Republika - Glasilo gradjanskog samooslobadjanja

Year XVIII (2006)

392-395

1. nov - 31. dec 2006.

Republika

Događanja

Consensus and the Media

	This country has become a market of political parties, everything is resolved with regards to which share belongs to whom, it is openly discussed, fools even boast about it.
	Biljana Srbljanović

Every once in a while, the media are overrated or underestimated. They are referred to as the "seventh force" or the "fourth authority", a mere means in other people's hands, as part of the ideological-propaganda apparatus of certain power centres.
Instead of arbitrary assessments of the role of the media, I would like to say something about the developments in the media in the current situation in Serbia, in the midst of the "referendum fever" surrounding the new constitution.
Before the elections of the year 2000, a specific consensus was reached within the movement for democratic changes on the need for adopting a new constitution of Serbia which would signify a break with the regime of Slobodan Miloševic. After the victory, the adoption of the constitution had been postponed, only for it to be announced, in the night between September 29th and 30th, that parliament passed the new constitution, almost unanimously, and that the adopted draft would be put up in a referendum on October 28th and 29th. In the meantime, prime minister Đindic was assassinated, changes occurred in various directions, the one-time consensus became diluted. Serbia found itself alone, all the former Yugoslav republics went their separate ways, and the question of the status of Kosovo was also raised. In such circumstances, the government and opposition reached an agreement that the framework of the constitution would be the stand in the preamble that Kosmet is "an integral part of the territory of Serbia". Everything else is in the shadow of that stand. And what is this "everything else"?
There are important topics that have been present among the public for years, and regarding which a basic consensus, which is considered to be the foundation of a political community, has not been reached. Above all, the mass killings in the past wars and crimes that are rarely seen have jeopardised the very right to life, without which all the other human rights are left without a real support. Without consensus on the fact that killings must not be left unpunished, and that crimes must be penalised, it is impossible to establish a state as a civilizational institution. Such consensus implies a critical stand towards the past and an agreement about the necessity to overcome what is bad and evil in it. The considerable robbing of private and public property, especially during the war years, imposes the necessity for consensus on the protection of property, private and public, as a solid basis for restoring the destroyed structure of society, as well as

punishing robbery. Chaotic developments in various directions cannot be restrained without a clear and accepted goal to secure changes and a strategy for developing the economy, culture, society and state. The destruction of institutions and procedures has deprived the government of the necessary frameworks and public control, so consensus is necessary regarding this matter as well. Finally, the mass killings, displacements, and stripping people of their jobs have produced a multitude of "surplus individuals", forcibly reduced to fighting for mere survival, which opens the question of individual and collective life, and the realistic visions of an individual and a common future. Without consensus on punishing mass and gross violations of the right to life, the norm "human life is inviolate", included in the new constitution, sounds cynical. And when there is no consensus, an endless wrangling ensues over whether there had been crimes at all, and about arrests and trials for crimes. The absence of this consensus creates space for the repetition of crimes and for arguments about whether the perpetrators of the crimes are heroes or criminals. Without consensus on punishing robbery, besides tolerating injustice, a mutual distrust flares up, and it is impossible to establish a real and stable support for economic and social changes. Substituting the property of one party with a pluralism of party properties is a basis for the emergence of an antimodern class structure of
		Albrecht Dürer, Paumgartner Altar - right wing, c. 1503.

society, which encourages talk about "refeudalization", as well as for giving impetus to an antiparliamentary, corporative organisation of the authorities. The valid perception of pluralism as a legal, even legitimate uncontrolled thriving of all imaginable ideas and ideologies, even those that have proven antipluralistic (fascism, Nazism and Stalinism), eats away at the very fabric of the values of national culture and blocks the development of a pluralism of rational and humane visions of the individual and the common future.
All the topics have been discussed for a long time among one portion of the public, and topics requiring consensus are practically imposing themselves. But, this portion of the public is marginalised, ignored, and, finally, through the manner in which this constitution was adopted, suspended.
Under growing pressures of the regime, especially when over a thousand people were dismissed from the Serbian National Radio and Television Network (RTS), as "unsuitable" for war propaganda, the establishment of the Independent Association of Journalists of Serbia (NUNS) was begun, and different forms of solidarity emerged in the struggle for the autonomy of the public and free activity of journalists and the media.
After the year 2000, the solidarity started to grow into rival. And the earlier support of international factors and foundations, was substituted by the mediation of this country's government, the market, without a readiness to make investments in projects of participants in their longstanding strivings towards the development of their own culture as a support for the affirmation of freedom and democracy, instead of the mere copying of European standards and the simulated activism of civil society.
The absence of the authorities' readiness, especially after the assassination of prime minister Đindic, for a basic consensus on the protection of the right to life and the punishing of crimes, the punishment of robbery and protection of private and public property, the strategy for developing the economy, culture, society and state, all this favours the diluting of the criteria of a critical stand towards the former, current, or any government. Those politicians who turned the parliament into a "flea market" by trading in seats and who compete in banal and brutal jargon, contribute most to promoting the motto "everything is allowed". If to this we add as well the disappearance of a principled difference between the government and the opposition, then the very seeds of parliamentarism are also brought into question. This trend was probably most graphically described by the increasingly popular Minister Velimir Ilic when he said that in our country there is actually no opposition, because all the parties are linked by various "deals" with the help of which party interests are realised. The best example is the reaching of the agreement among party leaderships regarding the new constitution, without consulting either their own parties or the parliamentarians, not to mention ignoring the public. Such an agreement warns us that there is a principled difference in securing consensus which implies an expression of the awareness of certain participants and free communication among them, with an important role of the media through an autonomous public.
What we are faced with is confusion about the perception of pluralism and consensus. The legitimate principle of an objective stand towards various sources of information and various participants falls under the shadow of an "equidistance" towards all ideas, ideologies and participants, for instance Đindic and Šešelj. Awareness is lost regarding a crucial difference between liberal and totalitarian ideas and ideologies. When there is an absence of reliable points of reference of an analytical and critical way of thinking, the protagonists of totalitarian ideologies (fascism, Nazism and Stalinism) acquire legality and legitimacy, in spite of the fact that such ideologies destroy the very basic foundations of freedom and democracy. The very perception of a principled alternative to an antidemocratic system topples under the pressure of preoccupation with governing, going all the way to a fascination with the "rating" of powerful parties, politicians and businessmen, and those ideas, parties and individuals that do not have higher rating are ignored, even denigrated. In such circumstances the journalists and the media become part of the market which Biljana Srbljanovic wrote about /Belgrade weekly NIN, October 12th,2006/. The rise of "tabloids", the thriving of affairs and scandals, render legality to an impoverishment and brutalisation of the language, sever communication and reproduce a moral and political gutter.
In the midst of a destroyed structure of society and in the absence of a normal state, it is very difficult to establish mediation between certain portions of the society and government. The very intention to establish an autonomous public is already a step towards a more durable shaping of the structure of society and a normal state. It is not sufficient only to repeat the requests for respecting European standards and to copy laws, but it is necessary to persevere in securing a basic consensus and the basic foundations for the formation and functioning of a modern political community.
A new consensus is also necessary among the journalists themselves and the media. Stripped of the illusions about ideological and political monolithism, and directed towards a unique front against enemies of freedom in general and the media specifically, a new consensus is a condition for the survival and development of the freedom of journalists and the media.


	Nebojša Popov

Republika