Thus is not a Bridge Game

It would not be right to reproach him for refusing to accept the battle without rules and for his reluctance to expose himself to grave risk, something to which many of our politicians had to consent frequently Anyone who wishes to join the world of politics in Serbia today, especially the opposition, should be forgiven in advance for the mistakes he committed or is about to commit. Because it would be too difficult a task for average brains and a normal nervous system to find a way to deal with this nightmare of power, war, borders, national interests, impoverished economy, lawlessness, media terror and outside pressure. Added to this there are the embittered people, the army in agony and the threat of street violence with the accusations for treason which are pouring down from all directions, creating the atmosphere of pogrom.

Despite all this, I find it difficult to understand the latest move of Dragoljub Micunovic (the president of the Democratic Party) - his meeting with Milan Babic (the president of Krajina) and Radovan Karadzic (the leader of Bosnian Serbs). The Democratic Party claims that this is consistent with the peace plan of Cyrus Vance. Micunovic has, thus, opted for peace, but against the disarming of Krajina Serbs. He is also asking for additional guarantees and has a lot of complaints concerning the peace plan.

There was reason to believe that the opposition would, at the end of this war, greet Slobodan Milosevic with the carefully drawn up list summing up his adventure and with the request to shoulder the responsibility for everything he has done. The leadership of the Democratic Party was subjected to the pressure of its own membership for not making a clear stand against the war. It seemed that this party was too loyal to the official version and that it too easily accepted Milosevic's version concerning Serbian nationalist aims and interests. But the party was, nonetheless, expected to make Milosevic shoulder the responsibility. Micunovic is, however, accusing Milosevic for making a futile exit, rather than accusing him for entering the war in the first place.

The Serbian political scene has no one who could equal Micunovic's democratic manner and his balanced delivery. It would not be right to reproach him for refusing to accept the battle without rules and for his reluctance to expose himself to grave risk, something to which many of our politicians had to consent frequently. He knew how to be in the spotlight and impose his calm brand of leadership, but, just like in '68, he refused to "stick it out" to the end and accept total confrontation. He, perhaps, looked too contented when he announced in Parliament the agreement which he reached with the government, following the bloody demonstrations, since it was only his party which benefited from it in the short run. The democrats turned out to be selfish profiteers, too sure of their reasoning powers on the Parliament platform and unprepared for coping in the conditions of wild political confrontation which is inherent in the power struggle. It is as though they have opted for waiting for peaceful times, but Micunovic himself would have to be much younger to live to see them.

This war has made it clear that waiting for peacetime conditions to show their true value is not the only problem of the Democratic Party. It presented itself as the mild, modern alternative in Serbia, to then change its tune. Whoever wanted to hear another, more reasonable voice in Serbia, turned to Micunovic, who, it must be said, did not preach war but dialogue, but with the aims which were essentially the same as Milosevic's. As if Milosevic would have started a war for his own pleasure and not out of necessity. Now that it is clear that Serbs can not be brought together by war, Micunovic is showing greater determination than Milosevic ever did. As if the democrats were waiting for a long time to surpass Milosevic in his quest for "Serbianhood", the discipline which was the priority he imposed.

Attempting to score with the voters or just looking for a stronghold among Serbs outside Serbia, they give an impression that they wish to follow Milosevic's failed politics which he himself is abandoning and thus denying themselves the right to accuse him for it. Thus it turned out that it is the attitude of Vuk Draskovic towards war and peace which really matters. He is followed by Milosevic and the democrats.

His meeting with Babic and Karadzic would not in itself be wrong, although Milosevic and his media made him what they are today and although they were only implementing his state project, but giving full support to them directly contributes to the break up of the flimsy cease-fire. Babic has practically rejected the peace plan, Karadzic is saying that the Serbs should "show their teeth to the entire world" and, while Milosevic is trying to break them, Micunovic is suddenly full of understanding for them. I don't think he will stick to this attitude and try his luck with the hard core outer Serbs, since it is becoming counter-productive in Serbia itself. The democrats will probably accuse the government for the war as well as for the peace, the way they were accusing Milosevic for refusing to sing the agreement to later accuse him again for having signed some of the previous agreements. Contradictions and inconsistencies are a good thing up to a point, but the leadership of the Democratic Party is already losing its identity and I believe that the membership has difficulties in making out who is leading them and what is it they really want.

In the interpretation of the Democratic Party, politics sometimes seems to be something too subtle and complex to be explained in full, something which should be handled with care. That is the reason they could not find the right words to describe this war. It is as if they were constantly talking about something of secondary importance while keeping quiet about the main issue. Moreover, Belgrade is their most significant stronghold, all their MPs come from Belgrade, and we all know what Belgrade thought of this war. I would say that this party did not, in the critical situation, reflect the genuine mood of its voters. This happens in politics, but no one in a democracy can represent for long the attitudes which the majority neither shares nor understands. It is especially inconvenient when that majority turn out to be right.

The attitude of Micunovic and his political manner are suited to a developed and stable democracy. He tries to make as much space for manoeuver as possible, but he fails to see to what extent it is restricted in this war and in the general chaos which prevails in Serbia. The time has not yet come for a modern professional politician to appear, who has mastered the political rules, since the rules have yet to be established. Firm principles, a consistent attitude and certain moral standards are much more important here, since the values have yet to be established and the framework of a disintegrated society stabilized. Imitating the West and adopting their political technique would not help much. Before that the lost moral pointers should be reestablished, since the post-communist crisis is more of a moral than of political nature. Thus we are witnessing the rising power of the church, although the church is not capable of offering the political standards which would suit the masses. Neither does it enjoy sufficient credibility, since its moral standards are also doubtful. What will happen if Babic persists in blocking the peace plan and Karadzic follows a similar line in Bosnia? How will Micunovic explain that he didn't contribute to it? The peace plan does have its shortcomings, but one should remember what preceded it, what the war was like and how many diplomatic interventions and agreements have failed. Milosevic could be accused of anything but of the lack of determination in realizing his "all Serbs in one state" ambition, even at the cost of bringing misery to Serbia. Should this process be repeated?

Organizing and constituting the Democratic Party required much time and effort and it is understandable that its leaders are trying to preserve their network and survive until better times. But, having missed the opportunity to gain moral credibility and having allowed themselves numerous blunders, they can only be reduced to a hollow, lifeless shell. Apart from all this, it is a big question when the better times will actually come and how can they come at all with the kind of opposition we have.