Serbia Under Party Tyranny

“Serbia is becoming an interesting society which was best described by Professor Vladimir Goati when he said that our country is being tyrannized by political parties. They are forming alliances not to improve the way they govern, but to strengthen their deadly grip over the state and the people,” Miljenko Dereta, the executive director of the non-government Civic Initiative organization tell Argus.

In 2006, Dereta was appointed to the Civic Society Council formed within the Serbian President’s cabinet as a representative of the civic sector, whose role is to keep the government in check. Two years later, however, a disillusioned Dereta says that Serbia is in a terrible position solely thanks to its political parties.

Of course, the politicians would be the first to deny such a claim and what goes beyond doubt is that there is no democracy without politics, and no politics without political parties. How, then, does one strike a balance? Possibly with the help of strict monitoring, yet is it at all feasible considering that each coalition party in government receives full control over a certain number of ministries. Thus each ruling party becomes fully sovereign in its own domain, while the government operates as a sort of confederation.

Rodoljub Sabic, commissioner for information of public significance, says that such a setup means that the prime minister is, in effect, superior only to the ministers from his own party. Sabic, however, believes that this is less problematic than the government not functioning as a team, which is often the case in Serbia, as rivalry among ministers means that they sometimes see a personal benefit in their colleagues’ failures.

Fiefs as a Result of ‘Splitting the Booty’

It is of essential importance that parties monitor each other and this is negotiated when coalitions are made because the feudal system in politics is not ideology-specific. In the past, party monopoly was justified by Communist ideology. Today, we have a party controlled system in a country in transition where state and publicly-owned property is being privatized, and market and democratic institutions are being built, all so as to create the necessary conditions for joining the EU.

Miljenko Dereta remembers how much the stances of certain Communist unions differed with respect to the economic development and overall future of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

“Today such divergences don’t exist even among parties which supposedly hold different stances only because of their common interest – splitting the booty,” Dereta says.

Economist Milan Kovacevic agrees and adds that there are more people working in the state administration today than there had been in the former Yugoslavia and Serbia combined. For instance, a public utility company in Nis in charge of garbage disposal, street cleaning, and funeral services, employs about 1,450 people. The city of Nis has 13 public utility companies and just as many city directorates and services. Each party that comes to power in Nis employs new people close the party, yet few employees are dismissed. The expenses of the city’s administration have, thus, been on a steady rise, while the economy, having suffered long and hard, is now almost completely dysfunctional.

A Piece for Everyone

Zoran Stojiljkovic, professor at Belgrade University’s Faculty of Political Sciences says that the problem lies not only in the existing turf system but also in the fact that the party system has not yet been replaced by the rule of law.

“As the relations between parties fall into place, something is left over for the opposition as well. Whoever holds a stake in high politics, regardless of whether they win or lose the elections, is left with a piece of power which can bring benefits to tens of thousands of people – as long as there is a well-developed non-market sector,” Stojiljkovic says.

Parties are using the high demand for employment in public services to strengthen their position. In fact, they have become so authoritarian that not even youths which put up posters can excel unless someone puts a word in for them with the party leader. When asked whether such centralized parties – which fill paid positions with party members based solely on loyalty and by no means on expertise – can be the bearers of democratic change in society, former Serbian premier and vice president of the Democratic Party Zoran Zivkovic says, “Of course not!”

“The Democratic Party was strongest when it was essentially decentralized. The most important decisions were made by the steering committee, but on the local level we didn’t call our chiefs every day to consult on whether we’re allowed to cross the street if a green light wasn’t on,” Zivkovic explains.

The Loyalty Principle

Every story of transition is a story about the necessity of privatization, yet it seems that the parties in the country refuse to recognize this. They have taken on the role of a national employment service, providing placement for politically-correct, loyal, and most often incompetent activists, inventing positions wherever necessary. The fact that political activism has become the only way for many to resolve their existential problems is one of the greatest setbacks for Serbian citizens, who have themselves become involuntary and corrupt accomplices in such practices.

Professor Stojiljkovic says he is curious to see how the country would look if, for instance, the heads of large media houses or infrastructural companies were chosen through public competitions. This, in his opinion, would mean that party heads would at least have to abide by certain professional standards, which would be a significant step forward.

“To once and for all overcome such a state of affairs we would have to implement two or three measures. Firstly, seats in Parliament and city assemblies must truly belong to the MPs holding them and who are in direct contact with the voters. Secondly, we must change the electoral system so that tickets are not closed. And the flow of public procurement funds must also be clearly determined,” Stojiljkovic says.

Economist Kovacevic warns that this years budget was not even brought before Parliament, not to mention that the public have not had any information on how state funds have been spent since 2002. “I find it extremely irritating when they say that some ministry invested money into something. Taxpayers’ money is so easily spent that a state auditor would be of much help in determining where and how all these funds are being spent. I’m convinced that public spending would thereby be significantly reduced. More money would be left for those who do good business, i.e. for that segment of the population which deserves to manage its own funds,” Kovacevic explains.

Commissioner Sabic also warns that a large number of public companies, of which 17 are state-run, has not been privatized.

Parties as the Sources of Corruption

According to Zoran Zivkovic, as long as certain companies are publicly owned they are sure to suffer EUR1-1.5 billion in losses annually.

“The figure is enormous, but unfortunately true. Money is lost either through direct stealing from these publicly-owned companies, or through missed opportunities to acquire or sell goods under better conditions,” says Zivkovic.

One of the provisions of the Constitution which has allowed parties to fortify their grip over the country is the one according to which mandates belong to the party, and not to the MP – a solution which today exists solely in several Eurasian countries. Granted, MPs have been given broader immunity rights, but this was likely done only to ensure their greater loyalty and obedience. What is clear, however, is that positions on the managing boards of publicly-owned companies are being granted without any particular expertise, providing their holders with significant financial gain. Thus, as a member of the managing board of JAT Airlines, an airport, the NIS oil company, or the Telekom communications company, one receives two to four average company salaries each month.

Failures to abide by the Law on the Financing of Political Parties have allowed parties to become a significant source of corruption, as the origins of their income remain obscure. Even if filed, financial reports are incomplete, and there is a tacit agreement among politicians that the law need not be strictly followed.

Although not wishing to give examples, Zoran Zivkovic does say he knows the annual expenses of a political party. “The figures appearing in public have always been larger than what is really being spent. The difference between what was made public and what was in fact provided by sponsors is what goes into the pockets of party officials,” says Zivkovic uncompromisingly.

On the other hand, Stojiljkovic claims that a survey taken by CESID has shown that a major party spends EUR7 to 9 million a year, of which they are legally allowed to spend only EUR2 million. “So where does the difference go? The difference is worked out in the budget because no one can convince me that parties pay for absolutely everything. I don’t know if there are still people who believe that a delegation of high party officials pays for lunch or dinner at a restaurant. Of course it doesn’t, because the owner knows that that party will bring him a famous and powerful businessman in a few days, who will make up for all their expenses. An even better example is that there isn’t a TV station in Serbia to which parties have paid all their dues for political marketing from previous campaigns,” Stojiljkovic adds.

By giving incompetent, politically inexperienced and corrupt people jobs in local, district and state bodies, the network of various party interest groups are discrediting the work of these institutions and sending a message that unaffiliated professionals have no place in Serbia. And the message seems well understood considering that 70 percent of young people do not feel they have a future in Serbia.