Menu

Regional plenum

PROUDCAST-Talas-mrznje-2-1024x576

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

, 0

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

This PROUDCAST was produced within the framework of the REGIONAL PLENUM 2025 – Fractures in Democracy: Nationalism and Clericalism in the Western Balkans, organized by the Academy for the Development of Democracy (ADD), the Centre for Civic Education (CCE), the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Sarajevo, and the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES).
The content of the episode is the sole responsibility of the speakers.

 
Regionalni plenum-80

Annual Plenum Award for the Fight for Democracy and Human Rights Presented to the Free University of Novi Sad

0

The Annual Plenum Award for the Fight for Democracy and Human Rights has been presented this year to the Free University of Novi Sad, which, in a year marked by student uprisings and deep social turmoil, demonstrated what academic courage looks like. While institutions were captured, this network of professors, teachers, and researchers stood by the students, defending the integrity of knowledge and the right to freedom of thought.

The Academy for the Development of Democracy (ADD), the Centre for Civic Education (CGO) in Podgorica, the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Sarajevo (FPN), and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES), as the organizers of the regional plenary, award this recognition to initiatives and communities whose work makes an exceptional contribution to the defense and advancement of democracy and human rights in the Western Balkans.

Founded only a year ago, the Free University of Novi Sad has become a symbol of academic integrity and solidarity, civic courage, and resistance to an undemocratic regime. Their work shows how professional integrity and social responsibility can be lived and defended even under political pressure.

“Of particular importance to us is that this award goes to Novi Sad – a city that, even under the weight of great tragedy, has shown the strength to carry the torch of resistance and hope. Montenegro was, even during the Milošević regime, a refuge for those fighting for freedom in Serbia. Today, when the government in Montenegro supports the autocrat who has extinguished pluralism in Serbia, we want to send a clear message: civic Montenegro stands with free people, with those who refuse to surrender to fear but turn it into strength, and strongly supports the free-thinking citizens of neighboring Serbia,” emphasized Daliborka Uljarević, Executive Director of CGO, while presenting the award on behalf of the organizers.

On behalf of the Free University, the award was accepted by Professors Nataša Milićević, Ljubica Oparnica, and Vanja Manić Matić.

“We see this award as recognition for the entire rebellious and free academic community in Serbia, and we dedicate it to our comrades – all disobedient citizens of Serbia. Serbia is not the only country where university autonomy has been undermined, but it is the country where the effort to subjugate the university has grown into brutal and blatant repression. As long as the authorities view students as enemies, we will continue to demonstrate that the movement exists and that our position is clear: one resistance, one university,” stated Nataša Milićević.

“After thousands of our students began their unique and extremely difficult struggle for justice and accountability, it was our duty to support them and initiate the fight for a free university. Many battles have begun and are ongoing. The consequences are institutional and administrative pressures. The struggle for basic autonomy, for labor and human rights protections of the academic community and society, is difficult,” Milićević said, adding that the Free University of Novi Sad has also recently filed a historic lawsuit against the Ministry of Interior for violating the spatial autonomy of the university, infringing upon personal rights, and violating the labour rights of employees at the University of Novi Sad.

“With this recognition, the Plenum reaffirms its commitment to supporting those who defend the space of freedom, dialogue, critical thinking, and democracy — values that are more endangered today than ever, yet continue to endure thanks to brave individuals and communities such as the Free University,” the award statement concludes.

Podgorica, 14. novembar 2025.

Regionalni plenum-45

The fight against “Serbian world”is a fight for democracy and sovereignty

0

Closing session of the Regional Plenum in Podgorica

The ideology of the “Serb World” is a continuation of Greater-Serbian projects from the 19th century to the present day, and effectively countering this idea in Montenegro requires emphasizing the Montenegrin national question and addressing the functioning of the church as one of the fundamental prerequisites for stability. This was among the key messages delivered during the panel “Understanding the ‘Serb World’: Threats to Democracy and Identities,” held as part of the second session of the regional plenary “Fractures in Democracy: Nationalism and Clericalism in the Western Balkans,” jointly organized by the Academy for the Development of Democracy (ADD), the Centre for Civic Education (CGO) in Podgorica, the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Sarajevo (FPN), and the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES).

Director of the Western Balkans Network, Dr. Boban Batrićević, reminded that the “genius of evil” behind the Holocaust lay in the fact that Nazi Germany devised a system in which the people taken to the crematoria ultimately paid for their own destruction—their transport to the camps, their accommodation and food—because they worked, received wages, and financed the machinery that annihilated them. He drew a parallel between this and the methods used by the current Serbian regime against its opponents.

“The ideology of the ‘Serb World’ is a continuation of Greater-Serbian projects from the 19th century to the present day. Unlike the concept of ‘Homogeneous Serbia,’ here we do not have a document that outlines the plan; it is hidden, and that is what makes it perversely ingenious,” he said.

Batrićević emphasized that one cannot prepare the ground in advance for the fight against the ideology of the “Serb World,” because it is an adaptive concept. According to him, this ideology controls 49 percent of the territory in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), has historical roots in Montenegro and currently governs the entire state apparatus there—something it cannot achieve in BiH—and is present only symbolically in Kosovo today.

The Serb World is, in my view, very well organized, because it rests on an intelligence, economic, media, and cultural paradigm, which enables Serbia to interfere in the affairs of independent neighboring states,” he said, stressing that it is particularly problematic that Western partners do not fully grasp how sophisticated this concept is in the case of Montenegro.

“Census data show that Montenegrins are disappearing without a war, meaning that the ideology of the ‘Serb World’ is most effective precisely without conflict. This is why the Montenegrin national question must be framed as an issue of European security. Without a Montenegrin nation, the stability of the Western Balkans is endangered. Reducing Montenegrins to 35 or 30 percent of the population—which is the goal of the Serbian Orthodox Church and Serbian representatives in Montenegro—leads to a situation in which the largest constituent group in Montenegro becomes excluded from decision-making, and what we get is a ‘state of peoples’,” Batrićević explained.

He stressed that the problem of the Montenegrin nation is that it is too small to control the state institutions that should be responsible for nurturing Montenegrin national identity. “Our task is to try—with the help of Priština and Sarajevo, and then the EU—to raise the question of how the church functions in Montenegro. Without a serious Montenegrin church—a church of the Montenegrin people, a church of Montenegro, an Ecumenical Metropolitanate in Montenegro, whatever we choose to call it—we cannot move forward,” Batrićević said.

The historian from Serbia, Dr. Milivoj Bešlin, stated that from Serbia’s perspective, the idea of the “Serb World” is not new. It is merely a new term, borrowed from Russian state propaganda, while the underlying concept has existed since the 19th century under the name Greater Serbia.

The idea of the ‘Serb World,’ which was once called ‘our extended homeland’ during the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later ‘Homogeneous Serbia’ during the Chetnik movement, and at times simply ‘Greater Serbia,’ is fundamentally territorial in nature and has always implied all territories where Serbs live. This is why the Serbian question in the region has been viewed as a territorial question. Territory was the key element,” he explained.

Bešlin stated that these concepts always required gathering all Serbs into a single state. “But that is not all. Greater-Serbian imperial ideas have always included an attitude toward others, not only toward the Serbian population. Among other things, this meant expelling the Muslim population as a ‘foreign element’ from this projected state, punishing Croats historically, and transforming Montenegrins in terms of identity,” he said.

“A great-state project must, by definition, include homogenization. If you eliminate national and identity pluralism, you eliminate political pluralism as well. That is why the idea of the ‘Serb World’ is actually directed against Serbia itself, and especially against a democratic Serbia,” Bešlin stressed.

He pointed out that today the Greater-Serbian project has tactically abandoned territory, and instead applies a doctrine of limited sovereignty over neighboring states. “Borders are not openly challenged, but the sovereignty of those states is fundamentally undermined. According to this logic, Vučić is not the president of Serbia, but the leader of all Serbs in the region. The people are the bearers of sovereignty, so Vučić becomes the bearer of sovereignty in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and he sees himself as possessing it even in parts of Croatia,” Bešlin said.

Professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Sarajevo, Dr. Šaćir Filandra, stated that Bosnia and Herzegovina has been an object of the ‘Serb World’ for the past 150 years in a practical sense. However, in his view, the “Serb World” and “Greater Serbia” are not synonyms.

“The project of Greater Serbia has definitively failed as a state project. This is difficult for its proponents to admit, but it has failed. The ‘Serb World’ appears as a cultural substitute adapted to new geopolitical circumstances in Europe, and it is a direct outcome of the failure of Greater Serbia,” Filandra concluded.

He stated that in today’s Europe, changing state borders by force is an extremely unpopular measure, which is why the “Serb World” is no longer based on territory but on population and on standardizing one nation as a single ethnic community. “Children in Banja Luka, Prijedor and Leskovac learn the same language, switch to the Ekavian dialect, and are taught the same heroes and the same myths. It is a form of severe cultural violence. This process takes place under the radar because it belongs to the sphere of culture, which we generally tend to ignore,” Filandra added.

He stressed that those who support and implement the “Serb World” project believe that the Western order will collapse, or disappear, and that they are essentially waiting for the fall of the European Union. “Thus, the ‘Serb World’ is a pause—an interim phase—in which they await chaotic circumstances, the collapse of the EU and the West, in order to create conditions for its full realization,” Filandra said.

Writer, journalist, politician, and civil society activist from Kosovo, Veton Surroi, argued that Serbia today is closer to Russia than it was when it became an EU candidate country.

“The second paradox is that Serbia is in a much worse situation today than it was back then regarding the Copenhagen criteria,” Surroi said.

He added that Serbia is today a far greater destabilizing factor in the region than it was when it first opened accession negotiations. “Negotiations with the EU do not necessarily mean that the situation in Serbia will change,” Surroi stated.

He stressed that the fundamental problem with the “Serb World” is that the region continues to live within unfinished wars and unfinished states. “The wars are not over in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo. Bosnia has lived for 30 years under Dayton, which is essentially a ceasefire agreement. Kosovo and Serbia exist within an unfinished war governed by the Kumanovo Agreement, which stopped hostilities, but it did not bring peace. Today, war is being carried out by other means,” Surroi assessed.

In his view, a major problem with Serbia’s transformation is that the EU does not have decisive influence over this process. “The question of Serbia’s transformation is the key security and political issue in Southeast Europe. And it is not just about the fact of transformation, but about how that transformation happens. It is crucial that it be a positive one, opening a democratic horizon for the citizens of Serbia, rather than pushing the country into new instability,” Surroi said.

Strategic communications consultant and former adviser to the Prime Minister of North Macedonia, Svetlana Siljanoska, said that in North Macedonia they do not hear much about the “Serb World” and that Russian narratives are currently far more dominant.

“The friendship between North Macedonia, Serbia and Hungary is discussed much more in our society, because of the new Government and because of Hungary, which has had direct implications for our society,” Siljanoska said.

She stated that the country is facing harmful narratives in the public discourse coming from the East. “We have a huge cloud coming from the East, and it carries a strong anti-democratic tone,” Siljanoska said.

According to her, that camp gathers forces and a budget and has three goals – to keep the Western Balkans as unstable as possible, to keep the region as far as possible from the EU, and to keep the region polarized, because in that way influence can be exerted and attention diverted from real problems.

“In practice, we see that they are quite successful in diverting citizens’ attention so that they do not deal with the real problems,” Siljanoska said.

She added that the anti-democratic campaign is successful in using its narratives because they are followed and receive attention. “We need to talk about why they are successful, how to thwart them, knowing that their goal is the erosion of democracy,” Siljanoska concluded.

The panel was moderated by sociologist Izabela Kisić from Belgrade.

Regionalni plenum-27

The establishment of the rule of law is essential for joining the EU

0

Party leaders at the Regional Plenum in Podgorica

A prerequisite for the Western Balkan countries to join the European Union (EU) is the creation of just states in which criminals sit in the defendants’ chairs rather than hold positions of power, it was stated during the panel “Democratic Alternatives: Building a European Future for the Western Balkans” at the regional plenary “Fractures in Democracy: Nationalism and Clericalism in the Western Balkans.”

The regional plenary is jointly organized by the Academy for the Development of Democracy (ADD), the Centre for Civic Education (CGO) in Podgorica, the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Sarajevo (FPN), and the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES).

The President of the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS), Danijel Živković, responding to a question from the moderator Aleksandra Jerkov of ADD, stated that the European Commission report gave positive assessments to Montenegro and Albania, while this was not the case for other countries in the region. He assessed that the process has been going on for far too long for the entire region and has been neglected by many actors, recalling that the DPS-led government opened accession negotiations with the EU in 2012.

“In those eight years during which we remained in power, we opened all negotiation chapters and temporarily closed three. During the five years of the new government, only four chapters have been temporarily closed. It is good that Montenegro is today described as the most advanced country in the process, but this is declarative, not substantive,” Živković stated.

He added that populists and nationalists are in power in Montenegro today, and that “populists have enabled nationalists to gain momentum on issues such as historical revisionism and the dismantling of institutions.”

Živković noted that it is often said “that the EU wants us more than we want the EU—at least when we look at the current government’s stance.”

“And this is dangerous for society as a whole. I have warned many times—you can find an administration capable of aligning Montenegro’s legislation with EU law, but the most difficult task is the emancipation of a society,” he emphasized, stressing that this is a demanding process for everyone.

“If we want to continue on that path, we must be ready to give something up. Every political actor who truly wants to support EU integration will have to sacrifice part of their approval ratings in favor of the emancipation of society,” Živković concluded.

Živković expressed skepticism about the realistic prospects of Montenegro becoming an EU member in 2028. “I am afraid that we will not finish the integration process by the end of 2026. In five years, we have closed four chapters; by the end of this year, we are expected to close five, and many more next year. I am not convinced this will be possible, considering the way the government behaves,” Živković stated.

He also pointed to strong external pressure on the media sector and audiovisual services, as well as influence on the energy sector, and the loss of the Parliament’s oversight role.

“When the Prime Minister does not appear in Parliament, that alone is an indicator of where democracy in Montenegro stands,” Živković said.

He was unequivocal that the current government cannot lead the country into the EU, emphasizing that this is neither a subjective nor an emotional assessment. Still, he stressed that it would be in Montenegro’s best interest to become an EU member as soon as possible.

“Russian malign influence will not wait even a second to take a dominant role in the Balkans. The number of its proxies in Montenegro is significant. I am speaking about media outlets and various organizations that undermine democracy,” Živković noted.

He added that the opposition will not abandon the EU path and warned that in the next year and a half, attempts to halt Montenegro’s progress toward the Union will intensify.

“There is no cure or solution for Montenegro without political stability and genuinely committed pro-European actors within the government,” Živković concluded.

Speaking about relations between Montenegro and Serbia, he noted that after 2006, conditions were created for Belgrade to accept an independent Montenegro.

The leader of the Democratic Party (DS) in Serbia, Srđan Milivojević, stated that Serbia is currently a country under the spotlight of European public attention, but emphasized that a clear distinction must be made between Serbia and the country’s president, Aleksandar Vučić.

Milivojević noted that Serbia has parties such as the DS, which has fought for 36 years against war-mongers and in favor of European values.

“Over the last 12–13 years in power, Vučić has established a firm link between the state and organized crime. There is no doubt that Serbia is governed by an organized criminal group,” Milivojević said.

According to him, Serbia is not threatened by the Škaljari or Kavač clans, but by the “AVač clan,” alluding to the initials of Aleksandar Vučić.

“He is endangering not only Serbia’s European future but also that of the entire Western Balkans. Vučić is an obstacle to normal life, because he is someone who has never abandoned the sentence ‘if they kill one Serb—we will kill 100 Muslims’. Even though he has put on an EU tuxedo, he has never abandoned hatred and division,” Milivojević stated.

He reminded the audience that a new political force has emerged in Serbia—the student movement. “These are young people who, twenty-five years after ‘Otpor’, say: ‘do not divide us by religion or nation’. The only real division is between human and inhuman. We do not want coexistence—we want common life,” Milivojević said.

In his assessment, Serbia has not merely stalled on its EU path—“it is rapidly moving in reverse,” because “Vučić does not want Serbia in the EU, but the younger generation has clearly chosen European values.”

“These young people are saying: if we could reach agreement in Novi Pazar, Niš, and Belgrade, then tomorrow young people from Belgrade, Sarajevo, Podgorica, and Priština will be able to agree as well,” Milivojević noted.

He added that even Vučić’s followers in Montenegro are slowly turning their backs on him, just as Milorad Dodik did earlier. “Do not doubt that Andrija Mandić has not already bought a ticket to America to make his own deal, like Dodik did. When Montenegro joins the EU, Knežević will also be a citizen of Montenegro; he will not say, ‘I do not want a Montenegrin passport’,” Milivojević stated.

“Vučić threatens the vital national interests of both Montenegro and Serbia. Montenegro’s interest is to join the EU as soon as possible. Vučić will try, through prepaid politicians, to trip Montenegro on its EU path, but I guarantee you that this will not happen,” Milivojević stated.

He added that the Balkans does not need a firm hand, but a clean hand, and that the Democratic Party offers exactly that. “The DS offers Montenegro a clean hand of cooperation and a shared vision toward the EU. A flag of victory will soon be waving in that hand,” Milivojević said.

Milivojević emphasized that “if we want to be part of the EU, the task for both the DS and the authorities in Montenegro is to build a just state. Crimes cannot go unpunished if we want to move toward the EU.”

The President of the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia, Venko Filipče, stated that EU integration is a realistic prospect for Montenegro, Albania, and North Macedonia.

“But at the same time we see increasing tensions in these countries, and the main problem is that extremists dominate the public narrative. They do everything they can to maintain an atmosphere of tension, because that is their guarantee for staying in power,” Filipče said.

He stressed the need for partnership between progressive parties and civil society. “We must unite against nationalists. We will make a mistake if we fail to understand that these right-wing parties help each other remain in power, even when they appear to be in conflict,” Filipče explained.

He stated that old politics are coming to an end and that it is essential to focus on young people and approach them more directly in order to engage them. “Choosing the right people is crucial for change. If we want to be accepted as a democratic alternative to right-wing parties, voters will apply much stricter standards. Selecting the people we work with is a key element for building trust, especially among newer generations of voters,” Filipče assessed.

A member of the Presidency of the Social Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Damir Mašić, responding to a question about solutions to societal divisions, said that truth is the only answer. “We must speak it and spread it every day; it is the best tool in fighting division. Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a multiethnic country where diversity was nurtured for centuries, saw that diversity threatened in the 1990s. The people responsible for that are the same ones whose policies continue to block regional progress today,” Mašić said.

“We must call things by their real names and name those responsible. It is a luxury to speak in diplomatic language to describe phenomena present in our countries and wrap them in silk gloves,” Mašić added.

He said that the concept of the Serb World best illustrates how Russian malign influence seeks to keep the Balkan states in a state of status quo. “Constant interference in the internal affairs of other countries by the regime in Belgrade is unacceptable. I am glad that after some time, this criticism is now voiced much more clearly,” Mašić stated, adding that Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro, as multiethnic states, have been most exposed to malign influences.

“We hope Montenegro will complete its European path as soon as possible,” he said, noting that the EU must be less hypocritical and more vocal along the way.

“The EU must also call things by their proper name, and in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it must not adapt European values to abnormal circumstances in BiH, because that does not help us,” Mašić said.

He pointed out that Bosnia and Herzegovina has undergone countless reforms that have ended up as “dead letters on paper.”

“I guarantee that 90 percent of our problems are caused by a handful of radical nationalists who hide brutal crime and corruption behind nationalism,” Mašić stated.

“If the judiciary in BiH functioned properly, those nationalists would not be in a position to create problems—they would be sitting in the defendants’ chairs. What we need is a free and independent judiciary capable of tackling crime and corruption,” Mašić concluded.

Regionalni plenum-5

Nationalism and the misuse of religion stand in the way of the region’s development

0

Opening remarks at the Regional plenum in Podgorica

Nationalism and the instrumentalization of religion for political purposes are eroding the democratic foundations of the region and distancing it from European values, while the solutions are far from as simple as populists attempt to present them, it was stated at the official opening of the regional plenary session “Fractures in Democracy: Nationalism and Clericalism in the Western Balkans.”

The regional plenary is jointly organized by the Academy for Democratic Development (ADD), the Centre for Civic Education (CGO) in Podgorica, the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Sarajevo (FPN), and the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES).

The Executive Director of ADD, Balša Božović, reflected on the situation in Serbia and the tragedy in Novi Sad. “The inquiry commission established by professors from the Belgrade and Novi Sad universities reviewed more than 500,000 documents, conducted its investigation, and determined that Vučić is personally responsible for the tragedy,” Božović stated.

He reminded that Serbia has gone through a difficult decade—thirteen years—under the rule of the current regime led by Aleksandar Vučić.

“All of this is summed up in the recently published European Commission Report: the European integration process has been interrupted, completely halted. Serbia is described as a point of instability, as a Russian partner in the Western Balkans, and as a state moving contrary to the European Union’s foreign and security policies,” Božović said.

He noted that the region has also endured several difficult decades marked by the bleak legacy of Greater-Serbian politics and by continued efforts of certain actors to revive the idea of a “Serb World,” in open opposition to the Europeanization of the region.

Quoting journalist Toma Marković, Božović stated that “Ćacilend is Greater Serbia in miniature.”

“Everything that this concept represented in the 1990s, and everything it represents today, is found there. Members of the Special Operations Unit (JSO), responsible for war crimes and for assassinating Serbia’s Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić in 2003, are there. The head of the Zemun clan, known in Montenegro as part of the Škaljari criminal network, is there as well. Ćacilend is home to individuals indicted for war crimes, rapists, criminals, and thugs,” Božović said.

“This is the value system Vučić upholds in front of his office, attempting to suppress citizens and trap the entire region in an anti-European narrative. This is the alternative he offers—if you do not want the European Union, here is Ćacilend. That is precisely why it is essential for Montenegro to join the EU, because it will strengthen democratic forces inside Serbia fighting for the country’s transformation,” Božović emphasized.

The German Ambassador to Montenegro, Peter Felten, stated that the main themes of this year’s regional plenary—nationalism and clericalism—are among the key issues affecting peace and stability in the Western Balkans and the region’s prospects for European Union (EU) accession, but are equally relevant for the whole of Europe.

He underlined that nationalism is the opposite of patriotism and brings intolerance, division, and the negation of “others,” whether at the international level, within the EU, or inside individual societies.

“Nationalism clearly stands in the way of the region’s progress, and the misuse of religion for political purposes has never led to peace,” Felten said, noting that it narrows the space for citizens because the state becomes the captive of certain national or religious groups.

“In my view, the anti-fascist, civic, and multi-ethnic elements are the best characteristics of Montenegrin national identity. The social cohesion of this country depends on promoting and actively defending those characteristics,” Felten stressed.

He paid particular attention to the manipulation of European values by opponents of EU integration. “The deliberate misrepresentation of EU values has become a weapon for those who do not want their countries to join the European Union,” Felten said, noting that this propaganda has contributed to declining support for the EU in Montenegro in recent months. He emphasized that those who demonize European values should be asked what exactly is wrong with these values, and why they oppose them.

“Sinister narratives are often rooted in clericalism and nationalism,” Felten concluded, adding that civil society must serve as the primary force of resistance against such harmful approaches.

The Executive Director of the Centre for Civic Education (CGO), Daliborka Uljarević, emphasized that the theme of this year’s plenary is not only a diagnosis of the state of democracy in the region but also a call to action.

“These fractures are not abstract. They are present in institutions that are losing citizens’ trust, in an education system retreating before myths, and in societies where fear and obedience to authority increasingly replace critical thinking and freedom. Democracy in the Balkans is not breaking because of weak laws, but because of weak values—and it is time to make them strong again,” Uljarević stated.

She illustrated this with an example from Montenegro. “These fractures are real. This is evident from the fact that our law-enforcement bodies have allegedly been unable, since August, to locate a two-meter-tall bronze monument to a convicted war criminal. They are being publicly mocked by the most radical part of the Serbian Orthodox Church, which today controls key levers of power in a nominally secular state, all in the interest of an autocrat from a neighboring country who thereby demonstrates how easily he can influence Montenegro,” Uljarević said.

Reflecting further on Montenegro, she stressed that leadership cannot be measured solely through technical criteria, but through the incorporation of European values that society genuinely upholds and lives.

The Dean of the Faculty of Political Sciences at the University of Sarajevo, Sead Turčalo, argued that the region is exposed to the “danger of simplicity” because nationalists and populists offer overly simple solutions to highly complex problems. “These simplistic answers create fractures within democracy because they eliminate everything they consider unnecessary — and among the ‘unnecessary’ is also the pluralism of opinion,” Turčalo stated.

He emphasized that simplicity leads to exclusion, reminding that it was precisely exclusionary ideologies in this region that generated wars and war crimes.

“Our task is not to simply fill these fractures in democracy, but to look through them, see the light, establish dialogue, and through that dialogue cultivate pluralism and attempt to reach solutions,” Turčalo said.

He added that those who seek simplicity cannot respond to pluralism and dialogue, and “that is why these fractures should not be closed, but filled with dialogue.”

The Director of the FES Office for Montenegro, Serbia, and the Office for North Macedonia, Peter Hurelbrink, stated that over the years the regional plenary has become an important forum for exchanging views on the most significant issues facing societies in the Western Balkans.

He thanked the partners – the CGO, ADD, and the Faculty of Political Sciences in Sarajevo – for organizing the plenary.

“I hope that we will provide as many new insights, opportunities for cooperation, and concrete results as possible,” Hurelbrink said.

Regionalni plenum (3)

For Montenegro’s accession to the European Union, European leadership and political unity are essential

0

First session of the Regional Plenum in Podgorica

If Montenegro wants to remain a credible candidate for membership in the European Union, it is essential for political forces that genuinely share European values to cooperate and jointly lead the reform process. This was the key message at the first session of the Regional Plenum, “Cracks in Democracy: Nationalism and Clericalism in the Western Balkans,” jointly organized by the Academy for Democratic Development (ADD), the Centre for Civic Education (CGO) in Podgorica, the Faculty of Political Sciences at the University of Sarajevo (FPN), and the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES).

Vesna Pusić, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia, stated at the evening session “NON-paper for Montenegro” that the European Commission’s (EC) Report on Montenegro reflects more optimism on the part of the European Union about admitting Montenegro than within the ruling coalition regarding the country’s accession to the Union. She pointed out that three groups of issues were highlighted as problematic, although they did not receive much public attention: customs services and customs policy; environmental protection, food, agriculture and fisheries; and social policy and employment.

She noted that many within EU institutions believe that Montenegro’s accession would demonstrate that enlargement is not dead, while at the same time considering Montenegro small enough not to cause significant issues in terms of the EU budget and similar matters.

Speaking about the “non-paper” of which she is one of the authors, Pusić said that the idea was to show why Montenegro is relevant and that it is far more significant than its size suggests, due to its geopolitical position.

As she noted, one of the obstacles on Montenegro’s path is that the ruling majority consists of one part that supports Montenegro’s accession to the European Union, and another part whose commitment to accession is highly questionable. “Formally, this part keeps repeating that it supports EU membership, but it consistently takes steps that hinder Montenegro’s progress. Almost every time Montenegro advances, something happens that obstructs that step toward membership,” Pusić said.

She emphasized that one of the solutions elaborated in the non-paper is mentorship, similar to the accession of the three Baltic states, which established partnerships with Denmark, Sweden, and Finland. “From administrators to the highest levels of public administration, they worked with them on preparing laws and preparing people, so they could enter the EU as ready as possible,” Pusić said, adding that six countries should enter into partnership arrangements with six states from the region.

Pusić believes that Montenegro’s entry into the EU would be an almost essential signal to the region that accession is still possible.

She stressed that after closing all chapters, the signing and ratification process precedes membership. “That is a major task that follows. This is why the non-paper states that the political parties that genuinely want Montenegro to join the EU must align. Elections are in 2027, and you will not complete the entire process by then, even if you finish the negotiations. It is necessary to prepare for those elections because Montenegro needs European leadership,” she said.

František Šistek, Research Fellow at the Institute of History of the Czech Academy of Sciences and Associate Professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences at Charles University in Prague, believes that Montenegro is a leader in the accession process. “People who have worked hard for Montenegro to advance on its European path are now optimistic, but this cannot be seen as a definitive victory, because there are still recommendations and the road ahead remains long,” Šistek explained.

He emphasized that an important question is whether Montenegro will be seen in a positive light, since all member states must agree that a country is ready to join the European Union. “It is important that a member does not enter the EU unprepared, vulnerable internally, or susceptible to foreign influence,” Šistek said.

Speaking about the idea of probationary membership, he noted that it is difficult to implement in practice. “We have the example of Hungary, which entered the EU as an exemplary liberal state without major issues, but after several years began to behave differently. Therefore, this is not an adequate solution,” Šistek stated.

He also said that he does not see effective political will in Montenegro to put an end to the negative influence of Vučić’s Serbia. “Part of the current government supports Vučić’s regime. So why would they be the ones to limit that influence?” Šistek asked, adding that a significant portion of the media landscape in Montenegro is also under direct influence from Belgrade.

Šistek assessed that the decline in trust in European integration is not drastic and that the entire political scene supports EU membership, except for minor parties that are openly opposed. However, he warned that increased influence from Belgrade or the church could lead to further erosion of that support.

Former Prime Minister of Montenegro Igor Lukšić does not see the government’s heterogeneity as problematic. “I do not think that this necessarily has to be a bad thing, especially since the opposition consists of parties that support the accession process and are ready to back any initiative that takes us a step closer to the European Union,” Lukšić explained.

He noted that there is a sense of fatigue with a negotiation process that has lasted for a very long time, which should actually be an additional reason to make bolder moves and use the current geopolitical moment. “After all, the work does not end once you enter the EU. For many areas, there will certainly be a transitional period. As long as the tasks are clearly defined and the process is properly supervised, I believe it is achievable,” Lukšić said.

He also warned that it would be unwise for those currently leading the process to relax just because EU officials say that Montenegro could become a member in 2028, even though it is true that conditions today are much easier and faster than in earlier phases. “It is harmful if a chapter is closed and then the obligations arising from it are not fulfilled. The European Union should also issue reminders in order to keep the process on track,” he added.

Lukšić stated that it is acceptable to have all pro-European parties in the government, even if only rhetorically so. “I am glad to see representatives of the current government who are now interested in progress within NATO, even though we remember that this was not the case prior to membership. I am also glad that people in the government who once welcomed Šešelj from The Hague are now telling a very different story,” Lukšić said.

Lukšić emphasized that he does not see anything “alarming” in the idea of a probationary membership model, noting that people tend to forget that the EU integration process is also a process of social emancipation. “I believe that this process would move faster if we were part of a broader community, where at least questions of foreign and security policy would not be subject to hesitation,” he concluded.

The presentations of the panelists were followed by a lively discussion involving diplomats, representatives of the academic community, and civil society actors from Montenegro and the wider region.

This evening’s session, which brought together more than 70 participants, was moderated by the CGO’s Director for Strategy and Communications, Zvezdana Kovač.

447638415_18025890269484822_1981688443309851508_n

Fifth Regional Plenum Quo vadis, Balkan? in Sarajevo: Civic Values and the Region – How Far Have We Come?

0

The Fifth Regional Plenum “Quo vadis, Balkan?” is being held in Sarajevo from June 6 to June 8. As in previous years, it gathers a significant number of experts, officials, organizations, academic and state institutions, decision-makers, as well as media representatives, diplomatic envoys, and the academic community.

This year, the partner organizations of the Regional Academy for Democratic Development from Novi Sad and the Center for Civic Education from Podgorica in organizing the Plenum are the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Sarajevo, with support from the European Fund for the Balkans. The Regional Plenum “Quo vadis, Balkan?” is one of the most significant regional initiatives bringing together prominent civil society organizations, experts, and activists focusing on democracy, reconciliation, and regional cooperation.

The seventh and final panel at this year’s plenum was dedicated to civic values in the region. The speakers on the panel were Andro Martinović from the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts (CANU), Dr. Hrvoje Klasić from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Zagreb, Sofija Mandić from the Center for Judicial Research (CEPRIS) in Serbia, and Dr. Nerzuk Ćurak, a professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences at the University of Sarajevo. The moderator was Prof. Dr. Sabina Bakić from the Faculty of Political Sciences at the University of Sarajevo.

Sofija Mandić stated that the Western Balkans need to learn to balance the fact that Europe is a peace project and that it is currently at war. She said that, at least in the case of Serbia, it is not fully committed to European values, especially regarding the concept of peace. She assessed that Serbia is in both an electoral and a constitutional crisis, which is a significant value defeat for a country that has had free elections for the past 30 years. Mandić added that this crisis has exposed that the authoritarian regime no longer has majority support, but cannot be defeated in elections. She noted that the question arises as to how to continue and concluded that there are islands in society that resist this, including free media, albeit reduced to a minimum, and civil society within the academic community and the NGO sector. She concluded that civil society and civic values in Serbia are in a state of hibernation and cannot be carriers of significant changes in society, but despite this, public opinion surveys show that the situation in Serbia is surprisingly positive regarding citizens’ attitudes, such as EU accession or the views of young people. She added that there is a significant gap between what is seen in the media and the official narrative and what citizens intimately think and feel.

Andro Martinović said that things should be viewed in multiple dimensions and recalled the words of a writer who described the road to Bosnia as a journey through different times, concluding that the most significant questions for us are actually about what happened. He stated that Serbia continuously deals with the past, but in a very specific way, interpreting these events in a way that presents it in the best possible light, preventing confrontation with the truth. He concluded by saying that a citizen is someone who thinks critically about the world around them, and we first need to build that kind of citizen.

Hrvoje Klasić recalled the situation from 1993 and the war crime that occurred in Štrpci, where a group of soldiers pulled out a group of people while most of the passengers silently watched, but one person decided to react and show what civic values – solidarity, responsibility, tolerance, and civic courage – are. He paid for this with his life. Klasić said the reason he told this story is that he tries to imagine that train in 2024 and answer whether we can imagine someone being harassed for being of a different nationality and how many would be onlookers versus those who would show civic courage and oppose it, questioning how much we have progressed from what we had 30 years ago. He emphasized that when we talk about civic values, we always speak of parallel realities and the question arises of what civic values are today, what is mainstream today. He concluded that the most imperfect EU is better than the alternative. He said that when we look back at the past, we see that we did have civic values, the partisan movement, the former Yugoslavia, a time of solidarity, and that there is no need to look elsewhere but to look at how we behaved in the past. He concluded that Croatia has made many positive changes since joining the EU, but there is still much work ahead. Despite these shortcomings, he said he does not think about whether elections were rigged, knowing that if a scandal is uncovered, even the president or prime minister might end up in prison, and he does not feel that the state is deceiving or robbing him.

Nerzuk Ćurak said that finding a citizen in the absolute sense of the term is almost impossible because being a citizen means being radically independent, which is impossible in our societies that demand pure and one-dimensional identities incompatible with the concept of citizenship. He said that Bosnia and Herzegovina is now in a phase of attempting to emancipate political citizenship in a way that produces misunderstandings and fears, and there is a radical rejection by Serbian and Croatian nationalism to see themselves in the idea of citizenship. In the real-political field, this produces many misunderstandings and leads to the dehumanization of Bosnian society. He said that, in this sense, the anti-fascist movement must become the starting point for building a civic society because it is the idea of unity among Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats. He added that it is necessary to work on elementary small things to build a citizen. He stated that Bosnia and Herzegovina, despite all the horrors, violence, and aggression that have occurred, has retained elements of essential unity.

447514962_18025876745484822_4990667841415233129_n

Regional Plenum “Quo vadis, Balkan? in Sarajevo: EU and Models of Integration – Is the Enlargement Policy Exhausted?”

0

The Fifth Regional Plenum “Quo vadis, Balkan?” is being held in Sarajevo from June 6 to June 8. As in previous years, it will gather a significant number of experts, officials, organizations, academic and state institutions, decision-makers, as well as media representatives, diplomatic envoys, and the academic community.

This year, the partner organizations of the Regional Academy for Democratic Development from Novi Sad and the Center for Civic Education from Podgorica in organizing the Plenum are the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Sarajevo, with support from the European Fund for the Balkans. The Regional Plenum “Quo vadis, Balkan?” is one of the most significant regional initiatives bringing together prominent civil society organizations, experts, and activists focusing on democracy, reconciliation, and regional cooperation.

The sixth panel at this year’s plenum was dedicated to the European Union and different models of integration. The speakers on the panel were Aurelie Valtat, Head of the Section for European Communications, Policy, and Information from the EU Delegation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dr. Nedžma Džananović, a professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences at the University of Sarajevo, Dr. Nikoleta Đukanović, a professor at the University of Donja Gorica from Montenegro, Dr. Adnan Huskić, a professor at the Sarajevo School of Science and Technology from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Nataša Vučković, Executive Director of the Center for Democracy Foundation from Serbia, and Dr. Vedran Džihić, a lecturer at the University of Vienna and a member of BIEPAG. The moderator was Prof. Dr. Ehlimana Spahić from the Faculty of Political Sciences at the University of Sarajevo.

Adnan Huskić assessed that the negotiation framework can be viewed from several different angles and that Montenegro is still able to complete the negotiation process, but that it is also showing signs of serious democratic regression. Adding that this is the case with other countries in the region, he stated that the process of democratic regression and advancement in European integration should by no means be parallel processes. He said that each round of enlargement brought a new type of problem, and for this reason, Western Balkan countries are expected to resolve all bilateral disputes before being admitted to the EU, and their problems are numerous. He mentioned that Bosnia and Herzegovina is the first highly decentralized state trying to join the EU, which imposes a new kind of obligation, and that there is no consensus within the EU on enlargement. He concluded that the enlargement process has become a political tool for the EU, as evidenced by developments with Moldova and Ukraine.

Nedžma Džanović added that February 2022 was a moment when the unimaginable happened for the EU, as war returned to European soil, and Europe’s response was the only possible one. This geopolitical shift significantly impacted the EU’s enlargement policy. This led to the realization that the enlargement policy does not exist as a real policy, not even as a goal, but rather as an alibi policy, a perspective offered without the likelihood of being realized anytime soon, the only instrument the EU has at its disposal. This applies to the enlargement policy towards the Western Balkans, as well as towards Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia.

Nikoleta Đukanović stated that the EU is an unfinished political community, evident from its enlargement policy. She added that whenever the EU has been less present in the region, problems have arisen. She concluded that the EU’s policy is more driven by the fear of the influence of other major powers in the region. Adding that today we are talking about the process of EU reform and enlargement policy, she said that we have seen that the initiated reform has not yielded any results. She noted that it is obvious that the policy of conditionality no longer has the same impact on the Western Balkan countries as it once did, and that the longer the accession process takes, the more democracy erodes in negotiating countries. Speaking about Montenegro and its European integration, she concluded that if Montenegro, as it is today, is admitted to the EU in the next few years, it could cause numerous problems both in the EU and in Montenegro.

Nataša Vućković said that everyone agrees that the enlargement process appears exhausted, but it is not exhausted due to it being a technical process; it is political issues that have discredited the process. Citing the example of North Macedonia, she stated that no matter how enthusiastic governments are on this path, there can always be obstacles of a political nature. She said that in Serbia’s integration process, resolving the Kosovo issue has become the key moment of the entire process, questioning the significance of EU values. She added that another factor undermining the credibility of the enlargement policy is the constant change of approach, mechanisms, and priorities by the EU, requiring a lot of new energy and resource investment, while results are lacking. She emphasized that the policy of conditionality, which is in the forefront, is hard to sell, while partnership work, which yields much better results and contributes to better understanding between the two sides, is in the background. She highlighted the importance of the European Socio-Economic Committee’s pilot initiative to include members from the Western Balkans in its work, saying these are ways to ensure representatives of Western Balkan countries and their institutions are involved and present in EU activities and processes. She assessed that there are significant mistakes in the way the enlargement process is communicated by the EU and in the way reforms are communicated in the Western Balkan countries. She added that reforms carried out within European integration require a rational approach and a serious narrative, which often is lacking, and much attention must be paid to this communication. She concluded that it is clear that the political elites in the region do not see personal interest in the European integration process, but the motivation for every politician can be whether the process they are managing can lead to some result, and in that sense, it is crucial whether the real end of the process is visible.

Vedran Dražić emphasized that the question arises as to what is the area of experience we have when we talk about the integration of the Western Balkans into the EU, and unfortunately, it resembles the movie “Groundhog Day” where we wake up in a repeating reality for decades. The fact is that Montenegro began negotiations in 2012, Serbia in 2014, North Macedonia received candidate status in 2006, and this time dimension of the European integration process should always be in front of our eyes. On the other hand, listening to assessments of the European integration process, we have an incredible polyphony, and in some countries, like Serbia, since the beginning of the European integration process, there has been a regression of democracy. He said it is easier and more realistic to imagine a situation where the European integration process in the Western Balkans never ends, rather than one where it ends in the near future. He concluded that in our region, a new concept has emerged where a large part of our political elites tries to offer a concept for the present and future based on a past that is either invented or does not respond to any vision of a functional future, a process completely at odds with the concept of European integration.

Aurelie Valtat said that in the European integration process, it is desirable for countries to cooperate beyond and before the integration process and that this scenario complements the European integration process, not necessarily opposing it. She added that de-democratization is not specific to the Western Balkans; it is also present in the EU, and the key thing is how countries handle it. She stated that her impression is that, although it seems that the Western Balkans are no longer so important to the EU, the opposite is true – the EU wants the Western Balkans more than the Western Balkans want the European Union.

majke-srebrenice-nagrada-sarajevo-juni2024-ngrsa-5

Balša Božović presented the award to the Mothers of Srebrenica

, 0

President of the Executive Board of the Regional Academy for Democratic Development, Balša Božović, presented the annual Award for Merits in the Fight for Democracy and Human Rights to the associations comprising the Mothers of Srebrenica.

The award was presented as part of the Regional Plenum “Quo vadis, Balkan?” organized for the third consecutive year by the Regional Academy for Democratic Development from Novi Sad and the Civic Education Center from Podgorica, this year in partnership with the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Sarajevo. The Regional Plenum is supported by the European Fund for the Balkans.

At the award ceremony held last night in Sarajevo, Balša Božović expressed his belief that the struggle of the Mothers of Srebrenica will inspire new generations to continue on the path of truth and justice, and that their story will set the wheel of moral responsibility in motion for the crimes committed. He particularly emphasized their crucial role in the international advocacy for the adoption of the United Nations Resolution on the remembrance of the genocide against Bosniaks in Srebrenica, significantly contributing to the global recognition and condemnation of this heinous crime.

Dean of the Faculty of Political Sciences, Sead Turčalo, pointed out that this award represents recognition of the tireless dedication of the Mothers of Srebrenica to the fight for justice, truth, and human rights, highlighting their invaluable contribution to fostering a culture of remembrance, facing the past, and providing support to survivors and their families.

In her acceptance speech, Kada Hotić, Vice President of the Association “Movement of the Mothers of the Enclaves of Srebrenica and Žepa,” stated that they harbor no hatred and wish for the world to know about the crimes that were committed.

“I want to have friends in Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and beyond the borders of the former Yugoslavia, and I want us to be human,” said Hotić.

Photo: Radio Sarajevo

447556366_18025836707484822_9084778554948595112_n

Regional Plenum Quo vadis, Balkan? in Sarajevo: Russia and the European Populist Right – Can the Region Escape Russia’s Orbit of Influence?

0

The fifth Regional Plenum Quo vadis, Balkan? is being held in Sarajevo from June 6 to 8, and, as every year, it will gather a large number of experts, officials, organizations, academic and state institutions, decision-makers, as well as representatives of the media, diplomatic delegations, and the academic community.

This year, the partner of the Regional Academy for Democratic Development from Novi Sad and the Center for Civic Education from Podgorica in organizing the Plenum is the Faculty of Political Sciences at the University of Sarajevo, and it is realized with the support of the European Fund for the Balkans. The Regional Plenum Quo vadis, Balkan? is one of the most significant regional initiatives that brings together prominent civil society organizations, experts, and activists dealing with the topics of democracy, reconciliation, and regional cooperation.

The fifth panel at this year’s plenum was dedicated to the relationship between Russia and the European populist right. The speakers on the panel were Ljubomir Filipović, political scientist from Montenegro, Prof. Dr. Sead Turčalo, Dean of the Faculty of Political Sciences in Sarajevo, Dr. Milivoj Bešlin, historian at the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory from Belgrade, and Dr. Harun Karčić, political analyst and journalist from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The panel was moderated by Prof. Dr. Valida Repovac Nikšić from the Faculty of Political Sciences at the University of Sarajevo.

Ljubomir Filipović assessed that Russia’s influence in the Western Balkans has intensified recently and that it reaches far back into history. He stated that three pillars of this policy were defined long ago – Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia lost its ideological foundation for its idea in a multipolar world.

Sead Turčalo said that it is evident that Russia, through its political discourse, is creating a new reality and that Putin has excellently aligned his narrative with radical right-wing groups in Europe who were disillusioned with liberal democracy. Since 2006, Russia has deliberately begun supporting certain radical right-wing groups in Europe to influence European politics, offering alternative media, and the primary goal of Russia was to disrupt the liberal-democratic consensus in Europe through this approach to specific groups. He noted that this approach required time, resources, and various investments in Western Europe, but in the Western Balkans, this approach required none of these. He emphasized that the region is unique in the sense that Russian influence cannot be analyzed in individual countries but only as a whole, which has allowed Russia to more easily spread its influence.

Milivoj Bešlin said that delving into the dominant narrative of Russia and Serbia would be an important lesson for Europe and that Europe should listen more to its neighbors and critical thinking within these countries. He reminded that when the West did not recognize the danger coming from Vladimir Putin, no one in Europe listened to the warnings coming from countries neighboring Russia, and many remembered it twenty years later when it became obvious that they had been right all along. Speaking about the historical parallels between Russia and Serbia, he first mentioned the state as the ultimate value and the constant attempts to create a state without society and the aspiration to create complete congruence between the state and society. Today, Russia is on the verge of achieving this goal and forcibly equating society with the state. He reminded that in Russian history, the thesis that the state is always older and more important than any individual is well-known, and this is also a characteristic of Serbian and Russian ruling ideology, which implies territorial expansion without any internal development and modernization. The third parallel is the “liberation” argument that exists in our region since the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, implying that Russia or Serbia have moral superiority and the right to rule over neighboring states. Another common narrative is the sense of threat, where our countries are surrounded by enemies, and because of this, they must take measures to protect themselves, with all neighboring states having limited sovereignty. Another common feature is the protection of their people outside their borders, a narrative introduced by Slobodan Milošević. This is the argument Putin completely repeated during the aggression on Ukraine and the pressures on Moldova. The West, of course, is seen extremely negatively in all state ideologies of Russia and Serbia. There is also a narrative of exceptionalism, which in the Russian-Serbian case implies that these countries have their own path, that they must develop in a way opposite to the West and with opposite goals. This creates the concept of the Russian or Serbian world. Another common feature is the church as the guardian of identity and the instrumentalization of the church for political and ideological purposes. The church becomes the center of expansion and aggression, demarcating the space that needs to be occupied. The concept of a party state with one dominant party is another common feature, as is the absence of pluralism and the organic understanding of the people as a whole, where any attempt at pluralization is seen as an attempt to divide. Another shared characteristic is the absence of the separation of powers, as well as violence as a method of governance, pronounced centralism where every complexity of the state is seen as separatism and weakness. State economy instead of market economy, criticism of the government is seen as an attack on the state and is considered subversive, traitorous, and foreign. Historical revisionism is a method that is abused in both societies, and many of these patterns have been adopted by the European populist right from Russia and applied in the European context.

Load More