The split worth a million votes: Participation in the elections divided "Serbia against violence"

One of the most common conclusions of the debates on the current post-election crisis was that the opposition was faced with two bad options. For both the decision to go to the polls, and the decision to boycott elections, it was easier to find the arguments against. And in the end, between two bad options – they chose both.

“Serbia Against Violence” (Srbija protiv nasilja, SPN), the most successful coalition of opposition parties in the last 12 years, will most likely not survive the turbulence of political crisis and months of squabbling over election conditions with the Progressives (Serbian Progressive Party, SNS). The collapse came after the coalition won around 900,000 votes in the December parliamentary elections, which was the best result achieved by any pro-democratic option since SNS seized power. And while for months the focus of the opposition supporters was on how to improve the excellent December results, the dilemma now is how many of those votes will be lost due to the disagreement in the opposition ranks.

Slobodan Prvanović, who monitored the last elections as a member of the parliamentary supervisory committee for campaign control, tells NIN that the decision of a part of the opposition to go to elections could create a short-term benefit for those parties, but a long-term damage for the opposition unity.

“They can count on entering a certain number of municipal assemblies. As for Belgrade, it is unlikely that under these circumstances the opposition could win more than ten or fifteen assembly seats. There is no theoretical chance of them winning, even if the government provided ideal election conditions,” stresses Prvanović.

As he points out, the splitting of the coalition, with only a number of parties going to elections, will increase apathy among the opposition voters.

“The result will be even more people disappointed in politics and simply giving up. That is the worst of all. And an enormous damage was done to the idea of opposition unity. How will the people in pro-boycott parties trust those who decided to go to elections,” wonders Prvanović.

Although he has started out from the opposite viewpoint, political scientist Boban Stojanović has reached a similar conclusion.

“They should have never gotten themselves in this situation, to divide over such an important issue. It turned out that the will of the majority in the coalition is not respected, and everything that was done well in the previous period has now been ruined. And the key thing is that now we cannot expect success in the June elections in the places where SPN alone, or SPN and DSS jointly, easily defeated the list with Aleksandar Vučić’s name on it,” Stojanović says.

He adds that several Belgrade municipalities are now at stake, as well as the cities such as Novi Sad and Niš.

“We could be in a situation where SPN and NADA would fail to repeat what they have done in December, despite the unequal conditions and election fraud, and that would be to take over several city municipalities in Belgrade and to come close to winning Novi Sad and Niš – where maybe one assembly seat would be decisive. After the December elections, it seemed to me that there was no option where SNS could keep Stari grad, Vračar, Savski venac, and that it would be very difficult for them to keep Novi Beograd and Zvezdara. And potentially, we could have had extremely close elections such as, for example, in the Voždovac municipality, as well as in Novi Sad and Niš,” Stojanović adds.

Constitutionality in the eye of the beholder

Subtle fractures in the unity of the pro-European opposition were perceptible before, and communication issues could be read between the lines. The definite breakup, however, came after the opposition received the proposal for the elections in Belgrade to be held on June 2nd, along with the remaining local elections that were going to follow in any case. The irony is that at the beginning of the negotiations, the opposition’s demand to hold those elections on the same day was the “red line” that Ana Brnabić refused to cross, because, as she said, it would be “unconstitutional to cut anyone’s mandate short by means of law”. Then the government scheduled Belgrade elections and the opposition’s demands evolved in accordance with the developments. After the campaign had officially started, every subsequent demand of the opposition was based on the need to stop the election activities considering that under such circumstances it would be illusory to negotiate on election conditions. Brnabić again responded that this was unconstitutional. Finally, after several rounds of negotiations and consultations, the government circled back to the original proposal and realized that constitutionality is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.

The news that the government accepts to hold the Belgrade and the local elections on the same day, June 2nd, came at the moment when the campaign was already in full swing. Also, as for concessions aimed at improving election conditions, the only thing that the opposition got was verbal consent from the government, which is one of the most perishable goods in the local political pantry. Under such circumstances, members of the “Srbija protiv nasilja” coalition no longer saw eye to eye about holding all elections on the same day. The proposal split the coalition, almost right down the middle.

TANJUG / Rade Prelić

The parties opting for boycott were the Party of Freedom and Justice (Stranka slobode i pravde, SSP), Serbia Center (Srbija centar, SRCE) and Together (Zajedno). Although they are not a part of SPN, the NADA coalition also chose boycott as their method of action. On the other side, the People’s Movement of Serbia (Narodni pokret Srbije, NPS), the Green-Left Front (Zeleno-levi front, ZLF), the Movement of Free Citizens (Pokret slobodnih građana, PSG), the Ecological Uprising (Ekološki ustanak, EU) and the New Face of Serbia (Novo lice Srbije, NLS) chose to go to elections. The Democratic Party (Demokratska stranka, DS) voted for boycott, but in line with its decision to side with the majority, decided to participate in the elections after all.

According to Professor Zoran Stojiljković at the Faculty of Political Sciences, the worst thing that could happen in this situation is a permanent rift between the two opposition groups that did not agree on how to respond to the latest government offer.

“A possible way out of this situation might be to remain in some kind of a strategic cooperation going forward. I think that is what the opposition voters expect and at the same time it would reduce the damage that was made,” Stojiljković emphasizes.

Both groups of parties that made up the “Srbija protiv nasilja” coalition have valid arguments – the differences between them are tactical, not strategic. There is no dilemma about the nature of the elections organized by the regime, and the fact that the hegemonic position of SNS is based on media control and a wide range of institutional manipulations. They also agree that the government has done nothing to change the situation in a more significant manner, and share the same opinion about where the changes are urgently needed. Finally, it is absolutely clear to everyone in the former coalition that the most elegant solution for the crisis would be the adoption of amendments to the Constitutional Law, which would allow all local elections in the country to be held in the fall.

However, the reason for the split in the “Srbija protiv nasilja” coalition was the question – what is the best way to bring about changes in the election conditions? The group of parties that quickly formed a new coalition “I choose to fight” (Biram borbu) came to the conclusion that the answer is to go to elections. They say that they will continue to insist on the fulfilment of the other two conditions, the formation of a commission that will oversee the revision of the voter list, and the optimization of media conditions. However, aware that Vučić will never give them fair election conditions, they decided to make a dent in his rule at the local level.

Pure motives and faulty logic

However pure their motives, by participating in the elections that do not differ significantly from the ones held in December, they are undoubtedly giving legitimacy to the entire election process. The accusations that the last elections were stolen and that the government plans to do the same thing in June, will ring hollow in an election campaign. Also, by giving up the boycott, the opposition has willingly removed its hand from the one lever of pressure that it had at its disposal.

That was the logic used by the pro-boycott faction of the coalition, but it had its faults as well. Several representatives of this group said that the decision to boycott the elections would force Vučić to eventually accept the last demand and schedule all local elections for the end of the year, after all of the ODIHR’s recommendations have been implemented. It is unclear, however, what this optimism is based on. As we have seen in 2020, boycott has no results if it is not accompanied by some form of extra-institutional pressure. At this point, the big question is whether the energy of the citizens is at the same level as last summer, when tens of thousands of people took to the streets to demand changes.

TANJUG / Sava Radovanović

An even bigger question is whether there is enough energy for a prolonged pressure on the government, as Vučić has shown that waiting is his favorite strategy in dealing with street protests. If the street is not an option, the only thing that remains is pressure from abroad, which would force Vučić to make concessions regarding election rules. However, when US Ambassador Christopher Hill said that boycott was not the way to overcome problems, it became clear to everyone that this type of pressure would not come. Without some kind of pressure to spice up the boycott, the only thing left would be the bland taste of a missed opportunity.

Boban Stojanović notes that the opposition’s boycott in 2020 did not yield any measurable results, despite the fact that both the parliamentary and all local elections were boycotted.

“Nothing was achieved, and all opposition parties took part in the subsequent elections without any changes to the election conditions being made. I can’t see what could be achieved now, when only the local elections would be boycotted, and you’re sitting in the National Assembly. Both the international and the local public would think that everything is normal, considering that you have accepted the results at the national level. I don’t know how the election conditions could be improved in the future if they couldn’t be improved in 2020. And back then, the boycott was, in a way, a logical continuation of the political action. Now, you have accepted the results of the national elections, you are sitting in the parliament, and you are calling on people to boycott the local elections. And in addition to that, only the ones in Belgrade,”, he points out.

Focus on local politics

The key to understanding why the coalition split on the issue of joint elections lies in the specificity of local politics. If the Belgrade elections were the only ones scheduled to be held on June 2nd, “Srbija protiv nasilja” would most likely still be a coalition and it would probably lean towards boycott. The pro-European opposition could afford to boycott elections in Belgrade, but it would hardly be able to afford boycotting local elections. Considering that “Srbija protiv nasilja” has entered the Serbian parliament, the institutional funding of the parties would not be an issue. At the local level, however, things are very much different. For years, the Achilles’ heel of the pro-European opposition parties has been the party infrastructure in the rest of the country. They have always had solid support in Belgrade, but already at Bubanj potok and Surčin, we enter the part of the country where SNS has practically no competition.

The parliamentary elections in December, which the Progressives won easily, revealed nevertheless that resistance enclaves have sprung across Serbia – small opposition oases that could challenge the regime. That process was partly organic, a result of the dissatisfaction that has been brewing for years, but it is also the result of activities of the parties and local associations that have been working on breaking the SNS monolith. There the boycott would mean giving up the fight in the municipalities where, by all accounts, the opposition would be very close to victory. Also, the opposition parties are not nearly as centralized as SNS. Unlike the military discipline which Vučić and Nikolić brought from the Radical Party, the hierarchy in the opposition ranks is much less strict. For that reason, it is questionable if the decision to boycott elections would be respected at all levels, or there would be citizens’ associations, made up of local committees, springing up like mushrooms.

TANJUG / Sava Radovanović

Boban Stojanović says that in several Belgrade municipalities the opposition only had to confirm their victory and start building new local leaders who, even in such unfair conditions, could attempt to challenge the ruling majority at the city level. The responsibility for that, according to Stojanović, would be borne by the parties who chose to boycott the elections, so they should be urged to change their decision.

“Although I think that, even if the people are confused about the boycott, and they don’t like what is happening now, perhaps there is still time to use the June elections to make some progress – and that would be to take over some municipalities, perhaps even shake the government in Niš and Novi Sad... And try to correct the mistakes that were made in the past four months. Because, the worst of all would be if, after all the talk about election irregularities, fraud, conditions… you end up losing even the few municipalities where you could have achieved success,” Stojanović says.

Although the split is still fresh, the statements of individuals from both groups are leaving the door open to a possible reconciliation. The group of parties that are boycotting the elections say that the local committees could be given autonomy to decide whether they would participate in the local elections or not. On the other hand, DS president Zoran Lutovac says that if there are no substantial changes in the revision and control of the voter list, they would leave the election process.

According to Zoran Stojiljković, there is still the possibility that one of the two factions would change their mind by the time the electoral lists have to be closed, two weeks before the elections. 

“Both groups can decide to change their mind and they would have sound arguments for that. If it turns out that the government’s will to improve the election process was nothing but a manipulative maneuver to get someone to participate in the elections and lend them some credibility, then I believe that the opposition electorate would understand the decision to boycott the elections after all. Also, I believe that they would understand the opposite decision if actual steps forward were made. The opposition still has enough maneuvering space unless they start throwing blame and moving away from each other, which would not be unusual here,” Stojiljković says, adding that this would be the best scenario for the regime, considering that fueling divisions among opposition parties is one of the foundations of their remaining in power.

Legal standard satisfied

Even though Parliament Speaker Ana Brnabić kept repeating for days that the holding of local and Belgrade elections on the same day would be unconstitutional, members of the Serbian parliament voted on Tuesday in favor of amendments to the Law on Local Elections, enabling just that. 165 MPs voted for the amendments, while 26 voted against. The part of the opposition that supports boycott announced that they would submit their draft of amendments to the Constitutional Law, which would allow all local elections in the country, including those that were held last December, to take place on the same day, at least six months after all the recommendations made by ODIHR have been implemented. The parliament speaker also qualified this proposal as unconstitutional.

Two to three weeks left to improve election conditions 

For the time being, with the exception of the request to hold the Belgrade and local elections on the same day, the government has not done enough to meet the other two demands of the opposition – the formation of a commission that would monitor revision of the voter list, and the improvement of media treatment of the opposition, primarily by holding the public broadcasting service to higher professional standards. Slobodan Prvanović, a former member of the parliamentary supervisory commission for campaign control, expresses hope for reconciliation after, as he says, the parties that decided to go to elections realize that they will not get better election conditions.

“There will be several non-working days around May 1st and Easter, so nothing will be done to improve the election conditions for about ten days. Effectively, there are only two to three weeks left to make actual changes, and I doubt that this is enough time, even with the best effort of the government, to revise the voter list. As for the media treatment, one month of objective and professional reporting by the RTS could not change the attitude of the electorate in a significant manner. And finally, everything that will be done before June 2nd will cease immediately. The government will certainly not continue to revise the voter list, and even if the RTS improves, it will inevitably return to its usual method of work after the elections. Nothing will change, and a major change is required,” Prvanović says.