Anxiety with Good Reason

The Serbian Constitutional court has started dealing with the Serbian public prosecutor's request to ban the Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO). Those familiar with constitutional court procedures claim that the proceedings - if properly conducted - could by no means be over before autumn. In the meantime, there should be no problems for the SPO to continue working. The dilemma on whether the banning of political parties comes under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional or the Supreme courts is unfounded, according to experts "Vreme" talked to. The jurisdiction of the Constitutional court is indisputable. According to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, "the freedom of political, trade union and other kinds of organizing and activities is guaranteed", while activities "aimed at forcibly changing the constitutionally determined order, violating the territorial integrity and independence of the Republic of Serbia, violating the guaranteed freedoms and human and civil rights, provoking and fanning national, racial and religious intolerance and hatred" are banned. If it wants to do a thourough job, the Constitutional court will really have a tough time. First of all, the Court's main task is to assess whether documents comply with the Constitution - from laws to decisions taken by firms. This time it will have to determine whether the activities of a party are constitutional or not, which is a much more complex job. Secondly, under the Law on the Constitutional court procedure, the proposer of an initiative is obliged to present to the Court both the reasons for, and the evidence showing that - in this case - the activities were aimed at forcibly changing the constitutionally determined order. The Serbian public prosecutor's office has only given the reasons for its request to ban the most influential opposition party, but it has failed to provide any evidence. The Court's task will be to determine whether the aim of the rally was to forcibly change the constitutional order - or whether this might have been a protest by a group of citizens against the authorities' violent conduct, not only regarding the procedure ousting the Yugoslav president, but also regarding a Federal MP who fell unconscious after being knocked down in the Assembly. The Serbian Constitutional court will also have to establish whether, according to its rules and regulations, reactions on June 1st fall under the category of an attempt at forcibly changing the order. Several broken windows do not represent the undermining of the constitutional order. Even if the citizens had entered the Assembly building, that still wouldn't have been an undermining of the constitutional order. Namely, the assembly is one of the institutions of that order, but it does not represent the order as such. In order to support its claim that this was an attempt to change the constitutional order by force, the Serbian public prosecutor's office must go to court with the following evidence: the party's program (whether there are any elements pointing to the above mentioned intentions); decisions taken by SPO bodies, the Main committee, the Congress (statements by individuals, even by the party president, cannot be identified with the party's policy); pictures taken on the spot and statements by relevant people about whether the undermining of the order was planned and called for. On the basis of all this, one could competently assess what motivated the rally on June 1st, and whether it was organized so as to undermine the order. When the evidence is collected and when the trial starts, representatives of both the prosecutor's office and the SPO will appear in court, each with their arguments. If the court wants to restore its seriously shaken reputation, the debate will have to be public. For the moment, there are no grounds for excluding the public from the trial. The public can be kept out of a trial in the interests of security (the preservation of a state secret) - but also if the court deems it necessary. Of course, ideologically rigid judges could find grounds to conclude that, precisely in this case, it would be "necessary" to exclude the public from the trial. The ideological profile of the judges is, naturally, important to the outcome of the proceedings. As we have learned, most of the judges are members of the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS), for the moment there are no members of the Serbian Radical Party (SRS). The SPS has a considerable membership, but those chosen for the Constitutional court are "people of a special kind" - people who can be trusted and who are staunchly loyal to President Milosevic. The Constitutional court consists of nine judges, but there are currently eight of them because one has died. At least five have to vote "yes". In all the previous politically important cases tried by these judges, the decisions reached were in accordance with the regime's interests. We recall that this was the case with the Law on the election of the president of the Republic, when the Court assessed that it was in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, for a presidential candidate to have to submit proof of a year's residence in Serbia. The goal was to eliminate former Yugoslav PM Milan Panic from running for office. These examples cause anxiety over the outcome of the proceedings to ban the SPO.

Vuk Draskovic's attorney, Rajko Danilovic has given the following assessment of the request for banning the SPO: "One cannot equate the political regime and the constitutional order. The political regime comprises the authorities constituted by the ruling party with the help of the fraternal SRS. Essentially, this regime is non-democratic, that is, authoritarian. On the other hand, the essence of the constitutional order is a multi-party, parliamentary democracy, pluralism of ownership, freedom and the rights of man. The promotion of these values is what the SPO insisted on. While, on the hand, the public prosecutor and the Court are attacking the constitutional order by equating personal power and constitutional order". President Slobodan Milosevic has his own opinion about all this, which he has made public. Asked about the arrest of Vuk Draskovic, he said that "like in every successful country", here too the law must be enforced, and that there is "no country" in which the killing of a policeman and vandalism could be "treated as the expression of a different opinion". This is how Milosevic sees it, unless something makes him change his mind.