Civil War and Peace

Over the past month, the party which used to be the most stable one on Serbia's political scene has been shattered by serious internal conflicts - accusations, resignations, labelling, and struggle for the leading position in the party. The GSS Assembly scheduled for mid-March is expected to offer an outcome. After this, the party might eventually split in two.

It is difficult for the public to understand the essence of the conflict in GSS. On the surface, the conflict started after "Vreme" had published an article by former GSS vice-president Stevan Lilic. Lilic had accused the party leadership of disorientation and skidding toward nationalism. Lilic's texts were later discussed in lengthy sessions of the GSS Main Board - some qualified them as libel while others supported them. The list of those accused of nationalism also included GSS leader Vesna Pesic. She had qualified the other group, apparently led by Zarko Korac, as "diluted peace-keepers."

In her interview for "Vreme", Vesna Pesic admitted she was a little confused by all that was happening in GSS. After the GSS Assembly, the party might get a new president, as Vesna Pesic sees the events as an attempt on her political "liquidation."

"The Civil Alliance has not come to a consensus on what our differences are," Vesna Pesic said. "That's why the most important thing now is to eventually establish whether there are any important political differences between us. Other parties have been in similar situations, with splits and quarrels, and the bad thing was that no one knew why these things happened. The Democratic Party, for example, has split more than once and it has remained unclear whether this was a personnel or a political issue."

VREME: You are accused of moving toward nationalism. According to the same story, those who have remained faithful to the peaceful, civil option are on the other side.

It was in your magazine that I first read about it. Former GSS vice-president Stevan Lilic during our sessions never mentioned that the party was disoriented, skidding toward nationalism, that it had not set the limits of pragmatism. What complicated the matter was that some people, including myself, rejected the libel. I wouldn't have spent five minutes in GSS if I had been a nationalist. What would I have been doing in this party? I am convinced that no serious person would believe that I am a nationalist. It was also said that we as a party do not have a stand toward certain issues. I maintain that we have a very clear stand on everything Lilic mentioned in your magazine - the Kosovo question, the Hague tribunal, relations between Serbia and Montenegro.

It remains unclear what the dispute between you and GSS is about. Does it have anything to do with the leader's aspirations, or something else?

It is difficult for me to judge, because different people have very different motives. There may be some personal ambitions, of course. I might be running a more robust opposition policy than another team would.

What do you expect from the forthcoming GSS Assembly?

First of all, to adopt a political declaration which will clearly set the directions of GSS political activity. We plan also to adopt new party regulations. We have foreseen legal possibility for the making of factions. If someone wanted to emphasize certain issues, he could legally form his faction. As for myself, I think that the people who wish to lead the party must prove to be capable of writing a document in which they would explain their ideas, instead of criticising others.

It somehow turns out that those (socialists in the first place), who only yesterday learned the meaning of the word peace, are doing a lot better now than GSS which advocated the anti-war option from the very beginning.

I am not quite sure that we are definitely out of the war. It's true that there is no shooting in Bosnia any more, but the peace agreement is being obstructed. It is still unclear what will happen when IFOR leaves. The story has not been completed yet and there is still a lot of scepticism. If our starting point is that the war is over, then GSS ought to concentrate on the issues that exist in peace. Our main task is to start developing a decent society we can live in. I am not confused by peace. But I have no reason to forget who had led us into the war, either. I am in no dilemma. Besides, why should I be confused by peace when we know we entered the war in order to avoid the resolution of some important issues that we were facing. Serbia was not capable of changing the technology of ruling. It doesn't matter what you call it - left, right, centre -the way of ruling has remained unchanged. Serbia is ruled by the old police structures, and it is the technology of a transparent state, political and economic system. The structures saw nationalism as a fantastic card they could play on and remain in power. All of us here should ask ourselves - do we want this to somehow change by itself, or are we in a hurry? I think we are in a hurry to establish a parliament, democracy, market economy, law and even to give people a chance to earn something.

Considering the hurry, would you accept a joint opposition list in the forthcoming elections? Are you ready to be on the same list with the Radicals if this is the best way to replace the government?

A joint opposition list is not realistic; it is fiction. Serbia is more likely to have two strong coalition blocks, and this would be a much more realistic option. As for cooperation in the elections, it could exist in a technical sense, above all in the control of the process. We could be united when it comes to the conditions, media, election law. Speaking about coalitions, there is an evident closeness between us and the Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO). We are now a coalition in the Parliament and it should surprise no one that we are cooperating. Other democratic, civil and similar orientation parties may join the coalition. I personally see no advantage in lumping everything together. People would really be confused if the parties of so different orientation were on the same side. This is why the idea should not be imposed. I think that SPO, as our coalition partner, also does not intend to agree to a joint list.

Do all GSS factions think the same way about the coalition with SPO?

There have been some doubts that the coalition with SPO would lead us to a joint opposition list. This, of course, does not mean that we should cease our joint preparations because of some doubts.

Why has your political option never become popular outside of central Belgrade?

The public opinion was pushed in one direction for almost a decade with awfully aggressive media pressure, through TV, anti-bureaucratic revolution, the activities of the church and the intellectuals, and was being prepared for the war policy long before the war started. Could the civil option have been more successful in such circumstances? I think it couldn't have. The civil option did the best possible under the situation at hand. In war time, our ideas are naturally unacceptable to many people. When you tell someone that the side he is on is wrong, that it is doing wrong things, an ordinary man cannot accept it. We cannot expect to be understood by the majority in Serbia, but we should not keep quiet about it. We uncompromisingly held our position. We never flirted with ideas which would justify the war or spread nationalism and xenophobia. If Serbia had followed us, there would have been no war.

Your political position was accused of being anational and cosmopolitan. It is often mentioned that during the war you often went to Sarajevo and never to Pale.

I must say openly that I would really prefer never to go to Pale. I did not want to go there then and I don't want to go there now. Because Pale, as an exponent of the Belgrade regime, had put those cannons and tanks around Sarajevo and was murdering the city. I considered that a crime. What should I talk about with the people who did such things? I was invited to go to Sarajevo by the Serbian Civil Council. I went there to discuss the issues that we have in common - the cessation of war, establishing a state on a multi-ethnic basis without accepting the results of ethnic- cleansing. Speaking about the Serbian national interest, I think that no normal Serb should have accepted such a project.

Everybody here seems to be in a hurry to win the elections in the Bosnian Serb Republic...

It is not a good idea to have parties from one state take part in the elections of another. Tudjman's election of 12 deputies from Herzegovina into the Croatian parliament is undemocratic, imperialistic and aggressive. Why should the Croatian Democratic Union exist in Bosnia-Herzegovina? These are the consequences of Belgrade and Zagreb's imperialistic policies concerning the division of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

We increasingly hear the comments that the opposition here is tired, that we need new personalities..

These are just comments. We can neither invent new people nor can we prevent them from emerging. We cannot invent something that does not exist. We cannot despair because we do not have the English parliament instead of the one we have. All we can do is work to improve it. I personally would be very happy to see a new powerful force that would change everything. There is enough space for everyone.

The regime has taken advantage of the end of war to extend its authoritarian power. They have taken over Studio B and banned the Soros Foundation, will that be the end?

All the strongholds of individuality and independence seem to be falling down. Now, when we should be resolving internal problems -allowing as many free media as possible, opening Radio-Television Serbia to various ideas - it is simply not happening. The places of free thinking and information are being closed down. This takes Serbia away from resolving its important problems and shows the regime's weakness. The authoritarian regime is becoming so obvious. I sometimes think it would be better to make it become open dictatorship than let it slip away from its own essence.

Vojislav Kostunica (Democratic Party of Serbia leader) says that if the regime goes on this way, the opposition has no right to be represented in the elections and repeat the mistakes it made in the past.

These are very important things. The past elections have been carried out in very difficult circumstances for the opposition. The circumstances of the elections have been so disastrous and unadjusted for any kind of democratic showdown between the political powers in Serbia, that they have led to depression and the conviction that nothing can ever change here. We ought to be really strict when it comes to elections and accept only the circumstances which would guarantee fair elections, and not just any conditions.

What will happen on 9 March?

I would like that date to commemorate what happened five years ago. I would like to shed light on something that is so easily forgotten: on 9 March 1991 tanks came out in the streets and symbolically announced that tanks could so easily be used. Force entered our political life on that day and it is still very active. It was not only a showdown with the demonstrators, but also an announcement of war; it showed how irresponsibly weapons are used. 9 March should represent the wish for a change in Serbia. I don't think it should be the beginning and the end of everything that is happening. A series of public appearances of the opposition could follow and we could consider it a kind of election campaign. It is only the beginning of the attempt to show how necessary changes are in the year of the elections. Only the parties that can be called democratic will take part. It is very important for people to free themselves of fear, to come to the rally and exercise their right to free gathering. I hope that's the way it will be.