Comments on: Serbia, day 41

By: Charly

Charly — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:22:33 +0000

The example was unusual because the Dutch had elections in 2003 and then it took much less then 70 days to form a government. Oh wait it took 125 days to install a government.

By: Doug M.

Doug M. — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:06:36 +0000

Martin: true, but the Dutch example was unusual. The Serbs are 2 for 2 — 70 days in 2003, 46 days (so far) in 2007. (I don’t count the December 2000 election, since that was weird — it was just a few weeks after the fall of Milosevic, and the DOS mega-coalition got 64% of the vote.)

Once is accident, twice is coincidence… We may have to wait for another election to see if there’s really a pattern here.

Doug M.

By: Martin Wisse

Martin Wisse — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 03:09:05 +0000

Hey, it’s taken about three months for the Dutch to get a new government too, so it isn’t as if long transition periods between governments are unique to Serbia. That’s what you get with proper parliamentary documentaries, the risk that getting a coalition together might take a while.

By: bytycci

bytycci — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 05:44:24 +0000

Doug,
you’re right. Delay has already led to violence. But, what they are hoping for is violence against the Serb minority. That would discredit the Kosovar claims. But even in that case the international community still understands that the best solution is independence. Thus as we are seeing, delay can only bring more unnecessary human suffering.

Best

By: Doug M.

Doug M. — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:02:31 +0000

@Dejan: “It is definitely 1.”

Perhaps. But if you look at the Parliamentary history of Serbia before WWI, and Royalist Yugoslavia before WWII… well, let’s say there’s nothing inconsistent with Theory 2.

@bytycci: “They might be hoping to delay the decision on Kosovo by saying ‘wait till we have a new government’.”

Perhaps. But they can only delay another month or so. There is a general consensus that new elections would lead to gains for the Radicals, which would not help Serbia’s position WRT Kosovo.

“They think delay will lead to violence and a descrediting of the Kosovar demand for independence. But no one is buying that.”

…well, except that delay has already led to violence; two people died last month in pro-independence demonstrations in Prishtina.

So I don’t think this is a ridiculous idea. I hope it’s wrong, but I don’t think it’s ridiculous.

Doug M.

By: bytycci

bytycci — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:19:07 +0000

It is a little bit of both I would say. Plus there is a third reason too. They might be hoping to delay the decision on Kosovo by saying ‘wait till we have a new government’. They think delay will lead to violence and a descrediting of the Kosovar demand for independence.

But no one is buying that.

By: bganon

bganon — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:16:14 +0000

Yes it might go ‘to the wire’ again. But I do think that all sides (apart from SRS) will back off from repeat elections.

Thank heavens the new constitution was passed otherwise we could end up waiting even longer than the 90 days…

By: Tsmoss

Tsmoss — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:17:14 +0000

Well, it’s been a democracy for well under a decade, and there’s no real tradition of opposed ideological blocs cooperating (witness the fighting between the Chetniks and Partisans during WWII), plus there’s the strength of the Radicals and the Socialists, plus the personalities of ome of the leaders.

And 70 days is still less than it took the Dutch this winter, although, to be fair, they didn’t have a time limit.

By: Dejan Mihailovic

Dejan Mihailovic — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:04:43 +0000

It is definitely 1.

Regarding point 2: What is for you “parliamentary democracy working smoothly”? When there is really no choice for the voter because all parties are essentially the same like in practically all EU countries and USA?

Regards