The Golden Keys to the Bastille

There have been several proposals to date aimed at reducing the TV coverage of parliament sessions. Most of them have come from ruling Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) deputies.

Towards the end of his term in office, former information minister Ratomir Vico submitted a proposal to the Serbian parliament's culture and information board. The proposal said Serbia's state radio and TV (RTS) should replace live TV coverage with parliament chronicles. The opening and closing sessions would be exempt, along with sessions addressed by the president or prime minister, when budgets are adopted or issues of national importance discussed.

Television here is the "fourth branch of the authorities", managed by the state and protected and financially safeguarded (TV taxes and stimulation of commercialism). Of the existing 47 local TV stations, three-fourths can be assumed to be under the direct or indirect control of the ruling nomenclature.

Quietly and persistently, the authorities are trying to impose their control in every segment where it has lost politically. It lost control of Belgrade's Borba daily and Studio B radio and TV during the introduction of political pluralism in 1990 and waited for an opportunity to regain control in 1994. If those institutions gained a reputation in the meantime, so much the better - there's something to spend and if they have internal problems it's easier to establish control.

Belgrade's city government wants 35% of Studio B and has started court proceedings in the Belgrade commercial court on December 13. It also wants a ban on sales or rentals of Studio B property until the proceedings are over. The city government cited national defence funds which were given to Studio B since 1976 as an information distributor in conditions of war. On the other hand, Studio B claims that in 1987 its founder, the city Socialist Alliance conference, transferred only symbolic funds into its accounts and added that the city government and Socialist Alliance conference never invested anything in the station as founders. Studio B completed its ownership transformation in April 1991 and was registered in the courts. That decision has not been appealed yet.

The Serbian opposition has invested a lot of effort in the fight for media freedoms (demonstrations, petitions, conflicts with the authorities). The question is whether it was wise enough to use what it won temporarily. A parliamentary debate is not the best TV and our political leaders had no idea how to use the media. They first allowed it in under proposals by the SPS and Seselj and took part in the verbal destruction of the mood needed for normal discussions.

A parliamentary committee report on the 1991 RTS programming plan said: "live coverage of parliamentary debates contributes to creating and nurturing a culture of tolerant dialogue". The report was signed by then information board chairman Antonije Isakovic. From this perspective, that sounds fairly cynical since the ruling party didn't invest much effort in promoting the culture of dialogue because it bases its methods on closed political decision-making.

In their book "Elections and Election Systems", Vladimir Goati and Vucina Vasovic said Serbia's electorate was becoming less radical. That process seems to be based not on more liberal but on more orthodox positions.

They said public opinion was growing more apathetic, becoming disoriented and hopeless.

Last week, the Institute of Social Sciences held a scientific gathering which discussed those problems on the 30th anniversary of its continued opinion polls. Srecko Mihajlovic listed seven conditions for public opinion to become legitimate as the basic condition of the legitimacy of the authorities:

1) that we give the validity of the regime consideration, that we have stands on the regime that we arrived at alone;

2) that we know about a different kind of regime and ways of achieving it;

3) that we aren't forced to speak publicly about the regime in ways we don't believe are true;

4) that we are interested in the regime and its possible replacement;

5) that we do not just accept the regime, but are convinced it can be replaced;

6) that we are ready to act in accord with our opinion;

7) that we are not ready to quash the critical attitude towards the regime in the interest of "higher goals" (Greater Serbia for example).

Firdus Dzinic, a pioneer of public opinion research in Belgrade, said the 30 years of experience lead to the conclusion that just 3 to5 percent of the electorate (300,000 people) have the basic requirements needed to, actively and with full awareness, follow social events and processes, understand them and take part in them.

The remaining 95% of the adult population (6.5 million) can be considered a mass which can be manipulated and affected by so-called creators of public opinion, i.e. the social elite.

In 1968, that elite had six sectors - besides an authoritarian leader, the snowball effect included deputies and officials in the federal parliament, political leaders (communist party primarily), economic leaders, editors and journalists, intellectuals and artists and scientists.

In that analysis, Slobodan Milosevic is seen as the only Tito heir. As a leader, he opted for populism.

The top of the pyramid of power is now made up of the autocratic leader and his executive. They are the most powerful element in the dynamics of public opinion thanks to their roles in public life but mostly thanks to the domination of authoritarian political culture among the people (fear of the authorities, bad living standards).

The second circle of opinion makers, Dzinic says, are opposition leaders. Parliament is the main way the opposition affects public opinion. The second way is press conferences, but they boil down to ghettoization.

Consistency and principled stands are not the dominant element in that circle which confuses public opinion or lowers the criteria used in evaluations down to the level of pragmatism, Dzinic said.

The third circle are the doormen and controllers of public opinion. Their role is dictated by conditions in and the status of the media system. TV to most people is the dominant source of information affecting social orientation. Dzinic said just 7 to 10 percent of people in polls are willing to express their own opinions (unaffected by the media). He said the authorities are more aware of the importance of the media system than the opposition.

The fourth sector are parliamentary deputies. Opinion polls 25 years ago showed that this category did not have an independent role, but was a feeble and unimaginative transmission of the authorities. Now deputies are considered important public opinion creators. Dzinic said there were 30 to 50 of them and added that their number would not increase significantly in the near future. Those include the leaders of the five or six biggest parties.

The fifth sector is the Church, which was limited to the private sphere 25 years ago and affected public opinion indirectly. The Church has now placed five or six of its prominent elders in public life.

The sixth element are independent intellectuals. In 1968, their opinions made them different, a liberal and democratic potential, but most were relatively well adapted to the system and the authorities then saw that the system could resist outside attacks. The critical intelligentsia was then ghettoized into journals and now into small-circulation newspapers and other media, Dzinic said. That circle has no more than 100 people in its active nucleus, rallied around several institutions (from the Belgrade Circle to the Human Rights Forum).

Intelligentsia circles include two segments just like 25 years ago. One is with the authorities and they are the majority; the other is against the authorities in a wide range, from all-out dissidents to passive resistance.

Our public opinion is in fact still confused, disoriented, tends to be feeble and apt to make unexpected and illogical changes.

To prevent and slow down the frustration of the public, the authorities and opposition should step up their production of ideas. The authorities, Dzinic said, will find that hard to do as long as they are autocratic and authoritarian, because the most politically capable people are not in it, while opposition leaders often don't manage or don't want to rally that potential.

The only goal of the authorities and opposition is survival, i.e. taking power; public political life is confused, chaotic, manipulatory, inconsistent, phrase-ridden and unconvincing - a space which includes comical creatures and phantom organizations