At 17h almost 42 percent of the voters turned up at the polls according to Cesid. Funny thing is, the national television cut the Cesid representative conference in the middle of the sentence as he was saying that there are great chances the referendum might fail. Almost all the TV, radio stations are calling for people to go to the polls and vote ‘yes’, excluding B92 and some other objective reporters, Belgrade 2.0 included 
Until we get new results, please read this great analisys by Cvijus, who also let’s you decide for yourself whether it’s ok to vote or not. We’ll be following the results in the comments of this post, so stay tuned and check back often. If you want to grab our feed in order not to miss some important updates, now is the time. Enjoy Cvijus’ pre-ref analisys:
It is hard for me express a complete opinion about the draft of the new Constitution. As I read it through, I cannot generalize whether it is completely good or bad. I do find some parts of it very progressive and I support them, however, it lacks in some reforms that would make complete change in the state but also, there are parts of it that I don’t like.
The preamble, concerning Kosovo-Metohija I find it senseless since it is meant only to emphasize the Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo-Metohija as a product of political trading, or compromise, with right-wing factors. But it also shows a vague readiness to prepare the political climate for the eventual secession of Kosovo-Metohija. I think that, even if we consider this province as an integral part of Serbia, with a certain degree of autonomy, it should be in the main body of the Constitution, as it is actually, without any preamble as it has only a declarative and political function. What however otherwise would be a problem is what should happen if Kosovo-Metohija separates? Would an amendment be sufficient, or should the Serbian public live up to see another constitutional change?
The article concerning that Serbia is defined as the state of the Serbian nations and all of its citizens, deserves more attention of several parties than its functionality. Not only such a definition is a normal thing in every European state, but this definition has a simple historical meaning since it was the Serbian nation that founded this state, thus it creates a historical continuity that is normal all over Europe. Many fear that it can cause discrimination towards the ethnic minorities in Serbia, however the demographic reality of Serbia is that, without Kosovo-Metohija, 82% of the population are Serbs. This however doesn’t have to mean that Serbia has to be a homogeneous state, but what I found the Constitution lacks is to give a legal framework of defining what would the Serbian citizenship be. I believe that citizenship should be defined in a way that every citizen, no matter what its origin is, has the same rights and duties as any other citizen. Seeing the German experience, any Turk with a German citizenship has the same rights and duties as any German, thus what I believe should be appropriate for ethnic minorities, of course with respect to the European standards, would be to also define the cultural autonomy of a certain ethnic minority, which I find that the Constitution does vaguely.
In the media you can see speakers saying that this Constitution sets an end to the Milosevic tradition. I think that, not only we have to set an end to the Milosevic tradition, but also to the Titoist. By this I mean the autonomy of Vojvodina. My first thought is why should Vojvodina have a privileged position concerning the rest of Serbia? For me, the autonomy of Vojvodina represents a remnant of the Titoist dictatorship where there was a mythology of exploiting each other. I’m not supporting a centralized system, but the regionalization of Serbia into administrative districts with a degree of economic and executive autonomy, with respect to the conditions of the relevant district, a practice similar to Italy and Spain.
What I find very progressive is the protection of the human rights which is a step forward in the modernization of Serbia. Many criticisms are appearing over who will be the bearer of the protection. However, the Constitution as a legal act of simply characterizing a state gives directives of what is to be done. Thus, detailed specifications need to be brought in the form of laws with respect to the Constitution.
The political background of the adoption of this Constitution is very controversial due to the lack of public discourse. However, in the spirit of Democracy, the parliamentarians that adopted this Constitution are the representatives of the people, voted from them, and it was up to them to make a discussion in the Parliament, not to mention that the working board that designed this Constitution was also elected by the people to these posts. Thus, it is up to the people to state their opinion through the Referendum. As LDP and others complain that there was a lack of public discourse, my skepticism about their stance arises from the questions of who would be participating in the discourse and how would they qualify for the participation, what character would it have and what legal bindings would this discourse have? Thus, would a public discourse and a referendum additionally be necessary in this process. Isn’t the misuse of the meaning of the discourse dangerous, for the sake of individual political promotion? As far as I have noticed, in any country in Europe, when adopting a Constitution, there was no such thing as a public discourse, only referendums. My thoughts are that what should be the public discourse concerning this Constitution should have been the media presenting objectively and without any prejudices the Constitution, for every individual to judge for himself, with no campaigning however from any political party, whether supporting the Constitution or not.
Many also complain for the political background of the Constitution, because it is being supported by the Radicals and the Socialist. As much as I hate the fact that they are present in the political scene of Serbia, the reality which we have chosen in 2000 is to be a democratic society, not an elitist. Exclusion is not an acceptable thing in democratic societies and thus, given the fact that many people did actually vote for this party, it would be a great flaw of the governing parties to ignore these two parties that have a large support among the people, for which I hope it will rapidly decrease in the next elections. But ignoring them presently would be the same mistake that Milosevic was doing during his tyranny, and it would bring another political instability. Therefore, having them in a position where they could be seen, they can also be controlled.
As a conclusion, I would say that the Constitution is not the best that could be gotten, however it is better than the current and surely better than nothing and I would support it with certain reserves. There are some things that could be added or changed, but I believe that through amendments it can be fixed.
—
Hopefully we will get Bganons view on the constitution ref soon, so as i was saying, grab the feed not to miss it.
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Update: RTS reports that almost 47 percent of the voters turned up until 18h. That means almost 6 percent in the last hour!
Update: Republic elections commision says that the voting stands will be open until there are voters nearby, whatever that means.
Follow East Ethnia also to get some results, updates and analisys.
Update:
RTS says that there was over 50 percent of the voters at 19h.
LDP says that there was over 44 percent of the voters at 19h.
Funny, RTS seems to be inaccessible at the moment. Let’s hope this is just because of high demand.
LDP reports they have a video recording of a person voting for several people, without any ID. I will try to get it, and than post it here.
CeSID reports that more than 50 percent of the voters turned up at the polls at 19h and their estimate is that the turnout will be around 54 percent when the polls are closed.
I’m confused … many news reports have said that ethnic Albanians in Kosovo-Metohija weren’t allowed to vote. Does that mean only illegal aliens (without Serbian citizenship) were barred from voting, or also Serbian citizens who are ethnically Albanian? Any clarification would be appreciated!
Lisa, from what I’ve read, Ethnic Albanians have been boycotting any form of political referendum/elections organized by the Serbs since the early ’90s. On the other hand, most of them aren’t registered so probably can’t vote. I’m sure Viktor can give you a better answer…
Lisa, what Sandra says is true about the Albanian boycott from long time ago. However, I’m not sure of the number of them that were registered in that period. This time though it appeared that NONE of them were registered – even those that were registered in the nineties were now removed from all the lists.
I like what Cvijus wrote. There have been many analyses on the constitution but honestly this is the best one i read because it`s not black and white and it`s pretty neutral. too bad that few have paid attention on it. I would just also add that what should I also add in the new constitution are a twochambered parliament and the inderect vote of the president of Serbia.
keep it on Cvijus
Hi Viktor,
You’re not quite correct to say that every country has a statement in its constitution comparable to “Serbia is the nation of the Serbian people”. My country (the UK) has no consitution, and if it did how could it be expressed? “The UK is the country of the English”? it’s not, it includes many ethnicities, and has done for its entire history, much like Serbia. Or “the UK is the country of the British” – well what does this mean? We would say anyone who has British citizenship is British. The British Council defines any artist who lives and works in the UK as a British, for example.
I don’t understand at all why the constitution needs this statement for historical continuity. And i do understand why it causes concern in the domain of ethnic minority rights: because it creates a possibility for a future situation when people seek to define “Serbian people” more carefully and the mechanism and justification for discrimination is written into the consitution.
Finally, how do you mean it was “the Serbian nation that founded this state”? Which state? Serbia? Serbia & Montenegro? Yugoslavia? What exact foundation are you talking about. The current state of Serbia was certainly “founded” (if it was founded at all, rather than simply remained when the rest had dropped away) with the participation of ethnic minorities. 18% is a sizeable proportion of ethnic minority citizens and their rights and presence need to be recognised; or perhaps Serbia needs to modernise its concept of citizenship and belonging to understand that anyone living in or born in Serbia is a participant in the Serbian state, and therefore Serbian.
Hey Toby,
Comparing the European Constitutionality with the one of UK is a very tricky thing and causes headaches to scientists analysing legal history. Fact is that the British Constitutionality lies on the Magna Carta (13th century) and the Common Law. Since the UK is the unity of the Crowns of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern ireland, hence UK is the country of English, Scots, Welsh and the Irish (even though the Irish Republic separated in 1922). Thus, even though the British “Constitution” is a set of laws and contracts created centuries ago, the constitutive nations are those that are included in the British Crown. However, in the postwar UK the concept of citizenship was defined in a way that everybody who lives, or possesses the citizenship is British, thus enjoying the same rights as a English, Scot, Welsh or Irish would. That’s what I think should also be in Serbia.
However, every Constitution in Continental Europe has a constitutive nation, such as Belgium which is the state of Walloon and Flames (should Arabs feel discriminated?), or Greece the state of “all Greeks” (should Albanians feel discriminated?). Why couldn’t Serbia be the state of Serbs? The new Constitution is however defined as the state of the Serbian people and all of its citizens. As I said, this is merely a formality, the concept of citizenship has to be defined throught laws in a way that every citizen is equal, thus avoiding negative OR positive discrimination. The fact that 18% is of other ethnicity is dealt with the creation of National Councils of National Minorities which have a great role in the Serbian politics. YOu should see Germany where more than 30% are non-Germans, however they enjoy all civil rights and their cultural autonomy.
The historical issue of this definition dates to 1804 with the renewal of the Serbian statehood. In 1918 Serbia entered voluntarily in the union that evolved into Yugoslavia, which means that the statehood still exists, within however a broader union ecxactly through the volountary entrance. In 1945 and the federalization of Yugoslavia, Serbia regained its limited statehood. The Communists also created this continuity with the Serbian statehood of 1804, which can be also seen through the communist coats of arms of Serbia. Thus, Serbian statehood doesn’t date from 2006, but from 1804.
Hi Viktor
well, we could have a long debate about this and this is probably not the place. You’re right that British consitutionality is very complicated, and you’re not quite correct to say “the constitutive nations are those that are included in the British Crown” because as you probably know the British Crown continues to be sovereign over a lot of places that are not in the UK, everything from the Isle of Man, Channel Islands off the coast of France to Australia and Canada.
Serbia can of course be “the state of the Serbs”, but this is 21st century, not the early 19th century. Why echo the nation-state concepts of constitutions drafted one hundred and fifty years ago? This is a thoroughly old way of thinking – does it really work for a highly mobile 21st century? Despite visa restrictions even Serbs are very mobile these days, and only kicking this nation state obsession is going to help the region, IMHO.
You mention magna carta which is interesting; only one of its statutes remains in law. It has actually been repealed and reinstated many times (there’s a good pretty accurate article in Wikipedia), perhaps showing the benefits of a flexible approach to constitutionality : )
Thanks for the postings on Serbian constitution history. V. interesting.
Toby