The scene and content of debates in the national assembly, or the state of certain media outlets, represent an illustration of the loss of the tradition of open social dialogue in the country, a lack of tolerance, free debate and the rights of minority political views, which form the basis of any democracy and democratic decision-making
This issue could perhaps be viewed from two perspectives: an international and domestic context. In the first case, the topic is an issue of the genuine sovereignty of a smaller country, specifically Serbia, in relations with influential international factors: either the great powers and/or great capital that “rule” the world. There’s no doubt that various international players have a certain influence on decision-making in certain cases, but I wouldn’t concur with the trite “barstool” comments that “foreigners make the most important final decisions” in Serbia.
The internal context relates to the issue of the functioning of the Serbian political system, which is demonstrating a significant degree of deviation from the letter of constitutional and legal solutions when it comes to formal and actual decision-making jurisdiction among individual institutions. The constitutional principle of dividing jurisdictions between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary is, in reality, not represented to a sufficient extent. Centralisation in the making of all important decisions, at either the state or local levels, is not even being hidden. Without free and broad debate, and the participation of the public in decision-making on important issues, it will prove all but impossible to avoid the negative consequences of mistaken decisions over the long run. As stated long ago: “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
There’s no doubt that various international players have a certain influence on decision-making in certain cases, but I wouldn’t concur with the trite “barstool” comments that “foreigners make the most important final decisions” in Serbia
In a “captured state”, central government or local institutions become the prey of partocracy, while decisions are often made that serve the private interests of smaller groups, to the detriment of the “res publica” principle. It could be noted that there are also good results, as well as progress in the areas of the economy or foreign policy of Serbia. On the other hand, the scene and content of some debates in the national assembly, or the state of certain media outlets, represent an illustration of the loss of the tradition of open social dialogue in the country, particularly when it comes to tolerance, free debate and the rights of minority political views or responsibilities towards the public, as the basis of every democracy and democratic decision-making.
Closer to everyday life, the examples of the building of skyscrapers right below Kalemegdan Fortress, investment works on the territory of Belgrade’s most important “water factory” in Makiš, or the insufficiently researched role of certain stakeholders in the rise and “results” of famous criminal groups, represent just a few examples of anonymous decision-making on important social issues, with huge deviating from the principles of respect for the interests of the public and responsibility towards citizens.
One should nonetheless hope that recent constitutional amendments, as well as the organising of the upcoming elections, will represent positive steps in the direct of the partial normalisation of the system in the sense of respect for jurisdiction over who decides on public issues and how.
