SErbia Today Interview Vesna Pesic

TODAY

INDEPENDENT MAGAZINE ON SERBIAN CURRENT AFFAIRS

Serbia

Custom Search

SerbiaTODAY
BLOG

Amazon.com Widgets

Forecast Satellite

INTERVIEW OF THE WEEK
Dec. 01, 2009
Vesna Pešić
President of the Center for Peace
and Democracy Development

By: Miodrag Stosic

This year Serbia celebrates the 20th anniversary of the introduction of multiparty system and marks nine years since the democratic changes marking the post-Milosovic era. Vesna Pesic, president of the Center for Peace and Democracy Development and a member of the Liberal Democratic Party is one of the leaders of the process of democratization in Serbia over the last two decades.

After many years of experience in the political scene of Serbia during the nineties in the Civil Alliance of Serbia, Vesna Pesic has received many awards such as the Award for Democracy, in Washington D.C., the Andrei Sakharov by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, as well as nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ms. Pesic, you were a participant of the democratic processes in Serbia since its beginning. Can you compare the current political scene to the one when you began to be involved in politics?

Vesna Pesic: Today’s time is not comparable with the time when I started in politics. My first political engagement dates from early eighties when I became a signatory of the petition and a member of the circle of intellectuals who advocated for human rights and democratic freedoms. These activities were not allowed, so in 1982 I spent 25 days in jail because I participated in illegal demonstrations. However, my political engagement in the full sense, began in 1989 when I became a member of the Head of the Association for Yugoslav Democratic Initiative (UJDI). This political organization intended to prevent the reckless breakup of Yugoslavia after fall of the Berlin Wall and for democratic elections, not only for republics but for Yugoslav Parliament, as well.

Since the beginning of the wars in the 1990’s, my party and my civil engagement was focused on the critique of nationalism, the politics of creating a Great Serbia and the wars that followed. Political life in Serbia, which was then led by Slobodan Milosevic was almost a plebiscite supported in Serbia, especially in domain of national policy and Serbia had the characteristics of an authoritarian regime, which meant the I had to fight for democracy also. In this last struggle, I cooperated with other parties, primarily with the SPO and the Democratic Party, which culminated in the famous demonstration for the recognition of the election results on the local level in 1996, which was illegally annulled by Milosevic.

Today, Serbia has a "national and state policy, still moving on two tracks. One track is the policy of "Great Serbia" national policy and the other is State policy that applies to Serbia and its citizens. Today I believe that the most important thing is leading responsible state politics. To lead civic policy for me now means full concentration on the process of integration of Serbia into the EU, which is blocked by ‘so called’ national interests.

President Tadic has recently declared a national reconciliation. Do you think that Serbia is currently in an era of truly national consensus regarding the state of basic questions?

Vesna Pesic: Well, that wasn’t national reconciliation because there were no discussions, nor social dialogue about the past or about the vision and future of Serbia. Actually, it was all about the "party reconciliation," between the Socialist Party of Serbia and the Democratic Party, which made the ruling coalition. That cooperation between the old rivals needed to be somehow justified and because of that the whole event was bombastically called "national reconciliation".

But, the fact is that the growing of political consensus on the acceptance European integration has solidified. Not only a large number of Serbian citizens support the EU, but all the leading parties, except DSS of Vojislav Kostunica and the Serbian Radical Party (SRS), led by Seselj. This consensus is not completely determined because the party that was founded by the secession in the SRS – the Serbian Progressive Party - which is managed by Tomislav Nikolic, speak for integration with the EU, but I'm not sure that the party really cares about the EU and the West.

What do you think about the recently adopted Law on Information? Is it proper comparison with law with same name from 1998?

Vesna Pesic: Many times I spoke about the law, I even voted against it, even when my parliamentary group voted for that law. It paralyzes freedom of information and media, and because of that I criticized it. The 1998 law and this law both had the intention to stifle media freedom. But the difference is that this last law will not even be applied.

The former law was applied in a draconian way, and the media were being punished for anything and everything that did not suit the regime. I think this time that will not happen. Making repressive laws was not necessary. It was more an obsession of Mladjan Dinkic who was angered by one tabloid. Today, the media should be controlled in other ways, mostly through advertising, owners, and self-censorship.

In one of your articles, you concluded that the cause of corruption is always the state party. Is Serbia today still a one party state and how would you assess the ability of the authorities to fight against corruption in all spheres of our society?

Vesna Pesic: Serbia is increasingly becoming a one party state and that is the main source of corruption. A one party state is the opposite of the rule of law, and it is logical that in such a situation corruption flourishes. Serbia makes certain moves in terms of legislation to prevent corruption. We adopted a law to prevent conflicts of interest, the law on financing political parties, the law on free access to information, and the law on protection of competition.

The National Audit Institution was established and agencies to fight corruption also. But these institutions have just started working. The laws adopted were incomplete or they are not followed. This is the reason that the Serbia is index rates poorly with Transparency International, where it received a grade 3.4 - which is low and indicates significant corruption. Only when the score reached around the middle of the scale of 1 - 10 does that mean that corruption has become controlled. Serbia will have to address this serious problem which passionately upsets citizens, lose huge funds, and prevent the democratization of the state in the full sense.

What do you think about the new law on political parties? Does it leads us towards clearing the confused political scene or to creation of a field of domination by ‘big players’?

Vesna Pesic: I have strongly criticized that law. Confusion on the political scene of Serbia wasn’t created by the old law, which was more liberal. So, the new law won’t create order. The fact is that there were too many registered parties, over 500, but they were not active. Those who are now in coalitions, in power or in the opposition will remain in the game. The governing and public sector will continue to be shared as personal ownership of the political parties as it used to be.

This creates confusion and it is not a way of keeping the registration and the number of signatures required for registration. Stricter conditions for the formation of parties tends to knock the existing parties, and to impede the emergence of new ones.

One of the current issues is the separation of church and state. What is the nature of the relationship between the state and church in Serbia in comparison to other democratic societies?

Vesna Pesic: Our politicians are trying to be populists and nothing is more important to them than their government and to save their heads. It leads them to court the church, and to allow the church to interfere in politics, the state issues and legislative activities. But the government interferes in Church affairs, and trying to control the Church in accordance with their political intentions. It is an old thing for Serbia. The Church believes that it is institutions of the Serbian people and that gives the church the right to interfere in State policy because it "takes care of its people”, and state officials are making alliances with the Church because this relationship is not easy to terminate. However, when compared to the influence of the Church and religious circles on politics and society in America, then I think that our situation is better because it is still not necessary to be or act religious to be involved in politics.

Your Party, LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) is not part of the ruling coalition. Do you think that the compromises are necessary in politics or do see compromise in a way that, according to Cardinal Richelieu, compromise is a way in which the two sides of an agreement both get what they don’t want?

Vesna Pesic: LDP is now in coalition with the DS and SPS in the city government in Belgrade and some other municipalities. But party politics is now more compromising than it was. LDP is now significantly closer to the DS with which I would like to enter into a coalition after the following parliamentary elections. Such a policy is necessary because the party can hardly exist and not to enter the ruling coalition. I agree with what Cardinal Richelieu said. Compromises are necessary, but they can lead up to the loss of clear policies that govern our society, which has yet to fully develop and democratize.

Serbia is experiencing great challenges. The issue of Kosovo, visa liberalization, membership in the EU, reform of public administration ... Where do you see Serbia in the near future?

Vesna Pesic: My personal wish is that Serbia should be fully focused on the process of EU integration as the only way to resolve these issues. I see Serbia in NATO, in the West and with the clear notion that it is the place for us to be. Also it would be good for Serbia to cooperate successfully in the region and to be critically towards the recent wars. Visa liberalization is successful because the Serbian followed the so-called "road map" which was received from the EU, meaning that it is made all the necessary laws and strategies of the "road map" has been successfully applied.

In regards to Kosovo, I am inclined to treat that question pragmatically and flexibly since the EU has not laid down a political ultimatum on Serbia to recognize Kosovo, nor to choose between the EU and Kosovo. Official policy still expects to discuss Kosovo in these negotiations and that some 10 per cent of the territory may be returned to Serbia. I think it is better to solve the issues of integration within the EU with respect to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and establish a situation of open communication and space without boundaries.

Public administration reform began in 2006 when the law on civil servants was passed, but it largely failed because instead of bringing the party cadres together in the issue, it professionalized the administration. I've already said that Serbia needs to build its basic institutions, because they are currently weak. It will fail if it did not rely on the European Union and changing of the systems values.