Intensified Disagreements on the Voivodina Issue

Who is a Greater "Autonomist"?

It seems that the Democratic Party will arbitrate between the stands of three parties concerning the Voivodina problem. According to ones there is no need for redefining Voivodina's position, others think that it should be done slowly, and in Belgrade, while the third believe that that is the task of the Voivodina Assembly.

AIM Belgrade, February 28, 2001

"It is all very well to talk about relations with Montenegro because Voivodina is a part of Serbia, but I would be greatly pleased if the relations within Serbia were first discussed in Voivodina and only then the relations with the other Republic", was the comment of a high official of the Voivodina reformists after hearing the news that with his suitcases already packed for America, President of the Voivodina Assembly Nenad Canak first had suddenly announced the holding of the Assembly session and then cancelled it just a day before his return.

As head of the Reformists, his still official coalition partner and in recent months great political opponent and critic, Mile Isakov sent him a message that "the time has come for him to stop using the Assembly of Voivodina as a theatre and platform for public promotion of individuals and parties".

The picture was made complete with the comment of Dr Miroljub Ljesnjak, Vice-President of the Voivodina Assembly from the ranks of the Democratic Party of Serbia, according to whom "it would be better to take care of everyday life and problems which are the reason the citizens have elected us, than of nation-building aspirations of each of us individually".

Namely, the cancelled discussion of the Voivodina Parliament on Serbian-Montenegrin relations and reactions it provoked in the DOS family could prove to be a major paradigm of the relations within Serbia, i.e. the story on the so called Voivodina problem.

The Assembly Vice-President Ljesnjak proved that rather convincingly when, in connection with the Montenegrin subject, he observed that in several months of the Assembly's work "we have devalued this institution by rashly adopting various platforms which we were later on forced to abandon". He referred to the Platform on the Status of Voivodina and its Citizens which, according to him, was rejected already at the December session of the Executive Council of Voivodina and stated that "we should really be careful not to make hasty moves and try to reach a degree of consensus in Assembly and Executive Councils' bodies so as to avoid conflicts which makes a bad impression on the public".

We should go back to last November when the Provincial Executive Council formed an expert group. Some time later that group defined several documents on issues regarding the status of Voivodina. The explanation offered for the drafting of these documents was the intention to present them to the Voivodina Assembly so that it could adopt them before the December republican elections which would make it possible for the new Serbian authorities at the very beginning to have before them precisely defined demands of Voivodina regarding its future position. However, things got stuck already in the Provincial Government. True, the official press release did not mention the rejection, but the need on "further consultations". It could all be interpreted by the wish to avoid the traps of inter-DOS pre-election divisions, but unofficially rumours had it that the most ardent advocates of the "autonomist documents" were reformists and representatives of the Alliance of Voivodina Hungarians, while the DSS mostly strongly opposed them.

However, republican elections are far behind and as far as it is known things with the formulated declarations on unalienable rights of the citizens of Voivodina and basis for Voivodina's constitutional order, together with a Protocol for their implementation and 27 planned accompanying decisions for the correction of the "Voivodina problem", have reached a deadlock. This is the fact to which Miodrag Isakov, President of the Reformists of Voivodina was referring when he recently announced his party's intention to prepare a platform on the autonomy of Voivodina. According to him the process of restoring the autonomy of Voivodina should be carried out in three stages. The first stage would imply proposing concrete solutions which could be implemented immediately, with all competences which Voivodina has now under the Constitution; the second stage would mean the change of a number of republican laws which limit Voivodina's jurisdiction; and the third one would imply the proposal of new constitutional solutions for the precise definition of the new constitutional status of Voivodina.

Those who only know Nenad Canak as the extremely radical autonomist, but have not observed an estrangement in the relations between members of the League and Reformists, and particularly their leaders after the revolution of October 5, as well as increasingly pronounced differences in the drafting of political tactics even when similar strategic targets are in question, were rather surprised when President of the Voivodina Assembly harshly reacted to the Reformists' attack on Parliament: "The issue of autonomy is present at each session and very concretely, but it is not just an empty phrase which we shall proclaim. It has to be developed, step by step" replied Canak to Isakov's announcement. According to him, noisy swearing by the autonomy of Voivodina would at this moment be counter-productive and such programme issues, as he said, have not be included in the Assembly's agenda because they could create certain "grave problems".

He reminded that it would undermine the DOS unity and consequently the fragile foundations of the changes, as well as that no party had the right to directly propose platforms, but that the procedure should go through the Executive Council of Voivodina. Finally, he did not even shrink from mentioning that with "such separate proposal the Reformists would distance themselves from the DOS which means that in that case the Reformists and DOS would have to form some new coalition". In conclusion he also said: "Such open singling out of greatest autonomists could also be dangerous". According to him, that only additionally increased the opposition towards Voivodina's autonomy and identity, which meant that any introduction of separate proposals would only distance Voivodina even more from its autonomy.

The President of Parliament explained his resentment towards the Reformists' idea of having their proposal of Autonomist Platform discussed already at the next session of the Voivodina Parliament in the following way: "I do not want to lie to voters, because we are not here to push through our party programmes". Here, he repeated what he had said about electoral results last autumn when DOS won 117 mandates out of the total 120. On that occasion he had spontaneously commented: "The autonomists? No way! These elections were not about political options, autonomists, this or that candidate. These votes were against Milosevic".

However, the Reformists do not think so and remind of DOS's forgotten pre-electoral promises on "full autonomy" or "the broadest possible autonomy of Voivodina". The fact remains that these were the most profitable pre-election slogans in campaigns all over Voivodina plains. It is true that, for example, recently in Zrenjanin Djindjic labeled himself as "the autonomist", but the problem is that different DOS members have meant quite different things under the never-defined terms "full" and "the broadest possible" autonomy: from the expanded local self-government in municipalities and cities to the new constitutional status of the Province.

However, how will this problem be taken off the agenda remains to be seen. For, while the Assembly of Voivodina is busy sending proposals to the Assembly of Serbia for amendments to laws and initiatives on the official use of the language and changes in public revenues, while Reformists have their hands full with preparing the ground for direct declaration of stand on the status of Voivodina which is why the Assembly President accuses them of "silent counter-revolution against October 5", while the DSS officials have already made it clear that they would vote even against Voivodina's idea on the equal use of the Latin alphabet, let alone "constitutional issues", it is easy to locate three referential party points regarding the issue of the future status of Voivodina. While ones think that there is no need for redefining Voivodina's position and its separation from other regions, others are convinced that this should be done slowly step by step and in Belgrade, while the third believe that this can and should primarily be the task of the Voivodina Assembly.

Since in this entire story the Alliance of Voivodina Hungarians is insisting on Voivodina getting back its competences, but in a joint stand and in a compromise within DOS, it can then be easily concluded that only the Democratic Party, with its political and numerical supremacy, could assume the role of arbitrator in this case. Things will become much more clear, if not in connection with the Reformists' platform for Voivodina, then when Voivodina's initiative on amendments come to the agenda of the Serbian Assembly. In essence, the true story on the future of Voivodina will start at that point.

Zuzana Serences

(AIM)