What Vojislav Seselj said about Zoran Djindjic’s assassin precisely defines the kind of national government that would be formed by SRS-DSS-NS-SPS-PUPS-JS[/fus]SRS – Srpska radikalna stranka (Serbian Radical Party) DSS – Demokratska stranka Srbije (Democratic Party of Serbia) NS – Nova Srbija (New Serbia) SPS – Socijalistička partija Srbije (Socialist Party of Serbia) PUPS – Partija ujedinjenih penzionera Srbije (Party of United Pensioners of Serbia) JS – Jedinstvena Srbija (United Serbia)[/fus] and nonpartisan figures. The statements made by some hopeful members of the national government are also of help. The candidate for the position of Minister of Police, which is what Minister of Internal Affairs is called in Serbia, explains that what is said does not concern the assassin himself as much as it concerns the Black Hand society, which would, one can assume, be restored by this Minister and his government, so that national causes can be secured by getting rid of traitors. Therefore the national government would restore the Special Operations Unit.

In that kind of setting, it is completely irrelevant whether the parties who would form the national government will decide against repealing The Association and Stabilization Agreement (SAA), because the national government’s objective is not to accomplish anything in terms of international relations, but to reverse the political development in the country. The national government should have repealed the SAA in order to break the ties between Serbia and the European Union and to narrow the political range for pro-European parties. Deciding against the repeal of the SAA becomes meaningless because the national government does not intend to continue integrating the country into the European Union.

The real objective is the revision of court decisions which cast a shadow on the national cause and restoring the system, and in doing that all rules are off when it comes to dealing with traitors. Who those traitors are we will be able to read in Seselj’s book, letter or memo, according to the statement made by the SRS candidate for the position of Minister of Police.

As far as we can tell, suggestions that the national government would not only cease to work on European integrations, but that it would work on the restoration of a police state, is not distressful to all those who are hoping to take part in forming that government. The voters present a problem to them. National government was not given support in the elections held on May 11th and the national parties won even less support in the second round of elections in Vojvodina. It is clear that we would get a similar result if elections in Serbia are to be held again. The voters raised the stakes for a national government. It is no longer adequate just to give up on a national foreign policy, but it would take the national parties to change completely overnight. With their present leadership and their independent associates, that is not possible.

These elections, and especially the results in Vojvodina, will also affect The Democratic Party which is also occasionally flirting with the idea of a national government, that is to say – a government which attends to “state and national interests.” That phrase should denote that continuity with the political goals from the last two decades is not being entirely abandoned. These elections have shown that the majority demands discontinuity. A pro-European government will have to make an effort not to disappoint that majority.

Finally, the results of the elections in Vojvodina should influence the plans for handling resources, the majority of which is found it that province. And that means that the privatization of the oil industry and business plans with Gazprom should be renegotiated. In general, Belgrade will have to talk to Vojvodina differently, which is another problem that could not be solved by a national government.

The voters had said their piece about the national government, “state and national interests,” and politically motivated business deals. Forming a national government after these elections would mean defying the will of voters and therefore make a very expensive business operation.

Translated by Ivica Pavlovic

Peščanik.net, 26.05.2008.

The following two tabs change content below.
Vladimir Gligorov (Beograd, 24. septembar 1945 – Beč, 27. oktobar 2022), ekonomista i politikolog. Magistrirao je 1973. u Beogradu, doktorirao 1977. na Kolumbiji u Njujorku. Radio je na Fakultetu političkih nauka i u Institutu ekonomskih nauka u Beogradu, a od 1994. u Bečkom institutu za međunarodne ekonomske studije (wiiw). Ekspert za pitanja tranzicije balkanskih ekonomija. Jedan od 13 osnivača Demokratske stranke 1989. Autor ekonomskog programa Liberalno-demokratske partije (LDP). Njegov otac je bio prvi predsednik Republike Makedonije, Kiro Gligorov. Bio je stalni saradnik Oksford analitike, pisao za Vol strit žurnal i imao redovne kolumne u više medija u jugoistočnoj Evropi. U poslednje dve decenije Vladimir Gligorov je na Peščaniku objavio 1.086 postova, od čega dve knjige ( Talog za koju je dobio nagradu „Desimir Tošić“ za najbolju publicističku knjigu 2010. i Zašto se zemlje raspadaju) i preko 600 tekstova pisanih za nas. Blizu 50 puta je učestvovao u našim radio i video emisijama. Bibliografija