Similarities and differences

The political climate is totally different to that of two years ago when the strongest opposition leader in Serbia was taken to court for participating in and organizing demonstrations on March 9. When, on that same March 9, Vuk was arrested, thousands of people called for his release. And he was released. He appeared in the city center without a single bruise. There was only one hearing before the First Municipal Court in Belgrade - and then the case was placed ad acta. At the time, the prosecutor didn't even request that Draskovic be kept in custody, although - from the prosecutor's point of view - there was the danger that the suspect might once again instigate violence with serious consequences. This kind of inconsistency was interpreted as a lack of political strength to arrest an opposition leader, that is, as fear that this act in itself could lead to new mass demonstrations.

One could say that the authorities are now making up for everything they couldn't do then. Vladan Vasilijevic of the Belgrade-based Institute for criminology gives an account of what happened. The police beat Draskovic in the elevator, in the police van, in the prison yard. According to police regulations and international standards, the police can beat someone who does not cooperate and if the life of a policeman or someone else is endangered. According to Vasilijevic, during the arrest of Draskovic uncontrolled physical force was used. This represents a serious violation of article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia which guarantees the inviolability of human life. Namely, this was a violation of the right to live, not just that of the demonstrators, but also of passers-by. There is another human right guaranteed under the Constitution which was seriously violated - the right to freedom (article 15). On June 1, citizens were harassed regardless of their conduct, the official decisions to take them into custody were vaguely formulated, the way in which these people were taken into custody was not in accordance with the committed offenses. Vuk and Danica Draskovic were deprived of the right to a defense. Everything that has happened to the Draskovics is contrary to the International pact on civil and political rights and the International convention banning torture. However, due to the rating international regulations have in this country, perhaps it is better to refer once again to the Serbian Constitution. According to article 48, a citizen has the right to publicly criticize the work of state and other organs and officials, to make appeals, petitions and proposals, and to request an answer to them. It also says that a citizen cannot bear consequences or be held responsible for such activities. When two years ago, an attempt was made to put Vuk Draskovic on trial, he was charged with "calling for resistance" and "being part of a group that had committed violence". According to the Serbian Penal Code, which has not been changed in the meantime: "Between three months and five years of imprisonment is the penalty for a person "who is part of a group responsible for the death of a person or severely injures him, causes fire, does considerable damage to property" - or tries to do some of these things. As regards the leader, he can be given as many as 15 years behind bars (article 230).

According to the sentence passed by unauthorized organs - the Federal government, the Republican government, the Main committee of the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) and - of course - Serbian Radical Party (SRS) leader Vojislav Seselj, Vuk Draskovic could easily be accused of organizing enemy activities (a qualification which still exists in the Yugoslav Penal Code, an article left over from the Communist regime - ed. note). Because of the atmosphere of a political lynch surrounding Vuk Draskovic and his wife, Vasilijevic believes that the objectivity of the future trial has been seriously brought into question. The same consequences will result from the Resolution adopted by both chambers of parliament, which says that all organs must take steps to punish offenders severely.

We asked Belgrade attorney Rajko Danilovic to comment on the treatment of Vuk Draskovic, from the legal point of view. Danilovic said that the SPS is not a crypto-communist party, as some call it, but a fundamental communist party. Namely, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has existed for over a year now, and during all that time no changes have been made in the criminal legislature - neither the processual nor material-legal one. The criminal legislature which is ad literam communist, is still in force. Whether the communist legislature will also be applied in a communist way, depends, of course, on the balance of political forces. Facts show that the totalitarian political order has won this time. The Republican Public Prosecutor's Office has already requested a ban on the work of the Serbian Renewal Movement, which it didn't even think of in 1991. Today, the Public Prosecutor's Office is shooting from all available weapons, it is also digging up sins from 1990, it claims that the party's goal is to change by force the constitutionally determined order. In its explanation, the republican public prosecutor's office gave a previously reached political verdict legal form on the Draskovic case. It is said that Draskovic had called citizens to enter the Federal parliament building by force, to demolish it and seize it. It is concluded that such calls resulted in citizens gathering in front of the Federal Parliament and in violent demonstrations with a tragic outcome.

Nowhere in former Yugoslavia has a similar request for banning a democratic opposition party been made, and other Serbian parties of a democratic orientation have not yet shown signs of serious resistance to this dangerous move by the state. The democratic charge seems to have disappeared in Serbia, and especially in Belgrade. The positive energy was probably exhausted in all the previous attempts at civil resistance, which produced no results. The latest elections were, to all intents and purposes, the final disappointment. Many people, especially the young, who were the bearers of that resistance, have left the country in the beleif that nothing can be done here. Those who have stayed have become apathetic due to the increasingly unbearable poverty which keeps exhausting them in their daily battle for survival. The authorities' unabated production of political hysteria has resulted in people turning to themselves, their family, friends and personal interests as the only way to preserve some piece of mind. It seems that no one sees any purpose in resistance any longer. The road to totalitarianism is open.