A State Marriage

It so happens that these local elections shall correspond with the American ones. Many comparisons are possible, yet almost all are inappropriate due to various reasons. Still, since it so happens, it doesn't hurt to take a look at some of Clinton's and Dole's TV duels, of which the first was broadcasted on Studio B in its entirety. Special attention should have been given to the third, and for us the most interesting person, who sat and posed questions. His name is Jim Lehrer who has, together with Robert McNeil, been co-anchor of the best newscast in America for years. Both of them look like paragons of respectability, serious-mindedness and responsibility, as is their news program which is broadcasted on the non-commercial PBS station. They aim to carefully handle each topic from various viewpoints and pose all important questions while treating all collocutors with due respect. Their righteousness cannot be brought to question, and whichever one was chosen to lead the debate of the presidential candidates would have considered it unthinkable to show the least sign of preference. Reactions in the media and in public opinion would have most certainly been such as to make the candidate whom the anchorman had tried to favour lose the race.

Let us return home now and look at how matters stand with regards to the election, surmising that the sense for justice is not a Western invention which is alien to the Serbian being. Someone shall immediately state that this surmise does not stand. Namely, we have here a rather widely held belief which deals exclusively with the factor of Nation, and is not necessarily inclined towards the regime. That belief does not actually attach importance to the regime, nor to the regulation of the state, nor to propaganda, nor to the media, nor to the police, nor to the military, nor to the distribution of power and wealth, but solely to the characteristics of a nation.

Whatever has happened and is happening, in war or peace, with elections or without them, is interpreted from this fatalistic stand as an expression of the clear will of the nation. Among the bearers of this belief we come upon those who praise and those who scold, those who are proud and those who are disconsolate because the nation is such as they describe it. They can be in perfect disagreement about everything except in the belief that all arises from the being of the nation by which, whether it is their intention to or not, they are actually recognizing the real legitimacy of this (or any other) regime and all that it does.

It could be said that such a belief, at least, has very little respect for newer inventions such as television, radio, press, even the actual organized state. It is most likely believed that it looks just like the nation wanted it to and deserved. If they are lied to, it is due to the fact that the nation wishes to hear such things, or because it in itself fails to recognize the difference between lies and the truth. It turns out that the nation here is absolutely sovereign, that it decides about itself more than in the most democratic countries, and it is unusual that such a belief is so strong in this country which, by the level of manipulation and rare inquiries into the national will, must be at the very top in Europe.

All of this is only an introduction to the story about the forthcoming elections. Namely, I believe that the issue of justice and equality here is not just a condition for worthy elections, but also the most important electoral subject. Besides that, this problem can be reduced exclusively to television. As long as we are subjected to such total propaganda, making up good and hiding bad news, scandal-mongering the opposition and endless promotions of the ruling coalition, no one has the right to say anything about the will of the nation. The only thing that can be confessed is that we know nothing of it and shall not find out more even after the elections.

The opposition most certainly must speak of its intentions and programs, yet it should bear in mind that their words are blowing in the wind, that is the problem of television precedes everything and abolishes all other issues. Outside of television there simply do not exist any opposition programs, just as no weaknesses of the regime exist. The true opponent to changes is, therefore, the dictatorship of television lies. If the opposition discovers how it can fight against such a thing, if it finds a way to beat such an opponent, it will indebt more than just this country. It would be a good thing to immediately protect that patent and sell it to the similarly afflicted.

Whomever had from the former multi-party and election experience in Serbia gathered sufficient reasons for a decisive indifference regarding the forthcoming elections, would really have to change his mind. Not only because the opposition has somehow managed to get together, nor only due to confidence in professor Avramovic, but primarily because of the injustice. It can appear that the opposition really has no chance, or that it would not be any better than the present government, yet everyone has an obligation towards justice.

The television injustice would have to be the first reason to vote for the opposition. However, not only the elections are the issue here. A society which does not nurture its sense of justice, fair play and equal chances, is not only incapable of becoming democratic, but also cannot come to terms with any of the major social, economic or political problems. As we can see, such a society unavoidably produces violence which, if it cannot be aimed at someone from outside, turns upon itself.

That the socialists have entered into a coalition with JUL is a normal and expected thing, that is bizarre and utterly exceptional in the history of political-marital relations. In the far-away past there were occurrences when countries merged following their rulers marriage. However, in Serbia, the ruling marriage had firstly been seemingly divorced on a party basis, and now again, actually or seemingly, been entered into again and that in a triangle with New Democracy. Let people think what they will of those relations and let Mrs. Markovic become, let's say, prime minister of the government of the FR Yugoslavia, and let the drama play itself out to the very end so that we can see what will become of this miraculous marriage and state.

For our topic the important thing is that this coalition is deemed as a leftist one and persistently, especially from JUL, insists upon an ideological confrontation with the opposition. Besides that, JUL is the party which mostly deals with the rhetorics of justice and equality. This party of flowers, fragrances, joy and youth obviously does not think that justice is on an equal footing with authority, or at least that it should serve its authorities. They are not in the least hit by the inequality of the opposition, since election equality most probably falls under the category of what has for decades been termed as formalistic democracy. Calling upon the fact that justice has always served to hinder the government and that it does not exist for the stronger but rather for the weaker, would be deemed as old-fashioned and outdated by these just people, at least while they are in power.

The unjustness of the election conditions, that is of the television campaign of lies springs, therefore, from the very core of the regime. It didn't start on account of the elections, nor is it to be concluded with them and that fact is more important than the very elections. Many people here shall most certainly vote for the ruling coalition and will fail to notice any injustice, yet I believe that it shouldn't be concluded in a hurry that the lack of feeling for justice is part of the national character. On the contrary, it is something which has been worked on persistently and for a very long time.

This state and government have naturally appeared as a continuation of the other in which different opinions were not tolerated. In that sense half-way concessions have been made, so that now differences are tolerated yet not opinions as well. The television lie aims to frustrate and disable not only a discrimination of justice, and the importance and value of justice, but also to make it impossible to form any logical conclusions. We need only remember the infuriatingly contradictory and confusing theories and explanations of war, peace, sanctions, relations with the world and who is what there and how and why someone had done what. Of those who had despite everything managed to preserve their capability to reason, some have fled across the borders, while others shall vote for the opposition. How many of those are left is a thing that shall be seen at the elections. In any case, I would say that this time it is not a choice between the left and the right, nor between war and peace, nor for or against Europe, but primarily for and against logic.