Needed students except what they know very well – personal attitudes

Current surprise, surprising, regardless of the short-term outcome, a long-term precious bunt student and citizens of Serbia opened some dilemmas, which, not discussed in public because they are going to, call it – « Previous of Job. » One of these dilemmas is: Is it morally justified to fight the tyrannical regime by means that cannot be called moral, although the tyrannical regime does not pass them to use defending them? Can it different?

Makijaveli has its own political philosophy expressed « the goal of justifying funds », as a recommendation, bonded for those in power. Zoran Djindjic is not his position « to whom he explained to the church, he said in more detail, but with his fouls with whom power was, it was always apromised, and that it was a recommendation to the authorities to strengthen its authority. Unfortunately, this philosophy felt not only among those who are performing, but also in the great part of those who oppose it.

The President of the Republic, a humanoid that unconstitutionally all others belonging to the executive functions, and corruption methods under full order control holds legislative and judicial government, fully its thirteen-year reign based on this malignant political philosophy.

In the way, King Alexander was incomparably « fairer », of course, disbanded the Assembly and published the Law on the King’s Public Security and the State Protection and Order and without restrictions conveyed the entire authority in the state.

To reiterate: can the most morally accepted the goal of democratically commited opponents of the current government and the change of system, the establishment of a democratic order, the rule of law and the objective of those aspiring and higher – to come to democratic, but also the national responsible authority?

Magnificent protests who stirred Serbia through two seemingly separated, parallel rebuilding processes, and already reduced to the level of very inventively thoughtful, while continuously stands out that the change of government is not required, but its self-correction. To be transported to a democratic, fair, uncorrupted, responsible, which respects the constitution and releases institutions to do their job without the influence of politicians.

Another process, which would not yet take a student who said Vostan’s citizens, who demand displeasure, but also anger according to those who perceive the supreme oppressor, and then their protests are not maintained within the limits of non-violent. Someone calls it self-defense of government violence. It will say tyrant can be defeated only by applying funds, methods that are held in power. Others will say that this can bring the results in terms of government’s shift, but there is an oversight danger that such a newly established authority will be undemocratic, for what in history has examples.

I spade in those who are not prone to the methods of struggle opposite and « softest » moral standards, and on the other hand, I am far from being convinced that the justified goal is to achieve the justified goal. Where is the limit then, which are extreme circumstances in which ethical standards must be put aside in the fight against tyranny. And who is that, who are you, who declared that the limit, that red line is traveled? In circumstances, when the tyrant shows no smallest sign that it is ready to solve the deep social and political crisis, the current course of events leads mutually increased aggression and repression of regimes and a collision with potentially tragic consequences and uncertain outcome.

So how farther?

Another dilemma is imposed and simplaciously can be defined as a matter of the state, can the democratic order of a state, will there be a change in the system, while disturbing and marginalization of the influence of political parties?

While the government has been trying for the brutal propaganda for many years, even any political engagement of its own, consciously or in ignorance, will be shown in time, and then with the same consequences, the group we mean by the collective title « Students ».

Everyone who supports the system of representative democracy and anything about political theory must be aware that without political parties, among other things, cannot be recognized, nor to form a political will, nor that citizens effectively participate in politics. Regardless of the mistakes of certain opposition parties that contributed to the weakening of the reputation of everyone, should be known: without democratic political parties there is no democratic system! Therefore, they bother the authoritarian, the tyrannical authority, but it should not happen that those who are committed to establishing a democratic order. If there is no thing behind it for now invisible, then it is unreasonable and represents a great danger of democracy.

Finally, really, how far?

Two on the protests of the physical merged energy, and in terms of aspirations and increasingly in unequal methods, should be connected. Signs requires that non-ferrous student, non-violent protests of students, often uncontrolled, merely in politically articulated and organizational harmonized protests, which would be accepted by those parts of society now, although dissatisfied with the current authority.

It is necessary for « students to say what they are very well – that their justified demands cannot be met and to terminate the illogical and harmful fencing of democratic opposition parties, and to establish cooperation in achieving a common goal: Establishment of Serbia as a democratic legal state. This of course does not mean that « students » should support any opposition party, any of different political options, party program, but only appreciates the fact that they have the same task.

All other political issues can only be solved when it comes to maintaining fair and honest elections, and it is necessary to cooperate all at the wavery of still silent, passive segments of the society to strengthen the power of power to access a peaceful, democratic resolution of the crisis.

And thus obtaining a valid solution of both of these dilemmas.

The author is a politician and diplomat, former Minister and President of the Assembly of Serbia

The author’s attitudes in the dialogue not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Danas.