One-Party Rule

It was quite natural to assume after the 1990 multi-party elections in Serbia and 1992 federal multi-party elections that the country would slowly and systematically enter a system of pluralism which is called a democracy. Objectively, we know that in all of Eastern Europe the transition between the two systems (communism and democracy) isn't quick. An essential point in a democracy is for the parliament to be on its toes all the time regardless of whether the state is a parliamentary democracy or just a democracy.

In that sense what were the activities of the chamber of citizens in the Federal Parliament?

The first thing I can say is that the chamber met only 14 times (days) in all of 1995. Why? Was it because it didn't have enough draft laws submitted by the federal government and other institutions? Or perhaps the situation in the country is so boring that there's nothing for the chamber to debate? The chamber rules state that it works from the first week of February to the end of June and from the first week of September to the end of December every year.

From January 1 to December 26, the federal government submitted 65 draft laws to Parliament. Also, MPs, committee groups and the Yugoslav National Bank submitted 16 draft laws. So Parliament received 81 drafts to debate and the chamber adopted only 23, which leaves 53 drafts to debate. Why wasn't their procedure started if the chamber voted on them in 1995?

The federal government does have a majority even though it suffered some failures with its drafts. The question is why it stood by while some drafts (drafts laws on labour, public information and others) were left on the side?

A large number of opposition MPs claim everything is being done according to plans and a conspiracy.

The public knows that the FRY's foreign policy was never once debated comprehensively during the years of war in Bosnia. That debate was held outside the federal government circle and Parliament. Over those three years four debates were held on the foreign policy during a period of 1,000 days. At the last session of the chamber of citizens the public was excluded because of the short and meek report by Foreign Minister Milutinovic. Everything he said was reported by the press and TV.

Nasa Borba's Vojislava Vignjevic concluded earlier this year that the ruling parties in Montenegro and Serbia "intended to crush multi-party parliamentarism and they have succeeded". The feeling I get from up-close says something else: the ruling parties don't sense what multi-party parliamentarism is, they're afraid of losing single party rule, unable to compromise or reach a consensus on any important issue. Take a trivial problem as an example: every celebration organized by the authorities in Serbia and at federal level is reserved for government members and their supporters even when no political points are at stake. That was true of the 50th anniversary of Tanjug news agency and the anniversary of the W.W.II. liberation of Belgrade.

Is there a director, in Serbia at least, of a state owned company who isn't a member or active supporter of the ruling party? Is there a single school principal who belongs to the opposition? The directors of Tanjug, Politika, Borba and the three state TV channels are prominent ruling party members and they hold state posts as well. Even the rector of Belgrade University is a federal MP of the ruling party.

Take another example which might seem trivial. In the chamber of citizens, I think the deputy speaker presided over a session only once. I haven't seen anything different in the Serbian parliament. The speaker can only be a ruling party member; his deputies can't preside although the rules allow it. In the chamber of citizens, two-thirds of the MPs are directors of mainly state companies; the others all have other jobs and the authorities could say that they're all too busy to meet more often. But the basic issue is this: why does such a small number of people hold so many posts in this system?

Although article 14 of the federal constitution allows political pluralism, and that means a multi-party system, it's clear that in this country the system is one-party after six years of some changes. This isn't a monopoly since a monopoly means no one else is involved. This country is an example of one-party rule. Even institutions that seem to be free - the press as opposed to TV - have been reduced to a minimum through direct intervention. Constitutional court judge Slobodan Vucetic was right when he wrote in NIN weekly last year that today we are "farther from freedom of the press than five years ago".

I don't believe we fell into this situation because the ruling regime has an ideologist who experiments and introduces novelties. That kind of person is no longer present either in the ruling party or the opposition. There's a wave of opposition to political thinking, reasoning and wise decisions underway. Our regime is more the expression of the heritage of the old one-party regime with people who were in the ruling structures then. The serious question to ask is: how will the country progress if the situations continues to develop the way it is now?

The regime isn't the only one to blame for this situation although it has the most blame to carry. The opposition is headed by fairly gifted and energetic people but they are immature and not serious, at least the majority of them. No one is even trying to do what should have been done in 1990 both here and in relations with the other former Yugoslav republics: find a consensus of the rulers who don't accept changes and the opposition who have no intention of using undemocratic means to topple the regime.

If things go on like this there will be a state of constant confrontation which would develop into a new tragedy after Bosnia. Every internal civil strife or imposition of an undemocratic new regime will only prevent us from getting out of the abyss we fell into in the early 1990s by our own fault primarily.