DEFINING AUTONOMY

Political Scene of Voivodina

Political parties in Voivodina must take care whether, to what extent and in what manner they are in favour of greater autonomy, but also be very careful about how they define autonomy, in other words, to say clearly that they are not waiting for local self-administration to be doled out to them by Belgrade

AIM Belgrade, 24 January, 1997

When both voters and analysts of the political scene in Voivodina tended to forget the once influential Reform Democratic Party of Voidvodina (RSDV) as a relevant political force, this party tried to present the series of its defeats into a future success: "We the Reformists, are saying loud and clear that we are in favour of greater autonomy".

This sentence uttered at the party convention held behind locked doors by Ratko Filipovic, its (at the time acting and after voting the regular) president, leads to the conclusion that political parties in Voivodine indeed must take care whether, to what extent and in what manner they are "autonomy-loving".

Declarative solemn oaths that they are in favour of the autonomy, decision about joining coalition Voivodina, a few documents which should guarantee its future perseverance in the struggle for Voivodina autonomy "with elements of statehood", election - with some surprise of the opinion of the street and the lobbies - of the federal deputy of coalition Voivodina Mile Isakov to the post of the president of the Convention of the RDSV, partly is determination of the future position of the Reformists among Voivodina parties. But it is also an attempt to mitigate the damage made by the sins in the past. The Reformists will never be forgiven for having run to the assistance of the Socialists in Novi Sad after their break up with the Radicals.

Break Up with Illusions

Coalition Voivodina has welcomed "the choice of this party to abandon the illusion of the struggle for the autonomy of Voivodina via Belgrade". That is exactly how the definition of the Convention of Reformists was defined by Dr Dragan Veselinov, one of the leaders of the coalition. With the words of praise to Mile Isakov as a "great personnel guarantee", it is added: "we are very carefully considering the wish of this party to join the coalition Voivodina". This may be interpreted as a quick reminder that the Reformists indeed have a Past. About that past, the Reformists nowadays say that in the attempt to make their (good) principles operational, they had made concessions which led to political vacillitation and tightrope walking "between firm political commitments and ugly political everyday life". These were bad assessments ("carried away by the so-called peace-making policy of the ruling regime") which resulted in linking their desrtiny to that of the Socialists, and "political challenge" of cooperation with the Democratic Centre (DC) of Dragoljub Micunovic. They are stressing that they are now returning to the beginning: being a civil party close to a social democratic option which demands elements of statehood for Voivodina autonomy.

They are arguing that the idea about autonomy as a local self-administration "does not guarantee even cleaning snow off the streets and roads". In this way they argue primarily with the just founded Novi Sad branch of the Democratic Centre whose members are mostly former Reformists from what used to be the leadership of this party. The former president of the Reformists Dragoslav Petrovic is also among them, at a very high post (one of the party vice-presidents). His membership in the Reform Party ended, due to his controversial role in the breaking of the "technical cooperation" with the Socialists...

After the great election success of coalition Voivodina, it seems that all participants of the political variegation in the province pay great attention to the definition of the word autonomy. The electorate has shown that it has matured to such an extent that it does not consider the current position of Voivodina granted by the regime to be an autonomy at all. People in Voivodina called that which is marked as the "autonomous province" and which is attempted to be preserved through the still Socialist provincial Assembly simply plunder, and the coalition Voivodina achieved election success among other by its skill to concisely ("Put a Stop to Plunder") describe what is to be done.

Reservations

It will, therefore, be interesting to follow the destiny of the document called "Proposal for Constitutional Change of the Position of Voivodina" which is presented as a paper of non-partisan "Voivodina Club". The document was announced for a long time and for the time being little is said about it in public. Essentially, it insists on "development of the authorities and state organization from the bottom". It is demanded from the Constitution of Serbia "to guarantee the right of the citizens to self-organization in municipalities, regions and autonomous provinces". The province should adopt its own constituting document. The principle of ethnic equality is stressed and it is proposed to have a chamber of nationalities in the provincial Assembly which would be equal to the Chamber of Citizens.

However, it is evident that authentic Voivodina parties have reservations about this proposal and its nature. The National Peasants' Party "has serious complaints about the quality of the Proposal for the Change of Constitutional Position of Voivodina; we are sorry that this document is far below expectations; it may be an inspiration to have other documents written". This is what Dr Dragan Veselinov says, with a remark that there is no reason for anyone to write a document and suggest to the others to sign it, nor for anyone to use signatures of parties on such a document "as an inspiration for belief that he can create a super-coalition in Voivodina".

Both Dragan Veselinov and Nenad Canak insist on the fact that "Coalition Voivodina is, undoubtedly, the main brearer of the struggle for autonomy of Voivodina". While Veselinov says that the National Peasants' Party will sign this document ("for moral reasons, and that is all we will do"), Canak sees no reason why the League of Social Democrats should sign "such a paper", because "we do not sign every book we agree with either".

Risk and Profit

Reservations are justified by excessively generalized contents of the document, by the assessment that it arrived before the frame of mind of the people was investigated and that only this year it will be felt what the people are ready to do, warning that the question what form decentralization of Serbia will take still awaits an answer.

Proposed solutions, as authors of the Proposal for a Change of the Constitutional Position of Voivodina stress, are in favour of consistent implementation of the first article of the Constitution of Serbia and remind that, pursuant its fundamental document, the "Republic of Serbia is a democratic state of all citizens who live in it, based on the rights of man and citizen, on the rule of law and social justice". It is striking that proposers of the possible changes of the constitutional position of Voivodina believe that it is necessary, "in order to coordinate all efforts and actions for attaining objectives from the Proposal", that signatories (which are called "democratic forces which are in favour of real autonomy of Voivodina") form a coordinating committee which will make decisions by concensus and which may establish its own executive council.

It is obvious that this organizational manoeuvre provoked a remark that there has been more than enough "coordination of the socialist alliance type" and that it all resembled a very bad business: to make political parties a service to nonpartisan associations.

The Voivodina Club is an interesting platform from which it is proved that the idea of Voivodina autonomy through history could be imposed only as an idea of a broad political movement, never as an individual party program. The Reformists have also very often and loudly warned that it is necessary to create a block of "Voivodina political parties which would be formed by civil parties and parties of ethnic minorities". It seems that ideas about uniting into a Voivodina party block have become consequently especially important for the parties which before the recent elections did not join the coalition Voivodina. The Reformists were, for example, "deja vu" in a union with the League of Social Democrats of Voivodina and the National Peasants' Party, but they have chosen to, via the Democratic Centre, join coalition Together, which they justified by support to Dragoslav Avramovic.

The impression is that the Voivodina block is an attempt of redemption of those who assessed the idea of autonomy before the federal, provincial and local elections, as a great risk for an uncertain profit. Before the republican elections, however, everybody seem to wish to run the smallest possible risk and make an enormous profit.

(AIM) Milena Putnik