I want to talk about the gambler mentioned in the title – and about windows.

We are all familiar, I am sure, with the concept of a “window,” say, for adopting a constitution, then for constitutional changes, then a window for elections or a transitional government… basically for anything significant that concerns the entire society. The idea is simple: when the situation is fragile, and society is in turmoil, if we observe this as a more or less chaotic sequence of more or less connected events, within that continuum certain circumstances (seemingly randomly, beyond the will of the actors) align in favor of a possible solution – a window of opportunity – and that alignment lasts for some time, after which it changes, and the chance for that solution goes away.

It seems almost harmless when presented this way, but it is in fact very dramatic, because opportunities to save society have been disappearing one after another, irretrievably. If we look at the events of November 1, 2024 in this way, then the past year can be seen as a series of missed chances to resolve the crisis peacefully. And that’s not all – with every missed opportunity, fewer options remain. The impression is that now only tragic solutions are left before us.

When the previous insignificant prime minister resigned, that was a chance for a transitional government. Smart people would have seen the direction of events even before that and suggested roundtables between the government, the opposition, and the rebellious citizens of Serbia. Those are no longer options. Then, in the period after March 15, early elections became a plausible solution. In the past few days, it seems that even this chance has slipped away. All those windows the government has slammed shut, locked, and bricked over.

To say that, looking through the last window, we can only see bloodshed almost feels like a euphemism. It should be put much more dramatically because it is tragic – but to look for stylistic devices to emphasize our fall into the abyss of death is unnecessary. Everything is already clear to all of us. The reasoning is as follows: after the clashes on the brink of bloodshed – in fact, blood has already been shed, though only on the side of Serbia’s rebellious citizens, which the regime does not count, but we must – it is clear that neither side is willing to accept election results that do not favor them.

Elections are not just about counting votes, they are about trust. Whoever loses must trust the winner – that’s one thing – but even before that, they must believe that they had a fair chance to win. The regime will lie that it has won, and if it cannot lie, it will claim that the elections were rigged (yes, from them we can expect absolutely anything, both in words and in deeds). On the other hand, the rebellious citizens of Serbia have countless reasons never to accept a result declared by the regime.

Thus, elections cease to be an option for a peaceful resolution of the crisis and practically boil down to setting a date for the final showdown – a gunslinger’s duel, like in a western. Which would be a tragedy. We must hope, believe, pray, that the window is still open. Even though it seems it is not, and that what remains before us is only the view of a battlefield (which is the entire country) and rivers of blood. A state of emergency, just like elections under these conditions, comes down to the same image. There is no reason why Serbia’s rebellious citizens would accept life under a state of emergency imposed by this regime. And they will not accept it.

Let’s take a deep breath and think: can this scenario be avoided? What is left for us to attempt in order to save lives and resolve the crisis? It is always good to start from the beginning. However difficult and dramatic, the situation in Serbia is no precedent. Elsewhere too, somewhat longer-lasting violent regimes have fallen after uprisings and turmoil. Everything we listed as windows that have opened and closed for us were actually paths for resolving similar crises.

What makes Serbia different from those other countries (Spain, South American and African countries, and the countries of the former socialist bloc)? In those countries, the regime had a clear awareness that its end had come, and so it entered negotiations with the aim of ensuring for itself as comfortable a descent from power as possible. We are not dealing with such rational people (this is not praise for dictators, but has more to do with their vile, calculating nature).

We are obviously dealing with a mad gambler who, after every loss, once again believes that the next hand will be his lucky one. That is why he does not step down. But there are no more lucky hands for him. That is our problem. We cannot cure the gambler, we cannot make him rational, but we can and should behave as if he were rational and try to bargain with him, as long as there is still room for it. Someone – students, the opposition, Serbia’s rebellious citizens – should ask Vučić: what do you want in return if you agree to step down peacefully?

That offer should always remain open for him. Yes, it would be right for him to answer for his misdeeds. But there is also a higher moral reasoning – lives must be saved (all lives, for that matter, on both sides) – and that is possible only through agreement, bargaining, compromise. Since he is not rational, force must also be demonstrated, just as he demonstrates it night after night. Serbia’s rebellious citizens and students are doing that, as well, showing that intimidation – which Vučić sees as one of his exits (and perhaps even the only exit in his frenzied mind) – is not a real option.

This game is played on a tightrope, on the edge of bloodshed. Vučić most likely sees it as a zero-sum game: either me or them. Such is the chaotic swarm of thoughts in his head. That is unbearable, both for him and for us. We must make the game bearable, we must preserve reason and reasonable options and keep them open. If the windows have slammed shut, let us reopen them, from the start, one by one. For the sake of sanity and of life, if for nothing else. Because the regime may have closed them, but it is up to us to open them again – for our own good (which is obvious), but also for theirs (which the losing gambler stubbornly refuses to see, understand, or accept).

Translated by Marijana Simic

Peščanik.net, 21.08.2025.


PODRŽITE PEŠČANIK
The following two tabs change content below.

Dejan Ilić

Dejan Ilić (1965) je bio urednik izdavačke kuće Fabrika knjiga i časopisa Reč. Diplomirao je na Filološkom fakultetu Univerziteta u Beogradu, magistrirao na Programu za studije roda i kulture na Centralnoevropskom univerzitetu u Budimpešti i doktorirao na istom univerzitetu na Odseku za rodne studije. U Fabrici knjiga objavio je zbirke eseja Osam i po ogleda iz razumevanja (2008), Tranziciona pravda i tumačenje književnosti: srpski primer (2011), Škola za „petparačke“ priče. Predlozi za drugačiji kurikulum (2016), Dva lica patriotizma (2016), Fantastična škola. Novi prilozi za drugačiji kurikulum: sf, horror, fantastika (2020). Objavio je i knjige Srbija u kontinuitetu (Peščanik, 2020) i Odrastanje u Srbiji. Izlazak iz komfora nezrelosti (XX vek, 2025). Sarajevski Centar za obrazovne inicijative 2025. ponovo je objavio Školu za „petparačke“ priče i Fantastičnu školu, a s njima i njegovu novu, treću knjigu u istom nizu Škola za bogove i superjunake. Još priloga za drugačiji kurikulum. Od 2004. je saradnik Peščanika gde piše redovne komentare na tekuće (političke) događaje.

Latest posts by Dejan Ilić (see all)

Author: Dejan Ilić

Dejan Ilić (1965) je bio urednik izdavačke kuće Fabrika knjiga i časopisa Reč. Diplomirao je na Filološkom fakultetu Univerziteta u Beogradu, magistrirao na Programu za studije roda i kulture na Centralnoevropskom univerzitetu u Budimpešti i doktorirao na istom univerzitetu na Odseku za rodne studije. U Fabrici knjiga objavio je zbirke eseja Osam i po ogleda iz razumevanja (2008), Tranziciona pravda i tumačenje književnosti: srpski primer (2011), Škola za „petparačke“ priče. Predlozi za drugačiji kurikulum (2016), Dva lica patriotizma (2016), Fantastična škola. Novi prilozi za drugačiji kurikulum: sf, horror, fantastika (2020). Objavio je i knjige Srbija u kontinuitetu (Peščanik, 2020) i Odrastanje u Srbiji. Izlazak iz komfora nezrelosti (XX vek, 2025). Sarajevski Centar za obrazovne inicijative 2025. ponovo je objavio Školu za „petparačke“ priče i Fantastičnu školu, a s njima i njegovu novu, treću knjigu u istom nizu Škola za bogove i superjunake. Još priloga za drugačiji kurikulum. Od 2004. je saradnik Peščanika gde piše redovne komentare na tekuće (političke) događaje.