POLITICS-YUGOSLAVIA: Flame to Become Fire?

By Vesna Peric Zimonjic Reprint | | Print |

Analysis - Vesna Peric-Zimonjic

BELGRADE, Jul 11 1999 (IPS) - Protests and rallies are spreading in Serbia with opposition politicians, Orthodox Church, labour organisations, students and several city councils calling Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic to step down.

“In the next two weeks we will see if the current flame will turn into fire,” historian Milan Protic told IPS. “Opposition leaders must capitalise on the growing anti-Milosevic sentiment by presenting the public with a clear, united alternative.”

However, as in previous massive street challenges to his rule, Milosevic has refrained from engaging in public debates or replying to his critics, probably counting on the opposition’s main weakness – it leaders’ rivalries.

Milosevic is not as isolated as it may appear, however. If elections were held now, his Socialist party would get 21.9 percent of the vote, according to a recent survey by Medium, a polling firm.

The figure represents a sharp decline of nine percent compared to an April survey by the same agency, but still leaves the socialists as the country’s leading political force.

The nationalist Serbian Renewal party of Vuk Draskovic would take 14,7 percent of votes, the survey says, while the ultranationalist Serbian Radical party of Vojislav Seselj – a reluctant government ally – would rank third with 10,5 percent of votes (down from 15 percent in April).

On top of political support from his party – albeit diminished – Milosevic is believed to be firmly backed by most police and army generals.

The ultranationalist Seselij remains a thorn on the government’s side. He finds his political base among the country’s less privileged and has often supported Milosevic on nationalist issues.

Analysts believe that the government will try this week to tighten up security and media control by converting some of its war-time decrees into law, at a Serbian parliament session, while Socialist officials have charged the opposition with igniting “a civil war.”

After enduring 11 weeks of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) air strikes and the deployment of NATO-led peace-keeping forces in the southern province of Kosovo, Serbia has seen a powerful eruption of discontent.

Many believe that the peace agreement reached in June is tantamount to capitulation, while the government sticks to its claims that the country’s sovereignty has been preserved.

Milosevic, on his ten years in office as president of Serbia and, since 1997, of the Yugoslav federation, is blamed by opposition leaders to be the main responsible for the country’s decline since the partition of Yugoslavia in 1991.

The federation is now composed by two republics, Serbia and tiny Montenegro, controlled by Milosevic’s foes.

“For years now, this country was living in the economic collapse” says sociologist Trivo Indjic of the Belgrade-based Institute for European Studies. “The last protests are the result of the unbearable economic situation…Protests come from empty stomachs now.”

Between March 24 and June 12, NATO military strategists targeted important sectors of Yugoslavia’s infrastructure, as well as factories, refineries and power plants, leaving the country practically in ruins.

The president of the International Federation of the Red Cross, Astrid Heiberg, warned last week that many people in Serbia are “on the verge of starvation” as a result of NATO air raids and international sanctions.

But there is little hope for a quick recovery, as NATO and the European Union also blame Milosevic for the conflict and have denied any reconstruction assistance while he remains in office.

Serbs are frightened at the prospect of having to endure a winter without fuel and heating.

Even before the NATO air campaign, Serbia had not properly recovered from the economic hardships brought by the 1992-95 United Nations sanctions, imposed to punish Belgrade for its role in conflicts in the former Yugoslav republics of Bosnia and Croatia.

Although the sanctions were formally lifted in 1995, when the US-brokered Dayton peace agreements were signed, the US and other countries maintained a so-called “outer wall of sanctions” that prevented Yugoslavia from accessing external funds or investments.

In 1997, several weeks of mass demonstrations in Belgrade led the government to concede defeat in local elections, which led opposition parties to rule in Serbia’s 15 largest cities, but failed in its ultimate objective of bringing Milosevic down.

Sociologists point out that this time antigovernment protests erupted in provincial Serbia, while Belgrade was the epicentre of discontent in in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996-97.

Tens of thousands of people attending rallies and city assemblies in the cities and towns of Cacak, Novi Sad, Leskovac, Uzice, Nis, Prokuplje and Sombor have called for the president’s resignation.

“It’s now or never” was the motto of rallies called by Alliance for Change, whose leaders believe this time Milosevic will not resist the pressure.

The Alliance groups a variety of organisations, including the moderate nationalist Democratic party of Zoran Djindjic, the centrist Civil Alliance of Goran Svilanovic, the Social-Democratic party of former Army general Vuk Obradovic and the Christian-Democratic party of Vladan Batic.

“People will take to the streets, free towns (run by the opposition), will stop obeying the government, all of Serbia will turn to civil disobedience and a general strike, and Milosevic will go,” Djindjic announced at a rally in Uzice.

But Draskovic, the politically unpredictable and yet charismatic leader of the Serbian Renewal Movement disagrees. “Street protests will not bring change,” he said and called instead for a transition government and early elections later in the year.

Draskovic joined the government in January, but was expelled in April for his public disagreement with war policies. He is considered to be a key element to any political move, not only for his popularity, but also because he controls a TV station.

What then prevent opposition leaders to unite?

“There is too much vanity, too much desire for leadership,” explains Radosa Milutinovic, a political scientist. “They all lack the will to sacrifice some of their egos and unite to act efficiently.”