A wave of hatred that lays bare the system’s vulnerabilities

The instrumentalization of national and religious identities—presented as the only valid markers of belonging—is increasingly deepening social divisions. This approach, which automatically places “others” in a subordinate position, was one of the key topics of the PROUDCAST produced by the Centre for Civic Education (CCE).

Željka Zvicer, Programme Associate at the CCE, discussed the rise of hate speech and xenophobia, as well as their roots in the Western Balkans, with Ervina Dabižinović, Coordinator at the Centre for Women’s and Peace Education ANIMA (Montenegro); Adnan Rondić, journalist from Bosnia and Herzegovina; and Balša Božović, Executive Director of the Regional Academy for Democratic Development (ADD), Serbia.

One of the triggers for the discussion was the recent violent incident and the wave of hate speech that followed the attack on a young man in Podgorica, which was initially attributed to Turkish nationals.

Journalist Adnan Rondić was not surprised by Prime Minister Milojko Spajić’s reaction after the incident, which led to the abrupt abolition of visas for Turkish citizens.

“Some may call it impulsive, but I am not sure he would have reacted in the same way had the initial information—although it later proved false regarding Turkish nationals—spoken of some other nationality. I think he was trying to gauge the pulse of Montenegrin society, and I fear he assessed it correctly. That is why he came out with a political decision to abolish visas for Turkish citizens because of an event in which they, as we now know, did not participate. And that opened a series of situations and events in which we heard what, unfortunately, has been heard in this region for centuries,” Rondić observed.

Ervina Dabižinović believes that the atmosphere of intolerance is also a consequence of the region’s failure to confront the legacy of the 1990s. “After the 1990s, people no longer lived together. So it is not surprising that what happened a few days ago occurred. It was well prepared and drawn from a very vivid memory. Where did these so-called patriotic patrols come from, and how did they suddenly appear on the streets? You see people with balaclavas and bats being escorted and neatly protected by the police. You have state institutions involved in a single fist and a single act of persecution,” Dabižinović stressed.

She added that these are well-known lessons that should have been learned long ago, but are still used today as a convenient political tool.

“We constantly have a problem with ‘the others’—and we are not resolving it. And where attempts were made, it took 30 years to build something very fragile, something that was completely defeated in those days. And I myself was defeated. Defeated in my attempt to explain that hatred is directed at the person next to us, not at someone imaginary, but at the person right beside us. The face of the enemy is not unknown. But we have not established responsibility for what happened, so we will see repetition—1995–2025,” she warned.

Balša Božović argued that the statement of the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, about the “revival of the Ottoman Empire” following the delivery of Turkish drones to Kosovo, was not accidental.

“You are now in a position to consolidate your national interest and lead Montenegro into the European Union. On that path, you will face situations like the one with the Turkish citizens, with the hysteria that was stirred up, with false statements, with ready-made fan groups, with orchestrated slogans… these are all textbook examples of attempts to destabilize the path or policies that Montenegro has taken—not in 2020, because that was merely inertia. In fact, 2020 tried to break that. Whether it will succeed, we will see. But in the next two or three years, you will have a hyper-production of such situations. I do not know whether you will manage to free yourselves from that or whether you will withstand this period,” Božović cautioned.

Reflecting on the multicultural and multinational character of Montenegrin society, Ervina Dabižinović said that these qualities today remain largely declarative, while “the underlying cultural matrix and cultural pattern are being fundamentally eroded and reshaped.” She recalled the polarization that has persisted since the restoration of independence. “Since 2006, we have had two camps: those who never accepted it, and those who believed that, on this new wave, they would finally do everything right. But we did not start from zero; there was no lustration, no confrontation with the past, not a single element of transitional justice was implemented in this society,” Dabižinović explained.

Božović also spoke about the manipulation of the concept of reconciliation. “Their devilish work functions that way; they came up with this idea that we should all ‘reconcile,’ but they are not the first fascists to do it. Franco had a policy of mixing the bones of executioners and victims; Tuđman did the same. It does not matter—let the one who was shooting and the one who was shot be placed together. Then Mandić said, in a debate with Đukanović during the election campaign, that they had already reconciled, that the bones had already reconciled. What is reconciliation for them? That Mladić and the Mothers of Srebrenica should reconcile? And then they say, ‘So, you are against reconciliation?’” he noted.

Adnan Rondić also emphasized that such discourse requires a clear distinction between guilt in the legal sense, which cannot be collective, and collective responsibility, which is an ethical category. “The genocide in Srebrenica— I always insist that it was committed by individuals, but by a very large number of individuals, considering that it had to be planned, prepared, executed, then the traces had to be removed, and then the genocide had to be denied… All of this happened in front of someone’s eyes. If you remain silent, while seeing what is happening, hearing what is happening, knowing what is happening — then you bear that type of responsibility,” he stressed.

Božović argued that insisting on collective guilt is used to justify violence. “In Kosovo, in the ‘Panda’ café in Peć, a special operations unit — mixed with what were then the young members of the Zemun Clan — carried out a massacre of Serbian children in order to prepare a narrative for the international community against the mujahideen from Kosovo, against Al-Qaeda, and whatever else… And to collectively attach a label: you are all terrorists, murderers, which means the police now has justification to level you to the ground. In that sense, it is a way to justify violence and killings — they have no hesitation in sacrificing as many as needed,” Božović explained.

The speakers agreed that Montenegrin society, as well as societies across the region, will have to broaden the circle of dialogue—but on clear and principled grounds—in order to overcome intolerance and curb hate speech.

“Let us count the damage we have suffered — one side, the other side, the third, the fifth. Is it worth it? We can talk about who started it, about the ideologies that initiated and continue this story, but no one emerged unscathed. We speak mostly about the Serbian political elites, and accordingly about the Serbian people. As much as we have talked about the ‘Serbian world,’ let us now consider all the places where Serbs are no longer present today. Primarily due to Serbian politics — from Croatia, to large parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; even the Republika Srpska is empty. The eastern part especially — there are no people, no Serbs, no Bosniaks, no one; that area is simply empty. It was ethnically cleansed, people did not return in sufficient numbers, and many Serbs left. So, it is desolate — and what are we actually talking about? Our land is empty,” Rondić concluded.

The full PROUDCAST episode is available at the link: https://youtu.be/I_nyGKYVCMA