"Politika" Faced With Ownership Transformation?

Recently, the whole affair started up again, but many of the employees suspect that a happy ending does not await them. On Thursday morning a warning signed by the Union of Graphic Workers was pinned up on the doorman's booth. It cautioned the leadership, saying that the decision on ownership transformation could not be made without the Union.

The journalists were more concrete and sent a letter to the director and "Politika's" management, saying that they were opposed to the leadership's decision to offer the state participation in the ownership of the house. The leadership of the Journalists' Union believes that the initiator of the concept of ownership transformation should have first secured the mass and active participation of all employees, as had been demanded (and received) when fighting against "Politika's" transformation into a public firm.

The rest of the letter demands a clarification of the proposed model and expresses fear that the current socially-owned firm could be turned into several new, smaller socially-owned firms which would be "able to receive new financial injections only from other socially-owned (public) firms. This means that the so-called transformation would be carried out without a true flow of fresh capital, and "Politika" would come close to Bozovic's initial concept."

The letter ends with a demand and warning: "The Politika Journalists' Union believes that the most important thing in every variant of ownership restructuring, is that it must guarantee and retain "Politika's" independence, editorial autonomy, and that the journalists must have the main word in the choice of editors and editors-in-chief. The Union will oppose all concepts of ownership transformation which do not comply with this."

In order to understand such sharp reactions by journalists, graphic workers, and probably the majority of the employees, we must take a look at what preceded the whole affair.

Early last year "Politika's" leadership tried to form a share-holding company. It was planned that all the employees would receive a certain number of shares, while the leadership would have to (!) buy more. Mischief-makers explained the recommendation with the fact that several years ago "Politika" had entered into big investments totalling 140 million DM - buying a new, third printing works, offset rotations which thanks to sanctions have not yet arrived from England, equipment for the separation of colors, lifts, TV equipment... They say that part of the money was taken by the leadership as commission, and that it has become necessary to invest a part of the capital in the house in order to retain and strengthen current positions. The Serbian government's committee for evaluating property, did not agree with the transformation into a share-holding company, and the government tried to nationalize "Politika." The democratic public was up in arms and defended "Politika," which stood up against Bozovic, from director Zivorad Minovic to the coffee girl.

After the strike, there was no talk about ownership for a long time, but in January "Politika's" head offices were quietly moved to Krnjaca, a Belgrade suburb in the Palilula municipality, which contrary to the Stari Grad municipality (the previous address of "Politika"'s head offices) had remained faithful to the authorities at elections. Judging by the leadership's activities, the process of ownership transformation was accelerated in March: CES MECON were engaged and the workers were presented with a draft model for restructuring. The March issue of "Politika za nas" (an internal paper) explained that ownership transformation would be carried out in several phases. In the first phase "Politika" would remain a socially-owned firm "consisting of a large number of technological-economic units, and two firms which would operate independently on the market, just like the newspaper "Politika" and "Radio-television Politika." The aim of the transformation is for "Politika to remain a whole company with some independent parts through which fresh capital can be obtained".

The internal paper called the two independent units "daughters" and the remainder the "headquarters" which would retain the printing works, marketing, and the sales department (over 1,000 newsstands - the firm's greatest asset bringing in fresh money, because they sell newspapers, cigarettes, candy, etc). According to the concept, the "daughters" would remain within the framework of the "headquarters" (RTV as a mixed company, and the daily Politika as a limited responsibility company), but they would have their own giro accounts and would choose their own managements. In promoting this idea, Minovic attended meetings of the Workers' Council, the Graphic Workers' Union and the coordinating committee (an informal body formed during the strike and made up of all editors-in-chief, trade union representatives, heads of sectors and department chiefs) all in one day (March 25). Director Minovic, who had left the details to CES MECON economists led by Oskar Kovac, said that "talks had been conducted with the Serbian government" and that it had been informed of the decision made by "Politika's coordinating committee that 'Politika' cannot become a public firm, and that if it wished, the state could invest capital in the company 'Politika,' but only up to 30%, bearing in mind the firm's national importance."

The mentioning of the state's participation, and in this measure, raised the blood pressure of employees, but an additional shock came after Minovic's unofficial announcement that the state could be given 5% gratis, on account of its investments in the firm so far. At the meeting with the Journalists' Union Minovic's meeting with Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Sainovic was also brought up. This meeting had been preceded by talks at The Highest Level, where allegedly, Minovic had changed colors again. Members of the coordinating committee were categoric in claiming that no decision had been made, that there had been no voting, certainly not regarding the state's 30% participation.

"All those working in 'Politika' are adamant that 'Politika' must be saved as a whole, and this is why the transformation must be carried out carefully," said "Politika Ekspres" editor-in-chief Jevrem Damjanovic. "The first discussions showed that the group of economists who dealt with the matter did not bear in mind all the elements which would ensure the unity of the house and a united approach to structural transformation with regard to all editorial staffs. I believe it is important to avoid the status of a public firm, to preserve the wholeness of the house, to carry out the transformation gradually, without severing technological and financial developments, to carry out a division of assets in order that everybody's economic and management positions might become clear, to try and see that the 'headquarters' shed the status of a socially-owned firm as soon as possible, and that the rights of the old shareholders -Politika's founders, the Ribnikar family, are returned as soon as the law allows. The state could become a shareholder only if it invests ready money. The above mentioned 30% are too much, and I don't think that anyone should be given such a chance. I underline that no single competent forum made the decision for 30%."

When speaking of the state's direct participation, the possibilities of its indirect involvement must not be forgotten. The paper "Politika za nas" says that firms interested in investing capital in "RTV Politika" include: Jugopetrol, Intereksport, Komercijalne banke D.D., Simpo... It would be good to recall that the Split-based daily "Slobodna Dalmacija" whose loss is being mourned by Europe's democratic public, has not been turned into a state-owned enterprize, but has been taken over by big commercial banks. It is well known who controls them, just as it is known who watches over Jugopetrol (SPS-ed. note). "Politikin Zabavnik" (youth magazine) editor-in-chief Zefirino Grasi says: "It is a fact that many details concerning the ownership transformation remain unknown and lead me to believe that other matters are at hand. On the basis of the proffered explanation, there is, and there isn't, any ownership transformation - the property remains socially-owned, but there is also mention of changes (also unexplained) in the firm's structure. I think that the best variant is the privatization of the house, but it should be done expertly and without the theft of socially-owned property. I don't know who should do this and how, I'm not an economist, but I think that this is our only hope. At any rate, the decision on ownership transformation should be made with general approval. And if necessary, a referendum should be called."

Many question crop up: Who would own Politika? Whose name would be entered in the ownership documents (currently this is the Workers' Council, but its mandate has long run out.) Who will choose and change the editors? Why is there no division of assets? What will be the role of the former owners, the Ribnikar family? Does an act on nationalization or transfer of ownership exist at all?

It wasn't easy to find someone who would be prepared to talk. Minovic says he is busy. "Transformation is still an idea. No decision has been made yet."

Ahead of the 1990 elections, longtime Director Minovic was criticized for having become very close with the authorities. He said allegedly: "Politika has traditionally always been a little on the side of the authorities." A remark that has not been forgotten.