The issue of the effect of the opposition: May I agree on the common list and performance in the election? – Personal views

Students are the center of attention, smart, compressive, give serious and responsible statements, their movement is depersonalized, no leadership, no individual expiration, but there is persistence and readiness to submit a victim.

They became the main actors for long desired and expected changes, so they get applause, praise and all articulated readiness of all other opponents to regime, to the students, handed out the common destiny. Is that realistic?

Other social and political actors retreated to spare positions, so with a comfortable distance, they evaluate what is good, and what not in student requirements.

It is only here and there are fearful thoughts that may be all great, but it has not been executed, because they will still be able to lose their own existence, and the result can be collapsing state universities, as it can be controlled.

Students have already achieved much: encouraging citizens, dragged them from Lethari, Momirović, to reveal various corrupt actions, encouraged judicial and all power, encouraged the university, reached Brussels and Strasbourg. They also made mistakes, which is inevitable when desires, demands, aspirations, last for too long without a final epilogue.

Some suggested a transitional government, some voted, then they were blocking RTS to renew the election of Members of the Council of REM or the abolition of public service, which was not a very thoughtful request. They then delayed from the shutdown of RTS, and others in the request for election of the Electronic Media Regulator, but soon requested the dissolution of the Assembly, without which the election is not there.

They cannot be resented, except in some of the requests, despite distancing from the official opposition, can be observed a certain impact of parties in terms of goals that they themselves fail to achieve.

It is now an actual request for extraordinary elections. It is a certain indication that in the notimizing reality, from the illusion that the protests and persistent blockages will be powered to abdicate, goes to more reasonable methods of change.

Do you miss something though? Students seek elections, for which they will make a list, without representatives of political parties and without students themselves, but will compile a list of reputable persons from the profession and authority, starting from their professors.

Parties representatives have different views to that idea, from complete support and offering infrastructure, but without direct participation in elections, to the opinion that without parties cannot go to the election fight. Both, however, are hesitant to impose a dialogue in which it could be sought in common, for an all acceptable solution.

The issue of maturity of our opposition, which is persistently avoided, because we will not criticize them, when power is authoritarian, undemocratic, corrupt, catastrophic deadly.

But if someone thinks our condition is such what it is, just because of power, but not because of those who are former, it is the perception of the blindness. What we do not have any municipality in Belgrade with a different authority, because the boycott overcame the election conditions, does not prevent a number of opposition parties to support an emergency election, although conditions are more or less the same.

The issue of joint action of the opposition is still set exclusively in the form: can I agree on the common list and the appearance in the election? The factor, for example, a student list, and when it brings the result, it does not change the number of political actors, which certainly does not contribute to the potential of change, which certainly does not contribute to the potential of change, which certainly does not contribute to the potential of change.

No one asks why some parties despite the closeness of attitudes and programs do not think about unification and thus strengthening constituent chances. Why a party of freedom and justice, Serbia Center, Democratic Party, National Movement of Serbia, are not one party? What distinguishes them so much? Green left front and movement of free citizens, for example. The problem of Lithium has present two parties: move change and environmental uprising. They have the same views on ecology, the European Union, Kosovo and Metohija, the current government. Why are those two parties?

Freedom of political association is given for everyone who wants its organizational courtyards. But where there is a responsibility for citizens whose trust is expected and changes are promising. It used to be avoided to see what is obvious, and that is a personal conjugation and influence, the basic reasons for the chimney of the opposition scene, with unrealistic pretentious expectations that their party will bring out better and wide historical merits. In addition, almost every president of the party sees himself as a future prime minister or president. In parliamentary parties, it is better seen, but should not be forgotten that there are a large number of parties and strangers, which are waiting for their moment to provide at least one, if not more of the parliamentary places, and thus survive funding from the budget, for paying space and survival. Should prove that it is the dominance of personal and participular interests of which general, northern, cannot be made to even be realized.

The merger adventure makes risk leaders not to be more at the president’s place, to bring out a crucial word and high position in institutions, if they reach them at all. But it is the test of democracy and action for general good.
In all this, the reasons for official political actors are so selflessly left to students of the Court in which the parties later step in, which will only give for the right to Vučić to want power without choice. Because students will win, but they will not rule, which is understood and never happened even, so they will leave the power to the transitional government to those who are long to wish for the transitional government. It’s not just being an account without a pecuniary, but also a hypocrite hint that if the student list does not win, Parties can not feel responsible.

Those who already see the rabbit rustle, they are increasingly asking, can the power be last long as long as possible, without allowing choices? They forget that the leader is more important than life and that may be a more realistic question: What will happen if it accepts the choices? Who is ready for them at this time or in a couple of months? Students with an imaginary list that can become a problem when it starts composing or opposition parties that will not / want to choose. These first do not have any experience, which is not their flaw than reality, and these others have experience that is negative.

The question is much more important: can energy and objectively more opponents and objectively take place to some subsequent regular elections, common civil and political activism, and returning life to normal, which implies the renewal of work of the faculty and continued studies.

The media blockade is a huge spill of protests on the streets of all cities to some extent, if we provide members of election commissions and controllers at all constituencies and achieving great voter turnout, would have to hope for.

Thus, too much of the burden that we ran evenly distributed, they would not risk the taste of bitterness of possible defeat, and our civic activity would show maturity.

If there is a fear that the flame requests for changes will not take place a year and a half, two, if we are to withdraw from the streets and squares, then we all deserve the authority we have.

The author is Professor at Pension Political Science

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