To the Democratic Party Main Board

If all members of the Main Board do not show equal concern for the Party's unity and future, we will be threatened by new clashes and rifts, which would gravely affect us.

The Democratic Party was set up out of the founders' deep conviction that a democratic system can be created only if a political party modelled after contemporary centrist democratic parties is created, a party which will be an alternative to the monopolistic and authoritarian Communist Party and which will create models of democratic behaviour through its internal structure and functioning.

If we want to spare our Democratic Party new rifts, we must openly say what is contrary to its entity, its ideals and values.

The executive bodies' and administration's attempt to usurp all the power in the Party has always been a dangerous bureaucratic and authoritarian trend against which all democratic parties have fought; so must ours.

The current danger looming over our Party is also the absence of any control of its material and financial activities, the non-existence of a budget which would anticipate the revenues and expenses, and, hence, the arbitrary spending of Party assets.

The usurpation of information and privatisation of contacts with the media threaten to subject the Party interests and policy to personal interests and political stands of certain individuals and small groups.

Statements represented as major Party political decisions, without consulting the competent Party bodies and their approval of them, compromise the Party and endanger its normal democratic functioning.

The developments over the past few months have convinced us that the Democratic Party is again endangered. Its existence and character have become a major obstacle to its rivals, who are doing their utmost to undermine it both from within and outside it. Let's preserve our Democratic Party!

Signatures of the Democratic Party members

Withdrawal Is an Act of Honour

To Democratic Party President Dragoljub Micunovic

We consider it our obligation and duty to inform you of our views of the situation in the Democratic Party before the Executive Board session. The Democratic Party has made considerable headway at the last elections and is on its way to become a decisive democratic political force in our country. This delights not only us, the DS leadership and members, but, we believe, the whole democratic public in Serbia as well. A new political reality has been created in Serbia and the Democratic Party after the last elections. Our Party has been revived. The reason for its revival is the new, fresh and more popular policy of our party. During the election campaign, our Party showed the potentials we had not anticipated. The number of members increased significantly and our municipal boards are already preparing for new elections.

We believe our members and sympathisers would be vastly disappointed should the DS bodies fail to correctly appraise the achieved election results. No-one has the right to invoke the duration of a term-in-office, the procedures and the Statute in order to obstruct the necessary changes in the Party bodies, changes conforming with political reality and enabling the Party's further development.

Dear Mr. President, we consider your contribution to the creation and development of the Democratic Party exceptional. We have experienced various rifts during the four years you have headed the Party, but the Party has nevertheless survived. The damage to the Democratic Party caused by new divisions in it would be inconceivable. That is why we consider your withdrawal from the post of Democratic Party President a political act of supreme merit. This honourable act would open doors to the indispensable personnel shifts within the Party and would give impetus to its organisational and political consolidation. It goes without saying that we would like you to continue holding a senior Party post.

Dear Mr. President, we expect you to announce your decision before the Main Board session, scheduled for January 9, 1994.

Belgrade, January 6, 1994

(Signatures of Democratic Party Members)

To the Main Board

We must show that the Party's fate is in question, the survival of this Party as a democratic one, i.e., that there is an attempt to alter its identity. It is not only the issue of Djindjic's campaign (Zoran Djindjic, President of DS Executive Board, who was running DS campaign at the Elections 1993) to oust Micunovic, which is inevitably causing the Party's division, because both sides boast a considerable number of boards and individuals; the fact that the survival of the Party's identity would be threatened should Djindjic take over is also causing major concern.

Our efforts, therefore, must simultaneously be directed at denying the need and arguments for recalling Micunovic and at denying Djindjic as the candidate for Democratic Party President. In other words, they must be directed at the critical analysis of Djindjic's behaviour and political moves.

When Micunovic is in question, it should be underscored that what is at issue is not normal elections, but the termination of a term-in-office, for which a sufficient number of arguments (if there are any at all) should be given. The appearance of a man who thinks he would be a better leader, and even the widespread opinion that he would be better, is not reason enough to oust Micunovic. Micunovic's shortcomings and mistakes should be listed. What were actually Micunovic's major mistakes and how has he harmed the Party? On the contrary. Even in this election campaign, Micunovic has expressed political maturity, responsibility, loyalty to the Party and the ability to continue heading it. Despite all of Djindjic's provocations and usurpation of power, Micunovic took part in the campaign, protecting the reputation both of the Party and Djindjic, all of which has undoubtedly contributed to the Democratic Party's success at the elections.

A critical analysis of Djindjic's actions should concentrate on several basic elements:

1. Underline the usurpation of power in the Democratic Party and the change of its identity and nature - its transformation into a authoritarian, one-leader party. All forms and actions of usurpation and autocratic management should be enumerated and shed light on. For example:

- Djindjic has practically suspended the Election Headquarters (confirmed by the Executive Board chaired by him, personally) and set up another one without notifying or asking the approval of any other Party body. A large number of people were taken on to work in them, but neither the Party President nor Director were notified.

- Djindjic never informed the DS Executive Board or other Party organs of the media campaign concept, the slogans, TV ads although he promised to. Not even the Election Headquarters knew what the TV ads and posters looked like until they were made public.

- Djindjic arbitrarily changed the Party's image and identity during the campaign - the slogan "Djindjic-Democratic Party" shows his efforts to transform the party into a typical one-leader, authoritarian party, which is contrary to the DS hitherto policy. The campaign concentrated only on Djindjic.

- Djindjic is also responsible for the media blockade of DS President Micunovic. The state TV stopped covering the scheduled DS press conferences in which Micunovic and a large number of Party leaders took part, but continued registering all of Djindjic's statements. TV Politika did the same, favouring Djindjic and his campaign over other opposition parties. TV Politika's Editor-in-Chief Aleksandar Tijanic, who, as it transpired in the meanwhile, was a member of the DS Election Headquarters (i.e., the group charged with the media campaign) and author of the slogan "Fair", told the DS President that agreement had been reached (!) that the scheduled news conferences not be covered during the election campaign (!?). Who had reached such an agreement and with whom? After an intervention, TV Politika showed up at one scheduled DS news conference and then, again, stopped their coverage. Although Micunovic had toured a number of towns in Vojvodina during the campaign, holding panel discussions and speeches and reaping success in the always full auditoriums, neither the state TV nor TV Politika covered his campaign. The Election Headquarters said this was because the TV crews had been going in other directions, covering Djindjic's tours. TV Politika's media blockade continued after the elections as well;

- The key part of Micunovic's speech - the part where he spoke of the non-existence of a coalition between the DS and the ruling Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) - which was met with ovations of the public present at the Belgrade DS news conference was cut out of the video footage the Election Headquarters sent the TV. Who had the right to censor the Party President?

- Djindjic had nominated himself alone and with the help of Miroljub Labus for Serbian Prime Minister without consulting any Party bodies. He frequently made statements of strategic importance (e.g. about possible coalitions, the type of government the DS would agree to be part of, the program of such a government) without consulting the DS official bodies.

2. Special attention should be devoted to Djindjic's usurpation of power in the field of Party funds. The practice has been that DS donors and sponsors subscribe or pay the money for the Party through Djindjic or channels he controls. Djindjic has more or less independently used these funds, i.e., determined the salaries of the employees, determined the priorities, the amount of money to be paid; Micunovic was more or less informed of Djindjic's activities. Djindjic frequently paid the people directly from the Party funds. The Monitoring Board did not meet to control the finances. Djindjic was, thus, simultaneously the employer, cashier, accountant, chief accountant and controller. In time, he came to believe that the funds had been donated to the Party solely due to him and his involvement and that no-one else had the right to inspect the inflow and spending of the money.

3. During the election campaign, particularly in the beginning, Djindjic criticised the government (not the authorities) of being dishonest and incompetent, without bringing into question the programs, ways of resolving difficulties, the whole system, the outside framework imposed upon any government. He implied, and even frequently explicitly proposed a government of his own which would do the same, but better and more honestly. This can be interpreted as a tactics to lure new sympathisers from among the hesitating SPS ranks, but this tactics also involved the risk of losing the old and proven DS supporters calling for a clear and sharp criticism of the authorities and the DS' distancing from them. Djindjic also failed to respond to criticisms of him voiced by the SPS. This could be interpreted as his explicit decision not to criticise Serbian President Milosevic because the elections were not presidential. Even that was not enough; he praised Milosevic a bit too often. Djindjic's only misfortune in this whole situation is that Milosevic headed the SPS election lists and that Djindjic not only failed to criticise him, but even praised him during the campaign and after it, saying that "the opposition cannot harm him".

By indicating the possibility of a coalition with the SPS during the election campaign (some of Djindjic's team made the idea fully explicit), by continuing to contemplate various combinations regarding the government composition with SPS as a partner after the elections, and, finally, by nominating himself for the new Prime Minister, Djindjic has created the impression among our citizens, sympathisers and voters, particularly among journalists and experienced analysts, that the DS was becoming less opposed to the SPS and was offering itself to it, that it was prepared to join in a kind of collaboration if not a real coalition. Citizens have already begun calling TV talk-shows, writing to papers and the Democratic Party to protest, believing they had been duped into voting for the DS - which they had believed was an opposition party with a different political and strategic orientation. Djindjic has been performing all these political somersaults without the approval of and consultations with any of the Party's official bodies.

4. With his political statements and self-nomination, Djindjic has unnecessarily involved the party into conflict with other opposition parties, damaging its reputation. Even before and during the election campaign, Djindjic clearly showed a lack of readiness to cooperate with the other parties and to form joint election lists.

5. He then organised a major campaign demanding a vote of no-confidence to DS President Micunovic in a way inconsistent with the Democratic Party.

Djindjic's chief mainstay in this campaign were people who financially depend on him.

The human dimension is not insignificant. Djindjic, like some of his models, is swooping down on the man who encouraged him and helped him build a political reputation and power. Psychoanalysts have long ago dubbed this kind of behaviour "patricide".

Arbitrariness and Scandals

(Excerpts from the Memo for the Main Board Discussion)

During the election campaign, the state TV equally treated Zoran Djindjic and Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Sainovic. He was, actually, more on the state TV than Sainovic. The new candidate for Serbian Prime Minister was more present on state TV programs than many SPS leadership members.....