download the entire text (PDF,7 pages, 0.34MB)

When the story broke that a scantily dressed woman wearing heavy makeup paid a visit to the Serbian Parliament in an attempt to find a client of hers who owed her money, the Serbian voters got some entertainment and the tabloid press was ecstatic because they knew this scandal would generate an increase in papers sold. The aforementioned lady was stopped at the reception desk and latter on arrested on charges of prostitution. As it turned out she had been wanted by the police for quite some time.
 All this would have been nothing more than a good joke had the Constitutional Court not just handed down a ruling which states that a legal regulation on local self-government elections that institutionalized blank resignation letters  is in fact unconstitutional because it gives parties the power to choose who will be in local self-governments and to keep them under their thumb. The ruling reaffirms that citizens are in fact the ones who, having given the mandates, own those mandates and that the citizen’s power is implemented either directly or indirectly through elected officials. Even though this ruling only concerns representatives in local self-government it has incited disapproval among some parts of the political elite. Not only because following the logic of this ruling would result in several hundred members of the Serbian Progressive Party regaining their positions, while the Serbian Radical Party would lose just as many, but also, as some politicians speculate, because it would cause an unpredictable redistribution of power on the political scene which would in turn cause a serious political crisis.
 The main argument of politicians disapproving the Constitutional Court’s ruling is that party members will be able to put their mandates on the open market; that is to say that annulling the blank resignation letter practice will result in migrations of representatives from one party to another, and this will destabilize the political system. To illustrate this point politicians cite shady examples from the past. Of course, investigating what happened on the “black market of politics” remains on the level of conjecture only – there are no repercussions, which reaffirms that Serbia is a “state where there are no consequences to be paid”.
 The “woman of the streets” was arrested. The authorities did not, however, investigate cases of Parliament members who would sell their mandates to the highest bidder. The aforementioned lady was not even given a dignified welcome to the Parliament as was Miladin Kovacevic – who beat a young man nearly to death in the United States and then fled from the American courts assisted by the Serbian vice-consul of the Serbian embassy in Washington. Through abuse of his position the vice-consul gave Miladin traveling documents to flee to Serbia. There is no doubt that Miladin expects a lighter sentence from the Serbian courts than he would receive in the States – otherwise he wouldn’t have fled to Serbia. The Serbian authorities did not hand him over to the American courts because the Serbian Constitution clearly forbids the extradition of Serbian citizens to foreign countries where they are to stand trial. Since he is already in Serbia he may stand trial only in a Serbian court. So as to soften the blow of this diplomatic scandal the Serbian government paid one million dollars to the victim’s family – a move that was noted as an extremely important diplomatic success in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs because it stopped our descent down the downward spiral of relations with the U.S.A. Upon his return to Serbia Miladin visited the Serbian Parliament where a group of members of parliament gave him a ceremonious and, above all, warm welcome.
 After pressure was applied Miladin Kovacevic was successfully brought before a court. This was exactly at the same time that the question of judicial reform flared up. It is a fact that in previous years “sensitive” cases usually ended up on the bottom of drawers or the perpetrators would otherwise receive confusingly light sentences. Public opinion polls showed citizens’ confidence in the judiciary plummeting dangerously low. Despite this the police and prosecutor could not find evidence of corruption among judges, even though the public was convinced that this is where the problem lay – further reinforcing the idea that Serbia is a “state where there are no consequences to be paid”.
 Everyone was eagerly expecting reform of the judiciary system and when it took place everyone started arguing over it. The critics gave varying remarks. Some were dissatisfied because they did not fulfill all given criteria for re-election, others because they thought that the given criteria was not fully respected during re-election of judges. There were also those who claimed that the High Judicial Council was not transparent enough in its work – thus fueling doubts that politics had influenced the reform process, which in turn means that reform was only half done and that the really big problems of the Serbian judiciary remain unsolved.
 University professor Vesna Rakic-Vodinelic was among the first to point out procedural mistakes and claim that political preconceptions influenced the reform process. Among the reelected judges there are (and not only a few) those who during Milosevic’s regime and under its orders took part in election fraud or persecuted the opposition, especially members of Otpor. These allegations were rejected by arguing that those opposing the reform taking place were actually attacking Nata Mesarevic, president of the Judicial High Council - and someone who was not only wholeheartedly in favor of judicial reform, but was brave enough to hand down the sentences to the killers of Zoran Djindjic, and after all someone who is a fierce opponent of organized crime. Critics of judicial reform in turn cited a letter from the European Commission, signed by President Jose Manuel Barroso, which gave critical remarks regarding the way judicial reform was being carried out in Serbia. It was also noted that Mesarovic’s role in the case against Djindjic’s assassins was ambivalent since she prevented the possibility of uncovering the political background of the assassination.
 The political background of the reelection of judges who wholeheartedly served Milosevic’s regime is to be found in the fact that Milosevic’s party – the Socialist Party of Serbia – is now a member of the ruling coalition and that the Democratic Party must make concessions to it. These two parties that were once arch enemies are becoming ever closer – which is in the spirit of the national reconciliation as proclaimed by Boris Tadic. Truth be told, the Socialist Party has modified its politics somewhat but it hasn’t critically confronted Milosevic’s rule and it hasn’t renounced it – which is not surprising given the current political atmosphere in Serbia. According to a poll by the Belgrade daily Press only 33% of the Serbian populace supports the Parliamentary declaration by which an apology was given for the bloodshed in Srebrenica (located in Eastern Bosnia) in the summer of 1995 – even though this document does not mention the word “genocide”. At the same time 57% are against the arrest and extradition to The Hague of Ratko Mladic, even though everybody knows full well that without his extradition to The Hague Serbia’s accession to the EU is utterly unthinkable – as pointed out again these days by Chief Hague prosecutor, Serge Brammertz.
All of these occurrences point to the fact that behind the judicial reform debate there lay far greater discrepancies. Even though Western diplomats have happily concluded that the Serbian political scene has become less polarized due to the division of the Serbian Radical Party, no essential and far-reaching change has, however, taken place in Serbian society. It is true that political parties have somewhat leveled out their differences, but all this means is that there is less energy concentrated toward EU integration processes and more toward conserving the status quo. The last local elections have shown that power relations between parties are more or less the same as they were after the parliamentary elections, with the only difference being that the “softer version” of the Serbian Radical Party – The Serbian Progressive Party – has taken the leading position. This position will be impossible to maintain in the long run since this state of affairs only conserves the status quo, that is, conserves this stalemate. In light of this fact we can explain Boris Tadic’s statement in his last speech, given in harsh tones which are unlike him, by which he accused the opposition of trying to destabilize Serbia, push it over the ledge, and that he will invest all of his energies in preventing their climb to power.
 Independent intellectuals and non-governmental organizations have been demanding decisive action so as to counter this stalemate situation – not just regarding judicial reform, but all other issues as well. The two groups mentioned cannot be counted as part of the opposition because, the bottom line is, their goals are the same as the governments’ - accession to the European Union, free market, parliamentary democracy – albeit with fewer compromises to be made along the way and less populism. These groups think that the government makes too many concessions to the Socialist Party of Serbia (although this is understood to be a consequence of the deal made after parliamentary elections), that they are not confronting society regarding the past and that they are inconsistent in their fight against nationalism and corruption. It should be noted that the government shows less understanding for this type of criticism than for demands made by the Socialist Party. This has resulted in critically minded intellectuals being pushed out to the margins, and now they leave the impression of someone doing Sisyphus’s work. The Democratic Party makes (tactical) concessions to populism, thus blurring the boundaries between them and the parliamentary opposition – the same opposition whose influence they attempt to curb by taking on their rhetoric. This tactic has proven to be successful when it comes to arguments between parties, but it also fuels confusion in society and this confusion in turn works to the advantage of populist, anti-European movements – and so every victory won by the government in this manner is a Pyrrhic victory. This also pushes the pro-European movement to the margins, a fact that came to light at the funeral of Biljana Kovacevic – Vuco. Biljana Kovacevic – Vuco, one of the most respected protagonists of the Serbian NGO scene, especially those who are part of the human rights movement, died suddenly in a Belgrade clinic four months after a successful kidney transplant operation – due to sepsis. During her farewell speech Svetlana Lukic noted that at some point the circumstances of her unusual death will be brought to light. She also made the point that Dorothy Height, an American activist for human rights, was awarded honorary doctorates at many universities in the States and at the moment of her death the U.S. president, Barack Obama, called her the mother of civil movements – while Biljana Kovacevic – Vuco had continuously faced humiliating attacks in her country. It seems evident then that a series of compromises alienates the government from those who have been their consistent allies.
 Due to the mentioned stalemate situation even those initiatives started in good faith are accomplished only partially – the best example being judicial reform, which will most certainly have to be modified after the criticism it received from the EU Commission. The urgency of this issue is evident considering that already the first results are showing the bad side of the implemented reforms. Several days ago a (reformed) Belgrade court handed down a verdict in a case regarding football hooligans. For a long time now the state has shown inability to contain these vile groups and so, fueled by extremist ideas, they have began to act more freely. Recently they threatened a B92 journalist with death by publicly chanting from the stadium that she will meet the same fate “as Curuvija” – a journalist killed during Milosevic’s all-powerful regime. The threat was given because through her investigative series she attempted to show the connection between these groups with politicians and criminals. The prosecutor filed chargers against the perpetrators but the court freed them saying that this case was one of insult rather than a death threat. The presiding judge advised Stankovic that she can, if she wishes to, file a lawsuit as a private citizen. The fallout of this ruling can already be felt – it is a strong encouragement for all extremists. In the case against the murderers of Bris Taton that is currently in the courts (Taton, a Toulouse football team fan who was first beaten and then thrown onto concrete pavement from several meters height before a match between the French team and Partizan within the European League, and who died twelve days later in a Belgrade hospital from the wounds he sustained) one defendant has confessed that they prepared to confront the fans of the French team, but he declined to name his accomplices in court. “I don’t want to end my life in a dumpster”, he said.
 Fear has silently crept into everyday life.
 A twelve year old boy, Rastko Pocesta, wrote in his blog that Serbia must recognize Kosovo’s independence and that it must join NATO. Shortly afterward he received death threats from extreme right groups who also posted his address online. Since then the boy has, as he states, kept the blinds down in his room, kept his door locked and worries because the kids in his school have started to bully him.
 The courts are not always so lenient. Right after judicial reform was finished a man who punched Velimir Ilic in the face (president of New Serbia Party) in Belgrade on February 5th was sentenced to two years in prison. It didn’t take the courts more than three months to hand down that draconian sentence. At the same time another sentence was being handed down in a Novi Sad court. The accused was a young man who had also on previous occasions been caught driving his father’s luxury car under the influence and made several misdemeanors – but the case got lost in a drawer of some judge. This time however trial could not be avoided because while he was driving 160 kilometers per hour through the streets of Novi Sad he ran down and killed two pedestrians. The reformed court sentenced him to five years in prison, even though he can remain free until the final verdict is handed down. The father of this young man is an executive director of a reputable bank. Two years for one punch, five years for the death of two people – it is painfully obvious how disproportionate this is.