|
|
|
|
|
|
||
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, April 9, 2000 
Serbia as a quasi-legitimate ruleThe regime in Serbia is quite often being labelled as tyranny. However, actions of the key political players translates legitimacy of their rule into quasi-legitimacy, and mere tyranny into ochlocracy. Ochlocracy (according to'Vinditiae contra tyrannos') is a tyranny which endeavours to present itself as democracy. Its basic characteristics are instable institutions and the most corrupt people vested with power in the most important political positions. Thus the supreme political authority in Serbia cannot formally abolish political institutions, but it can appoint people void of any political capacity, often without elementary knowledge of the rules of civilised behaviour, to the most important positions within such institutions. Such actions are closely related to incapacity of the existing elite and inadequate methods of political recruitment. The natural outcome are institutions (e.g. parliament and government) whose members not only make catastrophic political decisions but also cannot express themselves properly in grammatical terms. Moreover, they are inclined to physically attack those people who think differently. The way in which the ruler of Serbia gains his titulus and provides democratic façade for his rule is quite interesting. He is neither a usurper (tyrannos apsque titulo), nor a common tyrant if we are to judge him by his behaviour (tyrannos exercitio). He is the owner of the people's consent. His rise to power was marked (and largely caused) by 'the people's rebellion'. His decisions were not presented as the result of the ruler's preplanned strategies, but 'people's wishes'. Abuse of plebiscitary support is not the invention of this regime. Even Julius Caesar was abundantly taking advantage of it, while Napoleon Bonaparte brought this technique to perfection. Such a type of rule was named after them (masters of creating loyalty among their subjects ultimately resulting in their absolute power) Caesarism and Bonapartism. Napoleon, in an attempt to prove the legitimacy of his titulus, addressed the members of the parliament with the following words: "Are you the representatives of the people? No. Four times I have invited the nation and four times I won the votes of four million people. I have the titulus, and you have not: you're only deputies of imperial departments". (Podunavac M. "Political System - Theory and Principles). Napoleon's technique of ruling the country resembles to a large extent the use of vox populi in these parts. For the last ten years the citizens have been given chances on so many occasions to hold rallies, vote in the elections or a referendum. Referendum is actually a good example of ochlocratic logic. It was superbly devised as a way to express the people's sovereignty. Yet one can heavily influence the will of the people. Also, questions asked at a referendum could be easily formulated in such a manner so as to allude to a desired answer. Perfidiousness of Caesarism cannot be explicated by political factors only. A psychological analysis is needed as well - both of those who rule and those who are being ruled. An undisputed leader seeks not only full political control but admiration of his subjects as well. 'People's rebellion' has a twofold function - to provide legitimacy and enable the ruler to enjoy the applause. However, narcissism is the characteristic of both the leader and the people. An individual identified with the mass of people satisfies his own narcissistic needs for greatness and strength enjoying the size and strength of the mass to which he belongs.
This is why the issue of responsibility for the existing state of affairs is so specific. The leader is not the only one to bear responsibility, but those individuals who also take part in the process of his deification as well.
Sonja Mitrovic
|
|||||||||
|
