The post-election dynamics of relations within the opposition showed that a debate will be led on the topic of genuine opposition to the regime and that certain opposition lists will try to transpose their politics from protest to institutions. All of this competing can profile individual parties among voters, but some will certainly lose out in that contest.
The parliamentary life of a country depends on the dynamics of parliamentary relations. The previous convocation of parliament, without the presence of the opposition, exposed all the shortcomings of the absence of parliamentary debate and criticism. There is no democracy without parliament, and no parliamentarianism without an opposition. I’m not convinced that opposition parties’ entry into parliament will contribute to changing public discourse, because such a discourse also existed prior to the boycott. Opportunities for the public to hear different opinions are created through the parliament, but it’s evident that this isn’t sufficient in overall political relations in Serbia. It is certainly a positive shift that we will be able to hear more diverse opinions in parliament, regardless of the topic in question.
We don’t have clear indicators of who watches parliamentary broadcasts. The audience certainly also changes with changes to the parliament. I would say intuitively that the previous convocation of the National Assembly was watched very little, and that the reason for that was precisely the lack of discussion and differing opinions. Voters’ views are gradually changing, due to a large number of factors, and the popularity and image of individuals can certainly be influenced by their parliamentary advocacy and activities.
The choice of heads of parliamentary groups shows that care is being taken to ensure there will be parliamentary debates… That should be a good foundation for democratic parliamentary life, but it’s still merely a detail that doesn’t change the underlying essence
The choice of heads of parliamentary groups shows that care is being taken to ensure there will be parliamentary debates. However, that wasn’t the decisive reason for them being chosen. These are predominantly individuals with considerable parliamentary experience, who are very familiar with parliamentary life well adapted to various parliamentary situations, and are therefore better able to lead their parliamentary group and utilise all mechanisms to steer discussions in a desired direction.
This convocation gives the opposition a chance to profile itself among voters. We can’t speak in general terms about all opposition lists and parties, as there are existing specifics that must be taken into account. The post-election dynamics of relations within the opposition showed that debate will be held on the topic of a real opposition to the regime, that certain lists will try to transpose their politics from protest to institutions, that certain parties will strive to prove who is the greater patriot etc. All this competing can profile individual parties among voters, but some will certainly lose out in that contest.
Parliament voted on the deputy speaker positions and it is clear that there was general agreement on the proposal and that they all received around 200 votes among MPs. These are certainly important positions, but they don’t tell us anything about the composition of the government. This is about accord that should be a good foundation for democratic parliamentary life, but it’s still merely a detail that doesn’t change the underlying essence.
