Fascistization

"When you see who won, you see that they are parties and currents which carry a strong fascist charge. In the Serbian parliament one third are fascists, and if you add to this the fascist elements in the other parties, that can be a greater danger than sanctions." This cautionary diagnosis was made by sociologist Bozidar Jaksic on January 19, during a debate on the 1992 December elections at the Institute of Social Sciences in Belgrade. "I definitely see fascism on the rise in Yugoslavia's political life," said Jaksic. He listed the causes for this dangerous turnabout: frustration, fear of changes and accumulated fears.

Jaksic also mentioned an unavoidable cultural-political reason: fascism in Serbia in this century is a taboo topic. Dimitrije Ljotic (leader of the fascist movement in Serbia during World War II) ... and then a silence. Fascist tendencies in this society are broader than in Ljotic's time. It is not just Seselj and Arkan's group and others. Jaksic fears a "clash between Roem and the Chancellor, and "cannot avoid thinking of the early Thirties in Germany."

Jurist Zivko Surculija believes that a "national-socialist and a radical nationalist party have won." Sociologist and opposition party leader Nebojsa Popov believes that the matter pertains to a post-political (and not pre-political) phenomenon, i.e. the end of politics. Popov says that the new elections have created a backdrop, hiding the old and new protagonists of power. These participants in the accelerated process of fascistization have now been given legitimacy.

Vladimir Milic believes that the election results express the deep drama of the disintegration of a society made up of large groups dependent on the state. Housewives and pensioners are not the only dependent ones, there is also a large number of blue collar workers on paid leave. If re-privatization were to take place, these large groups would turn against the authorities.

Belgrade University professor and jurist Vucina Vasovic thinks that the December elections have weakened the political center, and that a chance for stabilizing relations in Serbia has been passed up. The basic criteria for regular elections were not observed, a consensus on the form of the state was not achieved, nor a minimum of stability in society, or a clear picture of its basic goals, and the elections service was probably the worst in the world. Ecomomist Vladimir Goati says that the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) has won a Pyrrhic victory: in December 1990 they won 2,320,000 votes, at the federal elections in May 1992 they won 1,680,000 votes and in December 1,350,000. Vladimir Stambuk (SPS) concludes that the elections have brought a significant change -there is no longer one dominant party. The national question, the central issue with which the SPS won the elections, will have the quiet support of other parties for the duration of sanctions, and while there is war in Bosnia. This will be followed by political instability aimed at toppling the government and calling of new elections. Instability is greatest in the federal parliament, where the rule of a minority coalition government (Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS)-SPS) can be expected, and in the Serbian parliament (where a minority SPS government will be set up), while the greatest stability will be in the Montenegrin parliament (with a majority DPS government).

Miroslav Pecujlic says it is interesting that citizens make a difference between the defence of national interests and a better future and development of the economy. This division of society into two blocs leads to rifts, and social conflicts which could lead to a civil war. He fears that such a trend leads to a cross between totalitarian Balkan fascism and Latin American dictatorships. Nebojsa Popov added that such a situation need not be entirely hopeless, we might event have Samba schools!

Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic will take the oath on Monday. In his post-election address to the nation he said that the elections had been a failed attempt to destabilize Serbia. Sociological analyses do not show this. The December 1992 elections did not fulfil their social function (not to make democracy better, but to make it possible). They did not decrease political tensions in society, but on the contrary, set up a scene for the eruption of a dangerous internal crisis.