant one – that the Radicals are “eroded”, to loose 10 percent is not so trivial. They have always been on that rising line of theirs, and now there is a chance to really speak openly and clearly.
One of the leaders of tripartite pact, the idol, whatever, Doctor Koštunica – I wouldn’t here speak about his papers and his ideas – the papers are sparse, the ideas, thank God, there are none so we’ll skip him. However, another member of this pact, Doctor Šešelj, has written, hold me to word, in total 100 books, 100 books this man has produced. In the history of Serbian literature, of journalism, we have had not such a prolific writer. I am not going to claim here that I have read all these 100 books but really I have read a good part of these books, what to do, such is my trade, somebody has to do a dirty part. Not all can be doing fine jobs.
All sorts of things you can find in these books! I will not be bothering you, there is not a single scientific idea, they are absolutely worthless. He constructs some Greater Serbia, he mulls over Vuk Karadžić, Starčević, he draws some boundaries, all these is absolutely worthless for any at all serious study and no wonder that until today there hasn’t been any discussion nor a book about him that a publicist or whoever would produce. His latest idea, already popular, you have heard these last days on the radio and television, and one book he has dedicated to it – that that guy, Zvezdan Jovanović, who assassinated constitutional Serbian prime minister, is no more nor less but a Gavrilo Princip. Now, I am not going to lecture history here, but if that guy who assassinated the prime minister in such a mean and cowardly way is a Gavrilo Princip, then ouch and woe! We haven’t yet solved the question of that Gavrilo Princip from 1914, though historians are aware that it hadn’t brought us no luck but bogged us in a great misery with consequences we still feel today. And here is, you see, the problem. And at the end you see that everything is in the hands of this trio.
I am not a forecaster and I don’t like to be one because whenever I foretell something I happened to be right and I was a bad prophet, an evil prophet – everything has been fulfilled. It is possible that they come to power in some of these combinations, but in that case – to continue with the idea of colleague Perović – what remains for us? Not to wait for a favorite wind in history but what is imminent is a sort of awakening the civic and human consciousness, a sort of resistance, non-violent of course, against that government that not only will take us away from Europe (actually we are an European country, so what’s problem with it?) but to hold us back, lock us in one place, you know. That’s what I fear. Therefore, it is really important now to follow carefully what’s going on because look, if the Radicals have recorded, in spite of fall which is not small, also a certain rise, the aforementioned Dr. Koštunica has several percent, but he will be their prime minister … see where these games lead to.
I’m not going to bother you with these games, everything is possible in these games. These are the political-mafia games without frontiers and there is no end to them, but one shouldn’t forget that even this Serbia, which said them “no” gathering around Tadić (such as he is, but he is our state leader and our constitutional head of state), and this Serbia has secured not so small success and this bloc shouldn’t give up. About this, about the results either tonight or tomorrow, here will speak those who are, journalistically, more informed. Currently we have no government. They have created such situation on purpose. We have technical government in which Koštunica is the supreme technician. To make it worse all this happens – if I have to say also a word about the church – when we have also a technical synod that administers the church.
Yes, yes, yes, just so – this is not irony at all. You know how the assembly went on – well, it’s better you don’t know, it is not so much important, the Patriarch is not able to act in that capacity but he remains the Patriarch. He remains the Patriarch! They cannot overthrow Him; it is not possible to skirt the Constitution. But, the assembly ended with something that no assembly in the history of our church for full eight and a half centuries ever before ended with. The Synod has taken over a complete authority of the Patriarch, his duties and obligations, but the structure of the Synod hasn’t been publicly known. (The Synod is the church government, the assembly is parliament). For the first time the structure of the Synod hasn’t been publicly announced, who makes the Synod. You may say – probably the old members. No! Just at this assembly terms of two members expired and we are not informed that they were replaced through the standard procedure so that we have a kind of the Synod that governs the church in the name of the Patriarch.
I wouldn’t bother you with the ecclesiastical problems, but you see … the church is a part of society, this our society, of us all. Who goes to church goes, who doesn’t go it’s one’s right not to go, but to us who care for the church, this gives no hope and it is literally an irregular situation, both in the state and in the church likewise waiting the outcome and one leads to another, actually these two institutions since a long time have been acting and functioning on the principle of connected vessels. This is one example for you, a simple one. We shall see. They will have to reveal who makes the government. There are four of them and the fifth is presiding. The Patriarch is presiding, he is ill, so that the oldest one presides instead and so on, it is all as it should be, but we haven’t got this list of names. The statement contains a severe criticism of the media; allegedly reporting from the assembly was bad. I didn’t quite get it, in the media, in newspapers there were all sort of this and that, but I don’t know what kind of reporting it can be when the assembly was held behind closed doors protected by the special security forces. Thus, what sort of reporting was that and who made a mistake. But there is something else, there is a sentence that runs – the assembly is astounded by what journalists were doing. Astounded – that was the expression used. And I would only add, not to be too long – what about the public, both the church public and lay public are also astounded and cannot recover from the statements that one member of the assembly, Kosovo’s Bishop Artemije, made and repeated them four times and they are as follows – “Boris Tadić, the defense minister Šutanovac and Jeremić are traitors” (quote-end). If you claim that someone is a traitor without any proofs, this should have caused perplexity among people. This they didn’t discuss as you see. In this sense, the situation is really quite serious.
What I would also say, what also the colleague Perović said, and to finish this first part, this is about Vojvodina. Of course that state of things is as he related, we should keep in mind that Vojvodina as a model, linguistic, political, has survived a lot of changes and today is considered by the world as a successful model. Very interesting. What hasn’t changed there! What states haven’t been broken up and at the European universities they defend doctoral dissertations (I have read seven of them) that provide evidence that Vojvodina’s cultural model - more nations, multiculturalism, several spoken languages, equality - has survived and in this sense they cite Vojvodina as the example of something that should be followed. There are no minorities in France, all there are French, there is no minorities. There are actually as plenty of them as you can imagine, but their law is as it is. Therefore, Vojvodina exists. If it is not present, it is a fault, in the political sense, of Vojvodina’s politicians who have failed to cope with situation, but Vojvodina as a model with a long history of its own – exists. At least, this here has been for some two and a half centuries a part of Europe and if only there were luck as it hadn’t been, it should have been the driving force and not vice versa and that’s why these Vojvodina’s ballots are not now to be underestimated. The approach should be more careful. That’s all and if someone has any questions I am here to answer them, but perhaps this was a bit too long. Thank you.

Dinko Gruhonjić: Alpar, when we have already began the story about Vojvodina I think that Mirko has provided a cue for our story the one we discussed during our drive to Mitrovica, that if Serbia joins EU it would be the most profitable for Vojvodina, which would, let’s pathetically say, return home, actually return to place where it once had belonged to and what makes its natural environment. In your opinion, what are the chances of Vojvodina to return there after these pessimistic views about the constitution of government in Belgrade?

Alpar Lošonc: Well, considering that my predecessors have defined so well the current political moment let me talk about this theme from a broader perspective. Only in few words what is in my opinion at stake, since long ago actually, in these elections in Serbia especially after, as was previously said, the 2000 political coup. I think that what’s at stake can be very simply stated – at stake is actually the issue that Serbia becomes a normal small country. When I say a small country, this attribute has no pejorative meaning but simply expresses one entity with certain, let’s say, resources or I may say that at stake is that Serbia remains a normal semi-peripheral country. This I say also because, and I stress because, of that adamant fact that it seems that a good part of the political elites in Serbia cannot accept this course that is, naturally, a certain regression, especially in relation to some earlier projections.
I agree that now time planes, in the context of these elections, are mixed up so that from time to time it is very difficult to make difference between the nineties and the period after 2000. Of course, I would never equalize these two periods but there is too much continuity between that period which is at least chronologically behind us and this decade we now live in. It seems to me that there is one constant in the Serbian political space and it seems to me that just that, if you wish, epic constant also characterizes these election processes and also the period before us. I would say that problem is that in Serbia it is governed in a way that government is divided and not limited. This is very important because if we take this into account we can throw light on various modes of governing, on the various modes of realization of governing. It seems that in this respect, this crucial view of governing which is divided and not limited, we can characterize i.e. we can recognize just mentioned continuity between the earlier and the current period. This (as was said a moment ago, I only cite it) political coup initiated after 2000, included then, as far as I can remember, several paradigms that were in play. The first paradigm was an ethnocentric paradigm. What does it mean? This ethnocentric paradigm emerged as a sort of reaction to the communist organization of reality. I will say also few sentences about the communist organization of reality. Ethnocentric paradigm, so characteristic for the last decade of the past millennium, starts with the hierarchy pattern among various ethnicities. Certain ethnicity, and in general it is the majority that has the natural majority in relation to the state, means that certain ethnicity simply has certain historical rights and other ethnicities, just according to logic of natural differences, simply must follow this kind of ruling logic. Ethnocentrism in the last instance actually creates certain segregation of differences, and so a certain segregation between the majority and the minority. This is, in my opinion, a really essential characteristic of politics, ethno-politics of Serbia in the ‘90s. And I would also mention as a crucial characteristic of this paradigm that ethnocentrism, therefore, doesn’t want even that that is sometimes called a soft assimilation of differences but it has no interest at all for differences because the most important for it is to govern through ethnocentrism.
Another paradigm that was the weakest I think after 2000 is actually the relic of the past. I would call it the communist integrationalism. Communism, whatever it may mean now, I wouldn’t concretize this issue – I think that all of us intuitively know what it is about – hence communism wanted to integrate the entire society but not any super-national ideological whole, and that communist integrationalism recognized differences but only in the measure in which these differences could be used as a vehicle for that super-national ideological whole. And for communist integrationalism it was very characteristic what a minute ago I called a soft assimilation of differences. However, after 2000, the most primitive anti-communism which dominated in the discursive space of Serbia, annulled many of these important traces of communist integrationalism.
And there is the third paradigm which is, I think, by many things a leading one among the intellectual elites – the liberal nationalism, which actually blends two, let’s say, political traditions. In its elemental orientation it also doesn’t want to integrate society but instead it would integrate nation, which means that it recognizes certain differences but only in the sense of control, only in the sense of possibility to control all and in the sense that one nation remains to rule the public space, in fact the national culture of the given nation would determine the public space. Considering that the liberal nationalism is a fitting ideology for a great part of elites in Serbia, I think even the economic elite – as colleague Milenko has earlier pointed out – tycoons can very much have their interest in governing, in leading these processes. Then it is not just by chance, I think, that this liberal nationalism in many aspects dominates the ideological discourses of Serbia.
And as relates these elections, I wouldn’t skip and owe answer to Dinko. I think that there is no place … no place for euphoria, for euphoric mood, because these basic patterns will hardly change. These fundamental patterns I have just mentioned as an expression of the hybrid reality in Serbia, represent an actually deep structure and regardless of political alchemy, regardless of political arithmetic, which is really uncertain, we still have these fundamental patterns and actually we have no any fourth solution that may bring change in relation to these patterns. If we analyze results of these elections we really face this basic fact that Serbia is halved, that there are various blocks and, moreover, it can be said that even the support to European integration has a very amorphous character, an ambiguous character. Serbia has never had a broader democratic discussion what it means to join the European integration structures. So while, let’s say, one side was absolutely against, the other side was for, but as I say, always without necessary explanations. Thus it has never been properly articulated what is the meaning of all this. I say, to join the European integration structures or, better to say, the European Union we actually understand as an expression, a projection of our wishful thinking. The European Union as an institutional infrastructure can be also that, a chance, but in the first instance it is the frame within certain rules have to be respected, which means there are certain rights but also certain obligations. Some friends of mine, much more cynical than I am, say that in some situations, when something enormous should be undertaken, it may be perhaps better not to know what risk you are undertaking. As I am obsessively attached to some democratic issues, I don’t find it good policy, because not knowing what risk you are undertaking, in what space of risk, what space of realizing interests you enter, then what you later get is disappointment. So it would be good in any case to learn everything available, and we can learn on the examples of other countries. The fact that in Serbia the so-called transition has been postponed several times already, and that to join Europe is being constantly postponed due to political instability, gives us an excellent chance to see what was happening in other countries, actually to learn, to realize some lessons.
It stands to reason what Dinko said, that Vojvodina in all this has a certain chance. Examples from other countries, let’s say the neighboring countries, Romania, Hungary and other countries, show that by joining the European integration structures you will not automatically level regional differences, but these regions that have, for instance, institutional capacities and other capacities, these regions that have the proper infrastructure, show an envious level of development and an envious level of developing further already existing possibilities. Then really stands to reason that Vojvodina can be seen as a winner, as a possible winner if Serbia joins Europe and this all according an optimistic scenario, but I stress, this is a really optimistic scenario with some utopien elements. Vojvodina therefore can become the engine for Serbia and the results, positive, in view of the political culture and in view of economy can be spread on to other parts of Serbia. I say, this is one really positive scenario. There are, I would say, some grotesque elements in all this i.e. that we depend on Milošević’s party, like in some badly tuned psychoanalytic drama, a psychoanalytical scene, in which some repressed symptoms re-emerge later, so to us really returns Milošević’s ghost from dead. And what’s more grotesque is that a man with the parochial, provincial nimbus, like Palma is, becomes a sort of savior of the European future of Serbia. Simply one must think how it happens that this strategically defined future for us now depends on someone who, among other things, contributed enormously to some excessive violence in the nineties. Thank you.

Dinko Gruhonjić: Thank you. Teofil, one of your favorite stories when we speak about Vojvodina are Vojvodina’s trains in time of autonomists and so on, the trains which were somehow cleaner and somehow non-smoking, and arrived on time …

Milenko Perović: No, but there were no such militant attacks against smokers …
Dinko Gruhonjić: Today, when we took Alpar from Temerin and were driving to Sremska Mitrovica – there is one railroad crossing in Temerin – I widely opened my eyes watching for incoming railbus or a locomotive – Alpar told me – “Just go on freely nobody passes here, there are no trains any more.” Here you have a small cue for Vojvodina as on the other side President Tadić said, I think it was yesterday or the day before yesterday, how today we have an excellent historical chance for a new Serbian reunion, for reconciliation of political forces from the nineties and the political forces of the 2000’s…

Teofil Pančić: OK, let’s say you have given me more cues than I have expected so in order not to let them slip me or being forgotten, let’s first speak about them. There, as regards Vojvodina’s trains it was really so in one period, say, at the mid-eighties. I remember well these details. So, if you travel from Novi Sad to Belgrade by train and smoking there is strictly forbidden so that conductor comes to warn you if you smoke (I was smoker than, fortunately not any more), he warns you that smoking is not allowed. If you ignore the warning, there is people’s militia present in the train and they intervene. And what happens next? We travel and travel and arrive to Nova Pazova. As you know Nova Pazova is, according to today’s dictionary, the administrative border between the proper Serbia and Vojvodina. In Nova Pazova, Vojvodina’s militia leaves the train and the very moment they are out, you will see that a half of passengers in the train lights a cigarette. Hurrah, long live freedom! And I say that such an understanding of freedom gave birth to that anti-bureaucratic revolution, this is how our people understand freedom – I can do whatever I want to and I don’t give a hang, and who is one to call me to account, especially to some good-for-nothing and twerps who cannot stand, just imagine that, the smoke of tobacco and similar – so that in this sense I was speaking about trains and when we speak about trains I came here to Mitrovica by train. I feel a bit nostalgic about traveling by train because in the country of Serbia, of course, every traveling by train is an absolute, how to put it, an idiotic act as such, but because I knew that this is an international train bound for Zagreb and further on for Slovenia, Italy and on, I got up courage and I didn’t regret, but we must take an international train in Serbia so as to, you see, travel decently at all by this conveyance.
And now, this story about train is not unimportant, I think that we shall again return to these details of everyday life, but in connection with these things you asked me, I think that something should be said, both in respect of elections in Serbia and in respect of Vojvodina. When Vojvodina comes to the agenda, don’t let me forget to say something about this dialectic of the majority and the minority we have heard here. First, as regards elections in Serbia, this national reconciliation that Tadić, you see, talks about and which will probably initiate many discussions in these days, with reason, because the topic is quite challenging and can be endlessly manipulated, I think that it is – to make things clear – only an empty phrase that serves to somehow assemble that government. Hence, let’s invent some pompous idea that will cover all. Meaning that that would enable us to explain to our followers why we go with the Socialists (SPS) and top of SPS will explain to their followers that, you see, in the name of that high idea like national reconciliation (of course, I say that it is only an empty phrase without real meaning and cannot contribute to anything sensible but, possibly, to sort of constitution of that government, if it is constituted at all). It cannot contribute from many reasons of which the most interesting for our story is that it simply means nothing.
This is a very pompous phrase, as used in many post-communist countries, in many transition countries – some have been thinking about reconciliation since World War Two, some about reconciliation between communists and anti-communists and so on. I don’t know what reconciliation this would exactly be in our case. If we speak that now those forces that had led the country in the nineties should be reconciled with those forces that led it after 2000, you know that this is not a problem at all to make it in a circle of political brass hats – simply one coalition is formed and they reconcile and finally work together. I think, it is their domain and such things we have seen and will see in politics and there is nothing to be shocked about. However, clearly, the national reconciliation in the form that the Socialists (SPS) will like to agree is neither possible nor desirable.
What does it mean? We cannot forget the nineties; we cannot forget that we know whose guilt it is, who is responsible for the nineties. We cannot start now looking on the nineties as on some elemental disaster, as on natural force for which nobody – no man no individual no party no organization, hence none actually – is guilty, is responsible, led to it, maintained it and so on, but to look, see, as if it was some metaphysical disaster that befell upon the Serbian people, which would be in general in the agreement with that ideology of national reconciliation. We cannot accept it, except if we want to become … simply, to be self-lobotomized. It is plainly impossible, impossible that a civic society accepts it, impossible for historians to accept it, impossible for the media to accept it, impossible for any member of the society to accept it. Therefore, in that form that the Socialists would like – like rehabilitation of Milošević, then to stop to, as they say, persecuting his family, then this and then that – I think that all this is nothing but gobbledygook – it is, how to say, such things cannot happen nor I guess none of us, fortunately, would allow it to happen.
So I wouldn’t overestimate the meaning of this, it is simply an unfounded and empty phrase nor it can have any real foundation and if it contributes at all to anything sensible good, we shall forget it quickly, won’t we? Now, as regards the elections as such, I wouldn’t speak much and spend time on it because enough has been said on the topic. What do these elections in Serbia mean – the colleagues that spoke before me explained it very well and now, not to repeat their words, it is generally as it is, the situation that we now have and about which we shall probably discuss more this evening.

Dinko Gruhonjić: I think that it is time now to give you also chance to ask questions or to comment, so please, go on.

Voice from the audience: Good evening to you all. Here, first, it is very strange, especially of Mr. Pančić, that none of you here, the respected heads and really clever people, haven’t called the thing by its true name. I will give my anticipation of the post-election moment in Serbia, as I feel it at the moment, and this is that some, let’s call them the pro-European forces, are the only and quite possibly rather insufficiently strong barrier to stop Serbia’s sinking into the fascism (which you call nationalism, or apply other euphemistic names). I will draw a parallel you all know very well, a parallel between Serbia today and the Weimer Germany of the ‘30s. I actually don’t know at all whether then those clever Social-Democratic Germans were aware what Hitler then represented, and even less so because he didn’t run for election with his final solution as his program. The only difference is perhaps that currently in Serbia we have no big problems with the Jews but then there are enough of us, the “traitors”. I am not sure that the Social-Democrats and the great majority of Germans in the thirties believed that Dachau and Auschwitz would be very soon put into operation. What you Teofil said – “I doubt that there will be concentration camps” – I, on the contrary, have no doubts. We have them nine years ago in, to us, very close surroundings. It means that we shouldn’t deceive ourselves that this is the question of whether Serbia is going to join Europe but the question whether Serbia will remain in fascism. To me, this is a crucial question of these elections.

Dinko Gruhonjić: Perhaps I can say something about this before we continue. This is what worries me, also, to be sincere, because in, let’s say ’89, when the Berlin Wall fell here, with us, an absolutely opposite process was under way, with us in these days Sloba was riding high on Gazimestan. Then we all thought, well, no way, the Berlin Wall fell, Europe unites, he is just a passing incident, something like hail, let’s say, or similar, However, he did ride high and incredible crimes had been committed in the same time when Europe was uniting, in all those 10 years of our criminal past.

Milenko Perović: Listen, please, I’m going to tell a joke just to make us relax a bit. In this country nothing can be done properly to the end so neither racism could be brought to the very end. Fortunately, and it is both our ontological misfortune during these 20 years as it is our fortune, that in racism we couldn’t be like Germans had been in the past. Thus Serbia wasn’t like Germany in 1945, Serbia wasn’t leveled to the ground nor carpeted with bombs. Only owing to that here, in my opinion, we essentially don’t speak about that fascist solution nor about ultra-right solution but about ontological thieves. I once politely called them klepto-nationalists, with an accent on klepto, because that whole nationalist story, if we put aside the moment when it spread among the population and when people began to believe in this story, but take only those producing the story and organizing, controlling and leading, their interest is, before all, to clean out this society and to rob each of us, and they do it efficiently, just look the Radicals in the nineties, the Radical leadership, ultranationalist, ultra-fascist – they are today enormously rich people. And this is the essence. And their intention is to remain rich. And one can be rich and make progress even more so if being in power.

Teofil Pančić: I would like to say just one thing – simply a man collects some experience. God knows that I have attended hundreds and hundreds panels throughout this country and it so often happens that one man who listens, in this case five panelists not exactly known to hesitate to call things by their true names, waits until these five men finish, to say – I listened you, all five of you, but how happens that none of you said, called things by their true name! – And then, I guess, he goes home fulfilled in a way – he has fired a shot! And these five only watch – what a fucking, in vain I have been writing 20 years about fascism in this country, in vain I have been speaking 20 years about fascism in this country, a man stood up and clearly cut me off, I didn’t call the thing by its true name, that’s what he says.
Don’t do such thing, let’s talk seriously. It is no problem to call fascism when there is fascism. And if I wanted to use the word in that context in which you want I would use it. However, if I didn’t do it then I certainly have a strong reason and it is not that I suddenly like, all at once I begin to like, euphemisms. Hence simply, all we had, we had – we had these camps also – these camps are something about which I wrote then and I don’t speak about that now. These camps were not intended for political opponents but we know it very well, and you in Srem know very well for what people and what category of population and war prisoners they were intended for and there were just a few media that at that time could at all whisper about that, so everyone who wanted to know that then, could know it and there is nothing more to say.
I cannot now say that some future government prepares some new camps, because I have absolutely no any indications of that. And this has nothing to do with Hitler and whether somebody in 1933 knew that Dachau would work. One had no any need to know that Dachau would come, but Hitler had a very clear anti-Semite program and he put it into motion the first day he came to power. Read, there is a book published in Novi Sad, “History of One German” by Sebastian Hafner. In 1933, that man instantly lost his job and many other things, and he wasn’t even a Jew! He expressed some doubts about Nazism and he was immediately called a domestic traitor, immediately lost his job and so on.
Therefore, there is no mystery there, no need to know that Dachau would follow because it was clear and everybody who had voted for Hitler had to know already in 1933 that he had voted for a racist, that he had voted for one who publicly advocated that members of some other nation and religion should be persecuted, for the beginning to be sacked and thus unable to lead normal life, that they were a sort of scabs on the body of German people etc. Hence there were no any mystifications. However, political opponents will always very well manipulate if you use words carelessly. If you shout three times “fascist” for anybody you don’t like, the fourth time when you shout “fascist” for a true fascist, people will remain indifferent – well, this one constantly speaks about some fascists. Therefore, I beg you to speak seriously. Thank you!

(Beta)

What would it mean for Serbia if having opposed political blocks at different levels of government?
– I believe that everything is possible in Serbia, because decisions brought by Serbia were mostly irrational. Besides, often the individual interests were decisive and not the general interest of citizens. Therefore it is possible that even now, at different levels of government, we get different coalitions. However, I can say with confidence that G17 Plus will not take part in any government, either in Vojvodina or in Serbia, if some corrupt compromises or deals are being agreed with the Socialists (SPS), the Radicals (SRS) and Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) at the level of Belgrade. I think that it would be very very bad for Vojvodina if cards are to be distributed in this way. Because in such case, the question is what Vojvodina can do in the future if at the central level rules the coalition made of the Radicals, the Populists and the Socialists. On one side we would be bound by Constitution and the budget and on the other side we may expect strengthening of wishes for a higher decentralization and autonomy of Vojvodina. I think that such dualism would lead to an absolute disharmony in functioning of everyday life because every decision would turn into the subject of political quarrels and spites.

Does it mean that G17 Plus would refuse, in case that the Belgrade city government is formed with the Serbian Radical Party (SRS), the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) and the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS), entering the republic government with the Socialists? What would in such case happen with the provincial coalition?
– In Vojvodina, the Socialists can not decide on the post-election agreements. If otherwise, our attitude not to participate in the government under no circumstance if bad compromises are made would also include the provincial level. The Socialist Party of Serbia must decide whether it will, with other parties, take part in building the European future of Serbia or it wants at every level adapt the coalition agreements to party interests. The Socialist Party of Serbia can not sit on two chairs and can not at one level form government with the Radicals and the Democratic Party of Serbia and on another with the Democrats. For G17 Plus this is unacceptable.

What can Vojvodina really expect to achieve when it is question of regional cooperation with EU countries and also when competing for the European funds?
– Vojvodina has a great advantage because in difference to other parts of Serbia it fulfills all regional criteria according to the European standards. In fact, Serbia has no law on regional development and the regionalization and decentralization are conditions that must be fulfilled in order to compete for the European funds. Vojvodina, however, has established the regional institutions and therefore it can without problems draw money from the funds available to Serbia if the country is given the status of EU candidate by the end of year, which will be possible only if it has a pro-European government. The capacity of the provincial management has only to be upgraded so as to be able to implement the European programs and projects. In this sense, it is necessary to institute an agency for the development of Vojvodina as well as the provincial project fund and the payment agency in order to be able to draw resources from the IPA Fund intended for the development of agriculture and for rural development. For all above the condition is co-financing, which is already fulfilled by establishing the Fund for Capital Investments with mechanisms to co-finance projects competing for IPA funds. Until Serbia builds its own institutions, actually until fully regionalized, Vojvodina can without problems draw these resources already in the first, the second and the third year. Thus Serbia would not face the problems as happened to some other EU candidate countries i.e. to have no capacities to use the European funds in the first two to three years after having acquired the status of candidate. I think that political will to build these institutions exists in Serbia but this should be done as soon as possible.

Does the current inter-party support present among the pro-European parties on the eve of the second round announces some wider pro-European coalition in Vojvodina or is it possible that some potential partners drop out if their mandates proved to be non-decisive in forming the majority in the APV Assembly?
– G17 Plus will absolutely support the widest possible circle of partners in the new Vojvodina’s government. By this I think that this government, apart from our list For European Vojvodina also includes the Hungarian Coalition and the list Together for Vojvodina. Every unconstrained government is bad government. Only with participation of all pro-European parties Vojvodina’s government would be able to lead Vojvodina efficiently towards Europe.

Have you hold within the coalition For European Vojvodina any negotiations about distribution of ministries in the regional government?
– I am not interested for the republican government. My interest is limited to Vojvodina and to my profession. However, I will think about that when I see the final distribution of power and what will make the political majority in the provincial government i.e. how much space there will be available for reforms.

www.autonomija.info

(The author is the Head of Department of Philosophy at the Philosophic Faculty in Novi Sad. This text is written especially for site www.autonomija.info )

Can it make the position of Hungarian coalition difficult in the post-election agreements considering the negative reactions that the potential partners of the Hungarian Coalition towards the project of ethnical autonomy?
– Obviously that this thoughtless move of the Hungarian Coalition will make its potential post-election partners additionally cautious and certainly that it will be more difficult to establish a true cooperation after elections. Perhaps the political interests will prevail so as to form whatever government will be possible after elections but a true cooperation and the solution of this issue will certainly be out of question after the May election. It will be a long and difficult way to reach the right solution of the territorial autonomy of the Vojvodina Hungarians.

What effect may this have on the voting body of the Hungarian Coalition if there is no prospect of possible partners for realization of this key theme of the election campaign and is it real to expect that the election results will repeat those recorded at the presidential elections?
– The positive wave considering results of the presidential elections and the creation of the Hungarian Coalition will have this time also positive effects on the voting body. However, if only the theme of territorial autonomy remains the key theme of election campaign then it is really sad. And currently everything is turning around this issue…
The leaders of Hungarian Coalition must find the common language with political leaders of the majority population. However, it is obvious that the President of Union of Vojvodina Hungarians is under the pressure of their radical partners from the Democratic Party of the Vojvodina Hungarians (DSVM), the Democratic Community of the Vojvodina Hungarians (DZVM) and the Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians (SVM) and will have to pay dearly for this coalition if not now then in the near future. This is already an indicator that the bill is already on the way.
For me there is no doubt that the territorial autonomy is necessary but the problem is how to realize it. If it should be instituted in bloodshed as it had been with the former Yugoslavia then we don’t need such autonomy. The society in Serbia will mature one day and realize that autonomy is neither scarecrow nor secession nor it is against the majority population but that it will be advantage for all of us living in this area. And finally it should be understand that we are historically destined to live together and that contended minority can only be a stabilizing factor in one state.

Is the project of minority autonomy the reason for change of attitude of the Hungarian Coalition towards the issue of autonomy of Vojvodina considering that some Hungarian Coalition leaders launched the theses that it is a “Serb-Serbian issue”?
- The Union of Vojvodina Hungarians has always advocated strengthening of autonomy of Vojvodina. Another question is how much this is stressed in the campaign of the Hungarian Coalition. I am certain that the Vojvodina Hungarians sincerely wish the autonomy of Vojvodina, as much as they wish democratic society, the European integrations … The Union of Vojvodina Hungarians has never forgotten about the autonomy of Vojvodina but is seems that at the moment the priority is to preserve undisturbed cooperation between the coalition partners in the Hungarian Coalition and in order to preserve it this coalition made some unfitting compromises.

B.D.S.

In these days a true storm has been raging in the media after the statement issued by the Hungarian coalition that they advocate the ethnical territorial autonomy for Hungarians at north of Vojvodina. Can you explain this for our web-portal?

– Our opinion is that Hungarians have right to ask the same as other minorities on the territory of Serbia. If during the process of implementation of minority rights some higher standards are ascertained like, let’s say, the ethnical autonomy for Serbs in north of Kosovo, then it is only logical that other minorities are also entitled to same rights. Only in this way, in the autonomous regions where we are the majority we can realize our national interests. It is the question of democratic principle and the democratic way of resolving the minority issue. Also, these are actually the European standards. It is nothing new in Europe that one minority, on the territory where it is majority, is entitled to self-administration. Whenever we present these arguments, the Serbian political scene reacts with aversion and always finds excuses to avoid such talks because it is never a proper time to discuss such themes as, allegedly, the Serbs have other national interests and more important problems than these are. We think that there is always time to discuss how to solve the minority issue and, of course, we will not give up.

What is your attitude towards the autonomy of Vojvodina? Does this ethnical autonomy is in contradiction with autonomy of Vojvodina?

– Not at all. As regards the autonomy of Vojvodina we believe that it should be absolutely differently conceived, that it should be much broader, that Vojvodina is entitled to the executive, legislative and judicial power. The Province should have its revenue source, its taxes and to function in reality as a Euro-region. In such autonomy what we are speaking about is also possible – the ethnical autonomy on the territorial principle in municipalities with the Hungarian majority. They don’t contradict each other.

Where is, in your opinion, the weak point of autonomous movement, actually is there a real possibility for Vojvodina to obtain a higher degree of autonomy?

– First of all this depends on the Serbian population in Vojvodina, actually how much this population is interested above all for economic autonomy. Is belonging to one nation or are other national topics more important for them than is economy? One should have in mind that 47 percent of the republic budget is filled by revenues from Vojvodina and that Vojvodina gets back much less. There is no logic that the republic collects all taxes and then returns (some) back. In this re-distributive system it should be left to Vojvodina to collect its own taxes and these taxes should remain where they are collected. And only then Vojvodina should contribute to the republic treasury as much as it is necessary i.e. for army, diplomacy and other common needs.

Vojvodina’s autonomous parties criticized your proposal for the ethnical territorial autonomy at north of Vojvodina?

– They can criticize, but it is a European claim. They may like it or not! The autonomy-oriented parties of the majority nation in Vojvodina held that Hungarians should be loyal to them and to fight against Belgrade so that they call out: FORWARD! but not: FOLLOW ME! Their problem is that they don’t want to be in the frontline, they wouldn’t go to, let’s say, Vrbas or Vršac, but they go and fish in ‘mud waters’ where the Hungarians are majority. They tell them – we are the Euro-Serbs, we are your friends, we are better than others who don’t understand you. This is a plain deceit! They should fight for a higher degree of autonomy of Vojvodina so that they should first of all explain to the Serbian population why the autonomy is so crucial. There is no need to persuade minorities – we know!  Our task is not to spoil this game. They have a reverse policy, they think that they may grab several (representatives’) terms if they appear in Ada, Senta, Kanjiža or Topola. These are their target places instead other and more tougher places.

In case that they decide to, as you say, take a lead and call FOLLOW US! they will certainly have the support of political parties of Hungarian minority?

– No question about it, but they must persuade the Serbian body of voters that autonomy is crucial!

Nedim Sejdinović