Interview

"Rebellion without politics"

1.Mr. Nedeljkov, immediately prior to parliamentary elections you spoke about the issue of growing polarization in Serbian society, and said: „To start with, we need a dialogue. And after that, we need even more dialogue.“ Judging from subsequent developments, it does not seem likely that the desired dialogue will occur soon. Thousands of people, primarily young ones, took to the streets, while some of the protests turned violent. What are the main reasons for that?

The anger which poured into the streets had been a product of enduring, unaccountable behavior of the authorities, erosion of credibility of institutions and systematic repression of pluralism and dialogue. Due to Corona crisis, these chronic problems of the state and society have been exposed in an extreme way. Citizens trust the system ever less; it has been ever harder for them to believe that their interest was the priority for the authorities, even when public health were at stake, amid these circumstances of a dramatic epidemics.

Neither the government nor the experts offered clear and reliable answers to the findings of investigation journalists, according to whom the official data on the number of died and infected had been faked during the weeks prior to the elections. One of the key messages in the election campaign of the ruling party was that they had „defeated Corona“, not to mention the annex to it, that told it was achieved „in spite of the opposition which had cramped“ their style. Besides, the elections were held without a consistent respect of the public health requierments.

And, after all those, the state president announced re-introduction of the multiple days` curfew due to the outbreak of the already „defeated“ epidemics, justifying it by the irresponsibility of citizens. Who could then be surprised by a mass revolt?

And, who could turn a blind eye to what was going on? Yes, some could, such as Serbian citizens` public broadcasting service RTS, which broadcast a kung fu movie with Jackie Chan starring in it, while ignoring the unrest going on almost in their own yard. How could one imagine a better metaphore and more irony when speaking about the concern for the public interest in the present-day Serbia?

2. How would you assess the ongoing of the protest so far? Could you identify any basic demands thereof?

So far, the protest was marked by unacceptable behavior of the police. There were many instances of police brutality, which could not be simply annulled by stubborn denial by police officials, themselves refusing to admit as true what was documented in dozens of video shootings and photographs. Serious fault by the police was in that protesters made it to break into the National Assembly building on the first evening of the protest, due to lack of timely and adequate security measures. There were too many hostile civilians on the streets who were violent towards protesters, whereby police did not react. Thus the public is in a dilemma whether to perceive the former as hooligans, or as under-cover police officers! For all those reasons, CRTA demanded the resignation of the head of the police. We would see it as the initial step towards bringing back the citizens` trust into the institution of police, and into the institutions in general.

The protest is not articulated politically; there is an impression of having around many small, dispersed protest groups with different, even confronted ideological labels, for whom the rage and dissent are the only things in common. In my view, this „rebellion without politics“ grew out of a long-time, systematic expulsion of debate and political competition from their institutional framework – i.e. from media, as well as from sort of depoliticization of the public discourse, wherein only one single narrative is present, i.e. the one produced at the top of the government. The same pattern led to the situation wherein the future convocation of the Parliament would be consisted almost solely of the political parties of the government.

3. Are there any similarities, or difference, between these protests and the ones that lasted for more than a year under the slogan „One of five million“?

The fact that these protests erupted in the full cry of the epidemics made them substantially more dramatic than, and in some aspects incomparable with earlier protests. We could not attribute lack of awareness of the danger that virus posed to all those, mainly young people who took to the streets. We could not consider them as totally out of their mind, although their gathering in masses appeared as irrational and auto-destructive. It is shocking that they behave as if having nothing to lose - as if their own health and own life were worth so little.

4. In your view, what would constitute a reasonable reaction by the state bodies in this situation?

State has got the biggest responsibility. It has to show that it cares not least for a calmdown of the protests but also for a start of getting back the trust into institutions, which itself is neither a rapid nor a smooth process. State has to demonstrate that the purpose of the police is to protect the legal order and not to instill fear in citizens. Therefore it is essential that the head of the police resigns or is dismissed. Citizens have no more trust in the Crisis Staff for suppression of epidemics. Authorities should find out the truth about all the disputed issues as regards the Covid-19 records and inform the public on the names of those responsible for a would-be altering of the real data. Experts whose credibility was not questioned should be admitted into the Crisis Staff. Authorities must accept their own share of responsibility for the repeated spread of the contagion and for the adjacent blockade of the health care system. In the acting at the most powerful position in the country one should notice a frank dedication to dialogue and an end to the practices of demonization of anyone who held different opinions.

5. Finally, let us remember a question from the previous interview – what are the preconditions for launching a meaningful dialogue between the government and its critics from civil society?

A precondition has been to have the authorities realized how harmful it was for society as a whole as well as for themselves to have had no opposition, itself understood in the broadest possible sense of the word. They should understand how dangerous it were when different interests could not be advocated in the institutions, and that power concentaration might be a double-edged weapon. Authorities should create the preconditions and be open-minded enough to be able to hear and understand the attitude of those critical of their actions. In the same way, the opposition should understand that it could struggle against the regime only through institutional mechanisms. It is up to civil society to struggle to prove to citizens that change is possible, although it might be implemneted through tiny steps and small victories. As citizens, we aren`t totally powerless – it depends on our activity to what degree the political actors at the national or local level will take our interests into consideration.