April 9, 2000

Ph.D. Vesna Pesic, Director of the Centre for Antiwar Action

Vesna Pesic

Parties' Political Programs Are Irrelevant at the Moment

Ph.D. Vesna Pesic is a senior scientific associate of the Institute of Philosophy and Social Theory. She engaged in the struggle for democracy, peace and human rights in the early '70s as the member of the intellectuals' movement for the defence and protection of human rights and freedoms better known in the public as "Belgrade opposition". In 1982 she was arrested and imprisoned because of her organising the protests over the arrest of a group of Belgrade University students. She was also the founding member of the Yugoslav Helsinki Committee (1985), the Association for the Yugoslav Democratic Initiative (1989) and the Yugoslav European Movement (1991). The same year she founded the Centre for Antiwar Action, the first pacifist organisation in Serbia, whose director she has remained to date. From 1992 till 1998 she was the president of the Civil Alliance of Serbia (GSS), and from 1993 until 1997 Vesna Pesic was one of the leaders and a representative of the coalition "Zajedno" ("Together"). She is also one of the founding members of the Alliance for Change and the first coordinator of this opposition bloc. Vesna Pesic was awarded numerous prizes for her contribution to the development of democracy and civil society, among which the most important were the Award for Democracy of the U.S. National Foundation for Democracy, based in Washington D.C. (1993), Award "W. Averell Harriman" of the U.S. National Institute for Democracy from Washington D.C. (1997), the prize "Andrei Sakharov" awarded by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee and the Sakharov Foundation for Freedom (1997). In 1997 she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

FS: Do you see any parallels between the struggle of the people originating from 1968 student rebellions and so-called Belgrade opposition at the time, a movement you also belonged to, on one side and present-day students and intellectuals on the other, in their fight for democracy and human rights?

I am in favour of democracy and human rights today just like before. Over the course of all these years the struggle to democratise Serbia has been unsuccessful so far. More recent generations also failed in their attempts to build a democratic society as they were embracing a nationalist agenda which was for the most part contrary to the struggle for human rights and democracy. Although there was a favourable climate in the early '90s for fighting a more open and promising battle for democracy than it had been possible earlier, many people preferred to see their state expanding to other territories, they were offering excuses and justifications for wars and only later on, when these projects failed they were claiming that Serbia should be democratised, that it should become a civilised country.

FS: In an earlier interview you said that there was more democracy within party structures of the former League of Communists than in some of the political parties today. Could you further elaborate on this statement?

I can't recall I've said something like that. The point is that even today we've got actually a party state. One could easily defend the claim that there were more open debates within the former League of Communists than in the ruling political parties today - Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS), Yugoslav United Left (JUL) or Serbian Radical Party (SRS). Also some opposition political parties are governing their party structures by means of directives sent by fax to local party branches. However, I've already said that it's a consequence of the simple fact that we've taken a wrong path - instead of a democratic one new forms of totalitarianism have been created in which, just like in some farce, there are various political parties as well. The political parties can't achieve much in a situation in which the state hasn't been separated from one specific political party. That's why we're always speaking of the regime in this country. How on earth could political parties be engaged in democratic processes when the parliament, as a state representative body with supreme legislative powers, could be summoned at any time and change electoral laws so that they suit the Socialist Party of Serbia, which is actually a mafia-like organisation. This is what's happening right now, and it isn't the first time that we're witnessing to something like this.

FS: Ever since you were engaged in politics for the first time you have pledged your support for tolerance, both in Civil Alliance of Serbia (GSS), Centre for Antiwar Action (CAA) and the coalition "Zajedno" ("Together") in which you acted as a link between the leaders of the Democratic Party (DS) and the Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO). How difficult was it to keep such approach until the coalition collapsed?

Well, it was indeed difficult. People aren't inclined to act in a constructive manner and they refuse to keep in mind at the same time what would be the best and the most beneficial for the general public. They care more about their own interests. I gave my best, but to no avail - nothing could be done to preserve the unity of the coalition Zajedno. I talked about so many times. I wasn't fighting for some tolerance but for a decent and fair behaviour. There's no point in being tolerant with selfish and corrupted people? When it comes to such people, I haven't ever been tolerant. Even if at issue were other nations, I never advocated tolerance but something much more important - the rights of the citizens.

FS: The Serbian Renewal Movement's claim that we would live now in a democratic Serbia if there were no boycott on the part of the Democratic Party, Democratic Party of Serbia and the Civil Alliance of Serbia. Would you subscribe now to such a view?

Had all those political parties taken part in the 1997 elections nothing would have actually changed. Each party would have achieved something, but they couldn't have won the majority on their own. Also there was no a post-election agreement either. I'd rather say that if the Serbian Renewal Movement hadn't broken up the coalition "Zajedno" by openly flirting with the regime, we could've beeen indeed now living in a better Serbia. However, the Serbian Renewal Movement betrayed the coalition partners which became obvious after the elections when this party took steps to enter the government, but the Radicals had more success in their negotiations with the regime.

FS: Has the opposition bloc finally managed to determine its own potential after all these years and prepare the ground for a democratic cooperation among the parties?

There are no proper conditions in Serbia for normal elections and adequate activities of the political parties. Therefore, it's only natural that the parties aren't capable of assuming the task which, given its true nature, is beyond the scope of usual "political parties' activities". We need a people's liberation movement, and the political parties could only join in. The parties can't effect changes on their own, we need something bigger and stronger. However, bearing in mind this fact they could try to do their best - to form a unified opposition bloc thus becoming dangerous for the regime and efficient in a common goal which ultimately means overthrowing the Serbian regime. The problem is that they aren't doing their best, they're not making maximum efforts to achieve this, but are hopelessly stuck at the minimum of their abilities.

FS: How to unite the parties with so many differences in their political platforms and ideology? Even the Alliance for Change (SZP) is made up of liberal, monarchist, left and right centre parties…

Well, I've already said that these parties could gather around the same cause if they finally realise that their political programs are irrelevant at the moment. Their gathering together would mean that all social forces should unite within a movement whose sole objective would be to get rid of this dictatorship, isolation and mafia. It really doesn't matter whether someone's in favour of monarchy, while others are for the republic. Here in this country, left and right in political terms don't mean much. The Yugoslav United Left (JUL) is a "leftist" party, even though in practice they're actually rightists since its members are mobsters, capitalists and nationalists. It isn't by accident that people speak of a unified opposition bloc as the only possible way to help Serbia. The problem lies in the fact that the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) still remains the strongest political party which is why there can be no success without previously establishing a unified opposition bloc.

FS: Given that you're one of the founders and members of the Political Team 2000 what would be your comment on actions undertaken so far by the "unified" opposition bloc? What has to be done right now?

Political Team 2000 experts believe that the number of political parties should be reduced. It makes no sense that political parties without any influence on the electorate play important roles on the political scene. Hence, instead of twenty "relevant" political parties, which is highly inappropriate given the current circumstances in this country, we should reduce this figure to eight, and then four of them so that these four political parties could make an agreement and compile joint election lists. After reaching the agreement the candidates proposed by smaller parties should also be placed on the election lists if they stand a good chance of winning in some municipalities. Local elections lists should be compiled by existing municipal branches of political parties enjoying support of the local electoral body without any interference by their headquarters based Belgrade. For the federal elections there could be even two or three election lists which should include a clear-cut post-election agreement on forming a coalition government, something similar to the Croatian model. For the time being it seems that political parties have failed to take a rational course of action which would bring about our victory in the elections. We're making a snail-paced progress, while at the same time some political parties excessively fear for life of their leaders. And there are so many things to be done. We should ensure that the election process be supervised, election lists should be compiled by the opposition bloc… The Political Team 2000 has been established to help the political parties by providing them with the results of the opinion polls, by indicating which combinations, organising methods and techniques as well as which political views would prove to be the most efficient in the current situation. Whether these activities could really make a difference we can't say for certain. Nevertheless, strategic planning should be developed as an individual discipline which has been completely neglected so far.

FS: The authorities with their superior organisational capabilities have competed with the opposition which in turn has been immature in that respect. Could we expect an electoral duel on equal terms now?

The opposition bloc might prove to be the equal of its rival, if it indeed wants to. This is something the Political Team 2000 has emphasised so many times in all our bulletins. If this joint election list were to be compiled then the opposition would certainly win the elections. We would have not only an electoral duel on equal terms but the regime would have to pack its bags and leave.

FS: You are the first and the only one who's engaged in affirmation of the new policies of political parties in Serbia. Opinion polls indicate that parties enjoy better ratings than their leaders. Is this apparent abstinence of the citizens from participating in social life a direct consequence of their being weary of the opposition leaders who have made nothing but failures over the past decade?

It's difficult to choose new leaders because there are no too many people of integrity who are willing to invest their capabilities, their time and comfort so that Serbia might have a decent future. A new promising generation has emerged, but it still hasn't succeeded in imposing themselves as leaders. I think that things will change quite soon. A new civil movement looms large on the horizon and it'll give birth to a new political leadership. Until that moment, there's no need to lament because there's nothing worthwhile on the political scene or because our old leaders have bored us to death. People should behave rationally instead of dreaming about new leaders who are nowhere to be found.

FS: By the end of the last year the Civil Alliance of Serbia (GSS) launched a somewhat more aggressive campaign to promote Goran Svilanovic. Don't you think that this might be another attempt to impose a leadership concept in this political party?

Our public wasn't well acquainted with Goran Svilanovic so that this campaign was supposed to present him to the people. It's an unusual way to gain political prominence on the public scene which is why it may appear as an attempt to impose a leadership concept. Political parties cannot function without leaders who are supposed to promote their political concepts. It's understandable that Goran wanted to become known among the common people after his becoming the president of the Civil Alliance of Serbia (GSS). He's got to prove whether he'll succeed in becoming a true leader, a genuine promoter his party's political ideas. It's dangerous when political parties are being reduced to leaders who cannot be controlled by anybody anymore. I don't believe that something like this could happen to the Civil Alliance of Serbia. Also I don't believe that Goran harbours such ambitions either.

FS: Before the last Montenegrin elections you said that if Milo Djukanovic were to win the majority then Montenegro would become another stronghold of democracy in FR Yugoslavia. Have your expectations come true?

They have indeed, it's a democratic stronghold now. If it weren't so then the regime wouldn't be contriving schemes and playing dangerous games, even the military ones, in Montenegro. It doesn't necessarily mean that Montenegro will be able to support the democratisation process in Serbia, but it's important that Milosevic fails in his attempts to overthrow legally elected Montenegrin leadership which defines itself in reformist and democratic terms. The Serbian opposition should actually help Montenegro at present, above all, by openly and explicitly criticising the regime which has taken steps to prepare a military coup while for the time being it endeavours to exhaust Montenegro both politically and economically through blockades and increasing pressure.

FS: What do you think which strategy will Slobodan Milosevic resort to in the following period?

He'll try to completely restore the previous regime, close down all the media and attempt to organise elections in such a way so that the opposition wouldn't stand a chance of winning them. He's a genuine Stalinist hard-liner if we take into account the methods he uses to rule this country, because he has no ideology whatsoever which is why the abolishment of all democratic freedoms wouldn't bother him much. Another scenario could be even more drastic, if the opposition parties were to gather together and become a real threat to the regime. Then he might be tempted to trigger off some new conflicts or foment old ones which could serve as a pretext for introduction of the state of emergency. What his plans might be doesn't depend only on himself alone, but other players on the political scene as well. If his political opponents were more efficient in their activities then he'd have to change his plans. It would be ideal if the opposition bloc could become so powerful that it would force the Yugoslav president to adopt an emergency plan and seek a refuge or an asylum.

FS: In a way you have summarised your political work in your most recent book. To what extent are you satisfied with what you have achieved so far?

I personally haven't withdrawn from politics. I'm still active on the political scene though I'm not the president of the party. I've recently attended a meeting in Munich, Germany, where I've spoken of the possibilities to establish peace in the Balkans. I've founded the Political Team 2000 and Solidarity Fund; I give interviews to media outlets, take part in international conferences. I'm taking advantage of my personal political experience and I'm also glad that I'm not one of those characters appearing on Belgrade TV Studio B every night with their press releases and political statements.

Bojan Bozic

We'll review every response, and publish the best ones.