A Barometer for Measuring Stubbornness

Yugoslavs move within an unusual paradox: they have a difficult time enduring the galloping crisis, but are loathe to do anything to change things. Concerning estimates that a civil war could break out in Yugoslavia, only 13% said: "Impossible." Of those who believe that war could break out, over a third mentioned poverty and unemployment as the most likely reasons.

In a country under sanctions, and saturated with strong national emotions, biases and political violence, those polled showed greater fear of a social conflict than of a national or political one. As many as 49% of the polled said that their financial situation was worse than it had been last year, while 37% believe that next year will be much worse. According to other data, their dissatisfaction is not conflicting, since it is not directed against some other social group: 60% of the polled assess their situation as being "the same as that of the majority". A little less than a third of those polled believe that ethnic Albanians in Kosovo could start a civil war. Is there a wish for the conflict to be alleviated? Over 70% allowed for the right to found societies for the preservation of tradition and culture, around 64% would allow teaching to be conducted in the mother tongue, but 50% are against allowing ethnic Albanians the right to teaching in the Albanian language at the University, while 71% deny the right to autonomy in Kosovo.

Judging by attitudes to fellow citizens of other nationalities, towards other peoples, the nation's spirit is undoubtedly xenophobic. Research head Ljiljana Bacevic told VREME that this phenomenon has cropped up relatively recently in our research and that the results point to a stormy transition from non-xenophobia and an openess to the world, to xenophobic reactions.

A public opinion survey carried out in October 1992 by the IDN, showed that not only was 10% of Serbia's population xenophobic, but that as many as two-thirds of those polled showed various degrees of xenophobia. Judging by the May 1993 survey, three-quarters of the population are xenophobic now, and the situation shows a tendency to grow. Most of the nations in the world received negative assessments, all international organizations were considered to be hostile, only we are strong and good...

The May 1993 survey showed a very negative view of Croats (61% of those polled), of Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina (58%), of Macedonians (29%), of Moslems in B-H (65%), of Moslems wherever they may be (59%), of Slovenians (44%), of ethnic Albanians (67%), of Hungarians (43%)...

It seems that on the national issue Serbs are more exclusive than Montenegrins. For example, 39% of those polled in Serbia support a multi-ethnic community, while the percentage in Montenegro stands at 46%. The statement: "Yugoslavia is only for Serbs and Montenegrins" showed that 51% of those polled didn't agree with this, while 13% did. Even though they showed an unrestrained xenophobia in some questions, most of those polled (41%) gave the greatest number of positive points to the claim that different nations can live together harmoniously; a much smaller percentage (18%) were of the opinion that a state should consist of one nationality only.

85% believe that everybody has the right to live where they wish, while 7% believe that one nation has the right to ban another from living in its territory.

Perceptions regarding the refugees' misfortunes differ quite a lot - the majority of those polled said that Serbs are fleeing under pressure, but that the Moslems and Croats are fleeing from war. Serbs are fleeing from Bosnia because of pressure (47% answers), fleeing from war (44%), while (2%) believe they are fleeing voluntarily.

Moslems are fleeing under pressure - believed by (22% of the polled), fleeing from war (56.8%) and fleeing voluntarily (10%).

Croats are fleeing under pressure is the view held by (19%), from war (56%), voluntarily (10%).

How the Serbs See Themselves

Of all the peoples in the world, the highest marks go to Serbs (57% of the synthesized answers on collective characteristics); Montenegrins received 44%, Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina 45%, and Serbs in Croatia 43%.

If we take a look at the concentration of answers regarding the most extreme variants on the good-bad scale, e.t.c., it turns out that Yugoslav citizens perceive Montenegrins as being honest - judging by the 60% of maximum positive points, strong (37%), non-violent (45%), good (50%) and just (53%).

Serbs are also honest (57%), strong (41%), good (53%), just (53%) and non-violent (45.4% maximum points, 23% moderately positive assessments, while only 8.5% ticked off the answer closest to "violent", which is twice as less than that concerning the Russians, seven times less than for the Americans and eight times less than for the Germans).

Serbs and the World

In May 1993 the world was disliked by Yugoslavs, but Greece was a favored country (50.7% positive points), and for some reason Japan (48%). Canada, China, Romania and Russia have 30%-40% somewhat restrained positive points. The October 1992 public opinion survey carried out by the IDN also showed that those surveyed had a very bad opinion of all countries worldwide, with the exception to some extent of Greece, China, Romania and Russia. Researchers say that this is a classical mechanism - one's own aggressiveness, which has resulted from frustrations, is projected on others. Many nations come under a stereotype, and the contrast effect then makes big friends out of rare small ones.

Judging by survey reports, when assessing certain nations, those polled vacillated over whether to assess them or their states. They had earlier expressed very negative stands on: Albania (concentration of negative answers - 75%), Austria (64%), Bulgaria (46%), France (30%), Croatia (75.9%), Italy (31%), Hungary (46.4%), Macedonia (32%), Germany (72%), USA (55%), Slovenia (52%), Turkey (77%) and Great Britain (37%).

While judging certain nations the polled where allowed to opt for one of four variations on the scales "honest-dishonest", "strong-weak", "non-violent-violent", "good-bad", "just-unjust." The following answers were arrived at:

Germans are an evil which the earth cannot bear: dishonest (61.5% of the most negative answers), bad (59%), unjust (64%), strong (55%), violent (73%), while only 4% consider them non-violent.

Americans are dishonest (47% of the most negative answers), violent (60%), bad (40%), unjust (53%), but, they are strong (65%).

Russians are moderately honest (38% of the most positive assessments with 31% "very good" assessments), strong (52% of the best assessments), non-violent (35%), good (39%) and just (33%), but not as much as the Serbs...

Could someone attack Yugoslavia? 55% of those polled said yes. 34% believe that NATO will attack Yugoslavia, USA (21%), Turkey (21%), Germany (10%), the United Nations (7%).

Yugoslav citizens showed the greatest mistrust of the European Community (65%), the CSCE (64%), the United Nations (58%) and NATO (69%). Of domestic institutions the following are regarded with the greatest mistrust: the Serbian Assembly (32%) and the Serbian government (32%). 47% of those polled believe that the United Nations have not done nearly enough towards stopping the conflict in Bosnia, while 25% believe that they should not have become involved in the first place. The percentage of those who believe that there is no need to agree to international mediation in stopping the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina stands at 47%, while 31% believe that international mediation is necessary. That Russia has not done enough is believed by 46%, while 28% believe that it should not be involved at all. 42% of those surveyed believe that the European Community should not be involved in the resolving of the conflict in Yugoslavia, while 56% believe that the USA should not be involved.

Operation "Provide Promise" during which aid has been parachuted to Bosnia is not approved by 50% of those polled; 43% believe that the Serbs have the right to stop UN convoys because the United Nations are helping Moslems, while 46% opted for a more moderate variant: "Serbs have the right to control the contents of the convoys, but not to prevent their passage through Serb territories."

62% of those polled believe that the Vance-Owen peace plan would not ensure a lasting peace in B-H, while 30% claim that Serbs should retain all the territories they hold in B-H; while 43% think that they should abandon some territories, but not all those proposed under the Vance-Owen plan. (This survey was conducted at the time of the dramatic break between Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and Serb Republic in B-H President Radovan Karadzic. Researchers noticed that public opinion follows Milosevic's decisions: in the beginning there were more against, while later there were more in favor of the Vance-Owen plan.)

Yugoslavia should fulfill the UN demands aimed at stopping armed conflicts in B-H: this is believed by 23% of those polled, while 18% believe that it should not do so. 22% believe that Yugoslavia has fulfilled these conditions, while 25% believe that it is not to blame for the conflicts.

With Regard to the Serbian Cause

If one of their close relatives had to go and fight for the rights of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia, 38% of those polled would be against, while 37% said that they would regard it as a patriotic obligation. On the other hand, 37% of the polled believe that the (Yugoslav) government should devote greater attention to the protection of Serbs outside Yugoslavia, while 14% believe that we have enough of our own problems without having to be concerned with Serbs outside Yugoslavia. On the other hand, 44% said that everything should be done in order that sanctions against Yugoslavia be lifted, while 40% believe that the pressures should be withstood.

"We must be prepared to fight for our country without questioning if it is in the right or not," 30% agree completely with this claim, 18% partially, while 25% do not agree at all.

The claim: "There is no place in our country for those who are guilty of something", gave the following answers: 37% agreed completely, while 20% did not agree at all.

"There are territories in neighboring countries which are really ours", gave the following: 23% are convinced of this fact, 18% agree, while 24% don't believe this at all.

Serbs and Montenegrins: Differences

With regard to confidence in Yugoslav institutions, those polled in Montenegro are less critical than those polled in Serbia. Identification with Yugoslavia is somewhat stronger in Montenegro, but the differences are not all that great. That the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is the best solution for Serbia and Montenegro, is believed by 62%, and this percentage does not differ much in the two republics (Serbia 61.7%, Montenegro 62.5%). It is interesting that the percentage of secessionists does not differ much in Serbia and Montenegro. That it would be better for Serbia to be an independent state is believed by 10% of those surveyed in Serbia and 0.5% in Montenegro. On the other hand, 15.4% of those polled in Montenegro believe that it would be better for Montenegro to be an independent state, while the percentage in Serbia stands at 3%.

Trust in political institutions is low, but the greatest confidence is enjoyed by the Yugoslav Army (28%) and the Yugoslav police (20%). The CSCE received only (2%), the UN (4%) and NATO (3%).

Blame

The fact that Serbia carries the greatest blame for the war in B-H is the fault of foreign countries, foreign politicians and international organizations. This belief is held by 24% of those polled, while 10% believe that foreign media are responsible (due to a lack of objectivity, because they do not understand the situation, and because they are superficial and biased). That foreign media are biased in presenting events in B-H is believed by 55% of those polled, while only 5% believe that they are impartial.

Ljiljana Bacevic says that it is the key questions, such as war in Bosnia, for example, which show how sharply public opinion is divided between those "pro" and "contra". At the same time, stands held by those surveyed are often contradictory.

Confusion

The present contradictions found in answers (some conclude that everything should be done for the lifting of sanctions while others that practically nothing should be undertaken,) point to the confusion felt by society. Bearing in mind the impression left by these preliminary results, it can be concluded that citizens are enduring sanctions with difficulty, but that they do not link their lifting with the ruling policy.

Only 10% of those surveyed consider the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) and Slobodan Milosevic responsible for the war in B-H. Milosevic is the politician whom the majority of those polled (33%) assess "very favorably", while (25%) judge him "somewhat favorably". This means that Milosevic enjoys a better rating than during the December 1992 elections. The survey shows that opposition in Serbia and Montenegro is abating in spite of the fact that the majority are dissatisfied with the authorities. The irrational reasons why this widespread dissatisfaction is not reflected in the political field, remains unsolved. Perhaps the answer was given by the farmer who said that he would vote for the opposition when they came into power.

Milan Milosevic

Antrfile

Radicalism Rides

Violence in the streets and in parliament is growing. A conflict between the ruling party and the opposition is foreseen by a sixth of those surveyed. The Serbian Radical Party (SRS) and its leader Vojislav Seselj as potential initiators of a civil war have been marked by a tenth of those polled. It is interesting that those surveyed in Montenegro mention this possibility three times more often than those in Serbia (21:8 percent of answers).

Dragomir Pantic has drawn up an index of some 15 parts, a summing up of contents and identification with claims, persons, in an attempt at shedding some light on the structure and diffusion of radicalism. Radicalism is preceded by hyper-patriotism, and is characterized by intolerance and authoritarianism, a rejection of the world, a justification of ethnic cleansing, an adherence to claims that what has been captured once is not returned... The radical orientation is expressed by those who place national identification above others (Serbs, outstanding followers of the Orthodox faith), those who believe that Yugoslavia is only for Serbs and Montenegrins, and who support territorial pretensions against others, and believe in ostracism.

The strongest radical orientation can be found among those who admire Seselj, and would never vote for DEPOS (alliance of democratic parties), and those who consider the SRS their second choice when voting. People with such an orientation believe that Yugoslavia can hold out for a long time under sanctions and that it must not knuckle down under pressures. They support ethnic cleansing, they are the strongest, and oppose all foreign interference, even when the United Nations are involved. They strongly support the departure of volunteers to Bosnia. They believe that Yugoslavia is the best country in the world, and that it is a state for Serbs and Montenegrins only.

A third of the population is anti-radical. A little less, around 31% is ambivalent on radicalism, while as much as 38% of the population is latently radical.

When the percentage of manifest radicals (11%) and the percentage of fanatically manifest radicals (6%) are added, the election results of the party are obtained.

The profile of latent radical supporters is as follows: socially distressed classes, those whose social position is in jeopardy, from the suburbs or in transition from the village to the town, but mostly blue collar workers. An above average radicalism in the villages has not been recorded. Regionally, the researchers have found such concentrations of radicalism in Belgrade, which came as a surprise. There is a very sharp division in Vojvodina: there is an above average number those fanatically radical and anti-radical, while the number of those with ambivalent stands is smaller than in other places.

This index is in concordance with the findings of S. Brankovic from the Institute for Political Studies, who, in a research project two months ago, adapted claims from Hitler's speeches to local conditions in order to measure the dispersion of fascism.

The research was carried out on a sample of 2,000 polled of which 1,500 in Serbia and 500 in Montenegro. The sample is representative of the population older than 18, according to occupation, sex, age, place of residence and in mixed environments according to the national make up.

The project was headed by Ljiljana Bacevic, and included Dragomir Pantic (methodologist), Dijana Vukomanovic, Zoran Lutovac (project organization) and Stanislav Fugelj (programmer). VREME co-financed the project. The survey was conducted during the period April 24-May 9, 1993.