Western Balkans

U nedelju, 16. Januara, više od šest miliona glasača u Srbiji će dobiti mogućnost da se na referendumu izjasni o Predlogu Akta o promeni Ustava Srbije, koji je u Skupštini izglasan 30. novembra 2020. i koji po objašnjenju Vlade treba da obezbedi promene pravnog sistema Republike Srbije, između ostalog, u smeru obezbeđenja veće nezavisnosti procesa izbora sudija i tužilaca, kao i smanjenja uticaja politike na sudski sistem. Sve u svemu, sadržina ovih promena je – pre svega za prosečno obrazovanog građanina, prilično teško razumljiva. Pavle Grbović, predsednik Pokreta slobodnih građana od septembra 2020. U ovoj ulozi, kao jedan od najmlađih političkih lidera u zemlji, uspešno je, sa svojim saradnicima usmerio politiku svoje stranke na dosledno liberalne pozicije. Stranci sad predstoje parlamentarni, predsednički i beogradski izbori, verovatno tokom aprila. Gospodin Grbović se odazvao našem pozivu i odgovorio na četiri pitanja u vezi predstojećeg referenduma: 1. Idu li, na referendumu predložena zakonska rešenja više u pravom smeru - poboljšanja pravnog sistema, ili više u pogrešnom, i zašto? Predloženi akt ne predstavlja nikakvu promenu već kozmetičko prepakivanje a suštinsko konzerviranje trenutnog stanja. Politički uticaj na pravosuđe će i dalje imati presudnu ulogu, samo što će umesto parlamenta to činiti petočlana komisija koja će birati tzv "istaknute pravnike" bez čijeg glasa neće biti moguće da se izabere bilo koji sudija. Mišljenja sam da je potrebno u potpunosti isključiti uticaj zakonodavne ili izvršne vlasti na sudsku što se ovim aktom ne osigurava. Da ne govorimo o tome da su Srbiji potrebne sveobuhvatne promene Ustava, ne samo u delu koji se tiče pravosuđa već i u oblasti ljudskih prava i nadležnosti lokalne samouprave. 2. koji su, po vama uopšte razlozi vlasti da raspiše ovaj referendum samo dva i po meseca pred izbore? Raspisivanjem referenduma vlast je pokušala da raspoluti opoziciju, što im nije do kraja uspelo, i da kroz rezultat glasanja pokaže kako je njihova vlast čvrsta i neprikosnovena i tako demotiviše opozicione birače pred izbore u aprilu. Takođe su želeli da zloupotrebe defekt aktuelnog saziva Skupštine i da bez protivljenja usvoje predlog koji će doslovno podvaliti građanima imajući u vidu da o ovom pitanju nije vođena gotovo nikakva javna rasprava i da građani nisu upoznati ni sa sadržinom niti sa posledicama usvajanja akta. 3. Mozete li pokušati da makar grubo procenite izlaznost i od kojih okolnosti ona zavisi? Izlaznost će u svakom slučaju biti niska, svakako niža u odnosu na poslednje izbore. S obzirom da veći deo opozicije nema svoje predstavnike u RIK-u biće nemoguće sprovesti efikasnu kontrolu na biračkim mestima što otvara prostor za zloupotrebe. Uprkos tome bio bih veoma iznenađen ako izlaznost bude veća od 40%. 4. Zalaželite li se za neizlazak na referendum, za izlazak i glasanje DA, ili za glasanje NE? Zalažemo se za izlazak i glasanje protiv. Argumenti u prilog bojkota referenduma su legitimni, ali imajući u vidu da se za punovažnost odluke ne zahteva da na referendum izađe više od 50% birača, samim činom bojkota se neće puno postići. ______________ On January 16, more than 6 million voters in Serbia will get a chance to say a final word on the law, passed by the Parliament on November 30, which, by the explanation of the Government should provide changes to the Serbian judiciary system, in order to provide more independent election of judges, as also to exclude the influence of the politics on the judiciary system. All in all, this law includes seven changes, which substance is – at least for the ordinary educated citizen, pretty hard to understand. Pavle Grbovic is the Chairman of the Movement (PSG) of free Citizens since September 2020. In this role, and as one of the youngest political leaders in the country, he successfully managed to bring his party on the consistent liberal course. Now his is looking forward to the general elections on April 3. Here are his thoughts on next weeks referendum : 1. Do the legal act proposals in the referendum bring about an amelioration or deterioration of the Serbian judicial system, and why? The proposed act does not present a fundamental, but instead a superficial cosmetic change, intended to preserve the current status quo. The political influence will still have a decisive role and it will be exerted by the five-member commission (instead of the parliament directly, as it is currently the case), which will elect so-called ‘distinguished jurists’, without whose votes it would be impossible to elect any judge. It is my opinion that the influence of the legislature or executive branch on the judiciary ought to be prevented, which this Act does not bring about. Not to mention that Serbia is in need of all-encompassing constitutional reform, not only in the judicial but also in human rights and local (self) government spheres. 2. In your opinion, what are the reasons that the government scheduled this referendum only 2.5 months before the elections? By scheduling the referendum, the government tried to divide the opposition (which was not wholly successful) and to show that their power remains stable and unchallenged, thus demotivating opposition voters right before the elections in April. They also wanted to abuse the current defective Assembly structure and adopt a bill (without opposition) which would represent mere cheating of the citizens, especially bearing in mind that there was no prior public discussion of this issue and that the citizens were neither acquainted with its contents nor with the consequences of its adoption. 3. Would you be willing to give a rough estimate of the turnout and on what circumstances this will depend? The turnout will, in any case, be low, certainly lower than in the last elections. Bearing in mind that most of the opposition does not have their representatives in the Election Commission, effective control of ballots will be impossible, which opens the way to electoral abuse. Despite this, I would be very surprised if the turnout goes above 40%. 4. Do you advocate voting at the referendum (for or against the proposed bill) or boycotting it? We advocate going to the ballots and voting against it. The arguments in favor of referendum boycott are legitimate, however, taking into account that the validity of the outcome does not require a voter turnout higher than 50%, boycotting the referendum, in itself, will not achieve much.

Povijest političkih ideja Ep.15 U ovoj seriji videa Prof Tarik Haverić nam predstavlja istoriju političkih ideja od najranijih vremena do danas. Petnaesti video u seriji govori o Ksenofontu. In this series of short videos Prof Tarik Haverić presents the history of political ideas from earliest times until today. Fifteenth clip in the series talks about Xenophon.

Povijest političkih ideja Ep.14 U ovoj seriji videa Prof Tarik Haverić nam predstavlja istoriju političkih ideja od najranijih vremena do danas. Četrnaesti video u seriji govori o Izokratu i politici kao retorici. In this series of short videos Prof Tarik Haverić presents the history of political ideas from earliest times until today. Fourteenth clip in the series talks about Isocrates and Politics as Rhetoric.