I don’t know if you heard about the new constitution draft being accepted by Serbian assembly this night. But it’s ok, i’m not so sure that even the citizens of Serbia know about it yet.
It is unclear why the proposal was scribbled in such a hurry when they talked about it for the past couple of years apparently without working on it. Another sad thing is that they adopted the proposal without the public debate. How this is going to affect the citizens, who are yet to vote for or against the proposal on a referendum in four weeks, is the big question.
But the protest against such a way of doing things has started already tonight. Group of about 300 people gathered in fron of the Serbian parlament building around 20h to express their disagrement. Protest was again organized via SMS, mail and internet in the course of one day, probably by LDP, SDU, GSS, LSV and some NGOs. I must say ‘probably’ because there was no signature in the SMS i recieved.
The demostrants booed and shouted at the representatives in the building and greeted them with more boo-ing and shouting while they were leaving the building.
I will upload couple of more videos tomorrow when i have more time.
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }
This post has been removed by the author.
If only I were there, I would protest against the protestors… I mean, what kind of morons protest against something they haven’t even had a chance to read yet? LDP activists, of course!
Anything that Kostunica writes and Nikolic approves can’t be good. Btw i was there too protesting (and i’m not an activist of any party), so easy on the words.
LDP were protesting the constitution or raising their profile?
Elections supposedly in December and its October already. If I was a senior LDP planner I would be licking my lips at the opportunity of being one of the only political parties opposing the constitution.
(I wrote something concerning this over at the Serbia blog). It really improves their chances of reaching the 5 percent census needed to enter parliament.
I will actually read the constitution and then decide but I have to say I think its sneaky to put the Kosovo issue in the preamble as well. I get very pissed when I think somebody is trying to take me for a ride.
If its a predicted close result I will be forced to vote yes to the constitution (after all the last, last, last thing Serbia needs is yet more years wasted on constitutions, Hagues, any other s’s you can think of).
But if it looks like the constitution will receive a lot of backing I will vote purely on what it contains.
I don’t think they were raising their profile because i can’t imagine that anyone will vote against the constitution just because LDP says so. But although there are clearly some things in the constitution that i don’t like i am ready to vote against ‘a priori’ – like i said, it’s Kostunica and Nikolic for christ sake, and no matter how much optimism i have i simply can’t imagine a good preamble coming from them. And i think that bad constitution is as bad option as no constitution at all, so i’m ready to ‘waste some more years’ as you said.
No Viktor not vote against the constitution because LDP says so. Nego, vote for LDP because they are the main (only – except Canak?) political party to oppose the constitution. Thats a different thing.
And raising ones political profile with elections around the corner is a very sensible move. The funny thing is electorally, the constitution will benefit most political parties. But I think that the Radicals have miscalculated – it would have been better for them to carry on their obstructionsim. I think they will do worse and reformist parties will do better in this general election and the Presidential elections.
Of course you know that England for example doesnt even have a written constitution?
Really, I dont care who writes the constitution if its ok. If Kostunica and Nikolic changed their policies tomorrow and became progressive and DS became some kind of extreme right wing party I would not continue to have greater sympathy for DS either.
For me it is about the idea not about the author. The author factor can come into it of course but its not the deciding factor.
OK, i see the difference. But i still doubt that they can win some votes based on boycott only. I think Canak will go together with them on elections, if you look closely, he was there too, standing next to Jovanovic near the end of the video.
I too put the idea above the author in most cases, but i can’t this time. The constitution is too important and i don’t want Nikolic anywhere near it.
Besides, if we have the chance to learn from the mistakes and faults of various other constitutions of other countries, why hurry – why not make the best constitution possible? Public debate would at least help improve this preamble.
There is another pragmatic factor too – you would want a constitution without the input of the Radicals?
Well, until support for them drops to say 15 percent they will have to be consulted. How many years then would be wait for that and for a new constitution?
And another one – to use the equally emotive argument that we are living under Milosevic’s constitution, so in effect you are saying that its better living under his constitution than having Nikolic’s input.
But of course I do understand your sentiment. In the end I just want whats best for the country and believe that its best to put this issue out of the way.
I can’t stand the fact that they excluded latin alphabet as official.
Bg anon, as i said, i don’t see anything wrong with waiting until the time is right to make the constitution without the radicals (i would be barely willing to make compromise to have DSS involved but ok) and i simply can not be that pragmatic.
But of course i won’t talk anyone from voting for it, i just say that i won’t. Believe me i would want to put this stuff also out of the way but not like this.
Lara, latin alphabet is not official even in the current constitution, so you can’t really say that they excluded it, rather they just failed to include it (which is also not good).
I passed next to the parliament going to a party when the protest occured. Suprisingly, the protestors yeld “You killed Zoran” meaning dr. Zoran Djindjic. The next day on Utisak Nedelje a caller started talking about Djindjic when Olja Beckovic asked what does Zoran have to do with the Constitution. It seems to me that LDP tries to gather points based on the memory of Djindjic, considering that Ceda is his legitimate political succesor, disregarding the fact that maybe Djindjic would approve this constitution. For me it seems as a blasphemy using a dead man for popularity.
As far as I’m conserned, it interests me the content of the Constitution and not who signed it. Don’t forget the fact that not only did the DSS and SRS sign it, but also DS, G17+ etc. I find the Constution in order so if I would vote on the referendum I would vote for it.
There are differences in what Democratic Party (within DOS in 2003) wanted in Constitution and what it voted for now. One of them is that in that time they supported the statement that Serbia is the state of all its citzens, without naming Serbian nation specifically. They were heavily criticized by DSS because of that. Now they agreed with DSS and SRS version ‘Serbian people and…’
People, we have to stop deluding ourselves and dividing Serbian political parties into progressive and not progressive. I won’t even get into the fact that there was no public debate and that you still can’t find the whole thing to read it, but from the bits and pieces I’ve managed to find, what we have now is a deeply nationalistic constitution of a centralized state written by several far right parties (SRS, DSS…) and what has become a center right one – DS.
I don’t care who protested or what their agenda is, but one certainly shouldn’t vote for this monstrosity if for no other reason out of principle. This is not proper procedure and this is not democracy.
I understand the warped logic and pre-electoral appeal of defending Kosovo through the constitution, instead of waiting for a final decision to be made. But let’s be practical for a moment. What happens IF (note the irony) Kosovo becomes independent? If we accept it we are breaking our own laws. If we don’t, how will we defend our sovereignty? By force, again?
Btw, I read an analysis of the constitution in yesterday’s Danas. Did you know that joining the EU will now be unconstitutional? Does that leave any ambiguities on the nature of our political parties?
I must say that i actully found the time today to find the preamble on the net, print it out and finaly read it and here are my impressions and conclusions.
First of all, the constitution is not worse than the current one, but that was expected really and i already knew that.
Preamble of the new constitution has plenty of potential, as the majority of the articles are actually ok. But that’s not good enough.
I already said that i consider constitution to be VERY important question and my expectations are thus raised to a VERY high level, saying that i don’t expect there to be ANY mistakes, questionable articles, flaws, or ANY suspicious things whatsoever.
First sentence – why mention both Serbian people AND citizens who live in Serbia? It’s a stupid thing. Now, I don’t care if some other foreign country has it in its constitution, i would consider that article badly written in any country, so that’s no excuse. This makes an unneccessary division between Serbs and all others.
Secondly, cyrillic letter is the only official letter. There was a good chance to change this and make everyone’s life a tidbit easier because it’s BETTER to have the chance to use two letters than one. Cyrillics won’t dissapear if we introduce latin alphabet, rest assured, and there are no people who hate cyrillics, i myself like it very much, but don’t FORCE me to write it, it doesn’t matter how rarely i will be forced to do it in the future at all, i just dont like being limited to something when there’s no need, that’s all.
Why the need to mention Kosovo? Marko already covered this one in his comment. It’s like you’re introducing yourself to someone and saying, “Hi, my name is Viktor and this is MY hand, NOT yours” -Ummm… Ok, but who asked you and who cares?
Where is Vojvodina’s promised authonomy? They got the economical one, but i still say that’s not enough – when you have the chance to do something properly and FULLY, do it.
The article covering abortus (“Anyone can decide if child will be born”) can really be read on several ways, it’s too open and it leaves place for dangerous interpretations. Only mother should be allowed to decide, not “anyone”. Unless they were thinking ahead and allowing for option that males will be able to get pregnant in the future.
There are no animal rights mentioned anywhere. Why?
Marriage is allowed only between male and female. Why?
Discrimination of the people with different sexual preferences is not mentioned. Why?
These are the things i could understand looking from the non-expert side.
I not even mention the way the preamble was presented and who helped write it, i still think that’s mistake.
All in all, a great chance to make a really modern and good constitution, better than most european ones even, has been missed. So i will not vote for it, or i will vote negatively.
Well I still havent found time to read it but am interested in this debate here.
But at this point let us not forget that most constitutions do not have the type of things that we (progressives? Sorry Marko its a loose term) will complain are lacking in the draft Serbian constitution.
BTW Welcome back cvijus.
Viktor, some of those topics you mentioned can be implemented by the usual means – a parliamentary vote. For example in Croatia I believe legislation was recently passed legalising gay marriage (I’m not an expert on this so maybe I’m wrong). This is the usual method, the same is true for animal rights (which I am of course completely in favour of) etc. Extended autonomy for Vojvodina isnt something I consider a problem. I’m satisfied with the current situation although I understand why Vojvodnia politicians want more.
But my overall reading of this is that we are not being given a choice here between this constitution and a more progressive one. This is a choice of endorsing the proposal or rejecting it in the hopes that we can get a better one – say realistically in a decade or so. The only way we can hope for a more progressive constitution is that if support for the Radicals collapses before then, but I just dont see it.
Therefore by rejecting the constitution you are chosing to keep the current one – perhaps for another 10 or 20 years.
Thats ok but none of us should kid ourselves its just about rejecting this draft.
Its also about keeping the old one and hoping, praying (because prayer may well be necessary) that by some miracle support for SRS will vanish.
BTW guys please check out the B92 blog I’ve got a ‘where were you on October the 5th?’ thing going on.
Please feel free to put your story up – I’m really interested. And I think it will make interesting reading for everybody…
I agree that we will not be voting whether to accept This constitution or a more progressive one. But we are voting between two constitutions and if neither one is good, why is it necessary to spend a lot of money on the referendum and a media campaign? I mean, the state will function as good (or as poorly) as it always did with or without the constitution.
And all the issues Viktor mentioned are a concern.
Btw, I do not expect gay marriages in Serbia any time soon (as far as I know, they’re not legal in Croatia either, there is only a law according to which gay (unmarried) partners have the same rights and obligations as strait (unmarried) partners) But if the new constitution prohibits discrimination against people based on ethnicity, religion etc, why is sexual preference left out? I would like to believe it’s just an oversight, but I’m not convinced.
I’m sorry but I’m lost! I don’t understand… I really don’t.
It is strange and I find it hard to comprehend the task of voting and debating on a constitution. I mean, the U.S. Constitution seems to be a perfect example of developing a constitution from. Please don’t get offended by that statement! I’m just saying this as citizens of a State are concerned.
I’m going to have to ask my boy what he thinks of all this and get back with you.
I don’t know, please don’t take this as me being conceded or stuck-up but, a constitution is commonsense in my mind. But I’m an American and all I’ve known is my constitution. It’s just strange for me, for I really can’t understand.
I can understand at the level of me being a soldier in the revolutionary war, meaning I know what I would be willing to fight and die for.
I can’t understand a larger country getting upset and waging war against a portion wanting to break free and claim independence. I mean, if I were the leader of this larger nation, I’d recognize and support the breaking away of the nation only if because it would make me stronger if relations in my region were stabilized. What is to gain by going to war and making even more enemies?
I know some might not like me or think of me as an outsider but, my son is Serbian! He is living in your and his country and I only want the best for him. As a result of this I’m trying my best to understand. I’m finding it hard to though. I’m going to call him today and ask him about this and possibly generate a post on my blog about all this.
Again, I mean no disrespect…I love Serbia and her people! I’m just at a loss trying to understand.
Respectfully,
John
I can’t understand a larger country getting upset and waging war against a portion wanting to break free and claim independence.
The U.S. had a civil war when the southern states wanted to seceed. There is currently some movements about Hawaiians who want to be independent.
H A W A I ` I
Independent & Sovereign
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/
The U.S. hasn’t/doesn’t allow it for itself.
Anonymous,
I personally believe what you mention is different. Our Civil war was about something horrible – slavery. The Civil War needed fighting because it would have lead to more wars down the road just like in the Balkans. The Civil War was fought because of those selfishly wanting to oppress an entire group of people for their own monetary, pleasurable desires.
Hawaii is something totally different also. I’m aware of the Native Hawaiians wanting independence. That will not happen, though.
You left a part of your quote out that I think needs to be in there. I said I don’t understand this when the larger country could make them selves stronger by stabilizing the area. I know if I was a head of state and I had a republic that wanted to claim independence I would sit down and view the facts. I wouldn’t wage war simply for the principle of the matter. I’d make this breakaway nation a good friend. Having neighbors that are your friends is important. Who knows, sometime down the road this break away country may just want to come back if it meant their well being was at stake some how – perhaps their economy went down the drain and the people of this breakaway country got tired of living under less than desirable conditions and someone organized them and voted to return to their native country. Sure, it’s far fetched but I’ve seen stranger things in my time. Now if this breakaway nation wanted to break away so that they could oppress, torture and enslave others, well, I’d fight tooth and nail to stop them.
For a few seconds try to think about how the Balkans would be today if a certain president would have allowed and backed all the breakaway nations. The Balkans would be a strong economy with international cooperation. Serbia would be at the head of this pact because they would be seen as the leader who assisted her neighbors, which, in turn would have made Serbia very strong and popular. I think it’s important to take a page from history also here. Look at the history of these breakaways. They eventually breakaway anyway – except now your army has lost thousands of soldiers, your infrastructure has been severely crippled and your economy is in the dumps…and all because of pride or for the principle of the matter.
In Hawaii, if the U.S. wouldn’t have taken it, someone else would have. Pearl Harbor was actually the reason America wanted Hawaii, amongst other little things. Pre-WWII Japan or any other Axis powers that may have had Hawaii would have dramatically increased their chances of winning the war.
Something else, the Native Hawaiians are American citizens. They are not being oppressed, starving and are equal to any American. I can understand them wanting their land back but, in this day and age I personally believe what happened to Hawaii is for the best.
What I was trying to get across with this statement was that I don’t understand how a head of state cannot, wont or can’t calmly and civilly sit down and work out a plan that is the best plan for the betterment of his/her people. Why is it so hard to strategize and lead a nation as if looking 20 to 30 years down the road?
Take Russia for an example. How much money and how many lives have been lost by them wanting to keep all their breakaway nations? And you know what…they succeeded anyway. If I was the President of Russia I would have supported each and every breakaway nation making them good allies. I personally believe if Russia would have done this, she would be just as strong and stable as America is.
Anyway, I hope this all made sense. The best guide book to leading a Nation is right there free for the taking – it’s called history. Sadly, though, most who lead are selfish, greedy individuals with closed minds who only have their own interests at heart instead of the next 10 to 20 generations of civilians of his/her state to come.
John
Great post, John, thanks!
I hope to see some of your thoughs on all this on your blog too soon after you discuss it with your son.
John, I don’t understand some of your statements, in other words they don’t make sense to me.
On the one hand, by giving the example of Russia, you support separatism for the sake of stability and good regional relations, however, when it comes to Hawaii you explicitly reject any thought of Hawaii separating from the US, by saying that they enjoy all the rights as American citizens.
Applying your thesis, wouldn’t it be also logical for Hawaii to secede, since the theat of Japan has been neutralized, and to have the best relations with USA?
If you believe that this could happen to Russia, why shouldn’t it also apply to USA?
John I often wonder if things would have turned out differently in the Balkans had this or that factor existed / not existed.
Its a ‘game’ we will never know the answer to. I feel that sooner or later the republics of Croatia and Slovenia would have broken away no matter what. But of course it need not have been a bloody afair. All the states of the former Yugoslavia might by now be in the European Union. Living standards would be higher, ethnic tension much lower. Perhaps not milk and honey, it would be certainly much, much better for the peoples of former Yugoslavia.
I agree with you that the individual should make sacrifices for the sake of the group (my interpretation). But politicians tend to go for the easy option, for tried and tested methods of manipulation. And lets face it the peoples of the former Yugoslavia were not in a position to understand the real consequences of their choices.
I wrote something on this at my b92 blog but I now think that Milosevic was only a part of this story. Had Milosevic not been in power in Serbia (or existed) its likely some other Communist would have been in his place, or perhaps even worse Vojislav Seselj. Certainly Milosevic exploited this situation but in my opinion it was a number of factors that created it – one of the most important being the economic factor.
Anyway, I wont continue since we are supposed to be talking about topics related to the constitution!
“Now if this breakaway nation wanted to break away so that they could oppress, torture and enslave others, well, I’d fight tooth and nail to stop them.”
But that is exactly what happened in Croatia and Bosnia. The Serbs were attacked and there were plans to ethnically cleanse and oppress them from the start. And the breakaway and recognition was done hasty, without securing ethnic rights, and there was tensions and arms smuggling going on for months, if not years, before the outbreak.
Croatia’s constitution, with the rise of Tudjman, and before the war wrote Serbs out of the constitution. They were being fired, arrested, harassed – they didn’t have proper rights – and they still don’t in practice.
In Slovenia, the Yugoslav troops stationed there – because it was up until independence part of Yugoslavia – didn’t have time to withdraw before the Slovenian TO cut off electricity, water, and barracaded the barracks – the men were hungry and some got sick and they were trapped. Also, the border guards were attacked.
Slovenia also cut ethnic Serbs living there from their pensions, benefits, kept their money in its banks – and still today it has never given that money back.
In Kosovo, the Albanians are usurping Serb property, continually damaging cemeteries, churches, monuments, stealing the businesses and investments of Serbs, not even allowing freedom of movement, safety for farmers to work their land, etc.
The Balkans peoples – the Muslims and Croats especially – have not shown they can do anything but oppress minorities and steal. The Roma (gypsies) have been ethnically cleansed and killed as well.
“Independence” in the Balkans means being able to steal the property of certain minority ethnic groups, deprive them of jobs, fair courts, fair policing, and often even the right to live.
bg anon,
I have a theory and I’m interested whether you would agree on me, so I expect your answer:
It’s already sure and discussed to madnes that the local Yugoslav politicians have shown themselves as extremelly idiotic during the crisis of the ‘90s, however, I believe that it is also the West that played a game of double standards. Suppose that the West would support personalities such as Ante Markovic (especially), Milan Panic at the beginning of the ‘90s. They were modern politicians that concetrated on practical issues such as the economy. If their weren’t marginalized and if they received support (for what Lord David Owen was lobbying), Yugoslavia would probably still exist and it would already be EU member and have the strongest economy in the region. Don’t you think?
Anonymous, the rule of the blog is following: when making large claims, unreliable facts, conspiracy theories and dangerous generalisations, you must use at least your nickname just like the rest of us do when we talk jibberish. Otherwise i will be forced to delete your comments. Thanks.
Cvijus, good to see you in action again
Oh, come on! Is he wrong? Is one single thing he’s said wrong?
Too much generalisations and pretty one-sided look on things, Estavisti. But i’m cool with it, as long as he leaves at least his nick to back it up. I’m making a lot of generalisations too, all the time really, but i’m prepared to sign my name under all that.
Well said, Viktor, Anonymice are the plague of any blog with a decent argument going.
I agree with Viktor wanting to at least have a nick.
I’m not ignoring or backing out of the debate here…I’ve been busy.
I’ve got a reply but it will have to wait a few more days. Just thought I’d check in to say hi.
John
Yes Cvijus the West engaged in double standards (then again everybody does so that isnt entirely surprising) but the West provided an equal helping of bungling and innacurate assesments of how to remedy the situation too.
Many of those double standards are well documented as well so one can not say that the Yugoslav tragedy was fully home grown, The foreign factor must be looked at in order to have a complete understanding for the reasons for break – up.
But sadly, I’m not convinced that increased backing for Markovic and Panic would have stopped the crisis and eventual break – up. In the end it was about self interest. The Slovenes particularly believed that they could economically prosper outside of Yugoslavia. And lets face it to a degree they were right. Their decision to break away was the right one for them and a rational decision (even if mixed with a fair dose of irrational nationalism to ensure that this aim was achieved).
I understand what you mean – if Croatia and Slovenia had not received firm backing from Germany, Slovenia and then the US later one wonders if the Croatian and Slovenian leadership would have sought other solutions – ie remain in Yugoslavia and keep pushing for a confederation.
But if we look at it scientifically we can see that balkansiation is a modern trend and almost inevitable. The lesson we have seen is that once a majority in a given area decides they want to form a state – sooner or later they will call a referendum and be recognised by the UN. Its the so called principle of self-determination and one can blame those such as Woodrow Wilson for that.
This is why I believe that it is going to be very difficult to keep RS in Bosnia. Watch it closely, of course it will take years but the pattern may be the same – insist upon the territorial integrity of Bosnia (Yugoslavia), this goes on for some months or years. RS embarks upon lobbying tactics to persuade a nation state or two to drop their suppport for a unitary Bosnia. RS will insist that they have the right to excercise self determination just like any other people on the planet. It drags on and on Bosnia still doesnt function etc. You know the rest.
Now do I get your October the 5th story at my B92 blog in return!