The current union between the states of Serbia and Montenegro, which was established in 2003 in the wake of the break-up of Yugoslavia, could well end this weekend as Montenegrins go to the polls for a referendum on their independence. Polling data suggests that the independence movement, which is led by Montenegrin Prime Minister Milo Đjukanović, is currently backed by 52-53% of support. However, in the case of Montenegro, a majority of 52-53% voting for independence will result instead in the preservation of the union. Why is that? Because the EU has said that in the case of Montenegrin independence, a binding majority of no less than 55% must be achieved. Democracy is obviously a much more subjective issue for Javier Solana than for the rest of us.
Three aspects of this situation are particularly outrageous: firstly that the EU has dared to redefine what constitutes an absolute majority in a democratic vote and in doing so has set a precedent that will almost certainly haunt us in the future. Secondly that the EU has the audacity and the authority to make such demands upon a nation that is not even bound to EU by a Stability and Association Agreement, let alone actual membership. And thirdly that with the polls showing what they do in Montenegro, Solana’s obscure electoral mathematics looks likely to leave the nation in a dangerous grey area by which a majority of people have rejected the current government and political union and yet not achieved the arbitrary majority required to gain actual independence.
The prospect of a ‘grey zone’ vote, i.e. a result of 51-54%, is the biggest concern about the referendum’s outcome, especially if the result was in the upper end of this margin. Đjukanović has stated that in such a case:
"our position would be that a democratic majority has delegitimized the existing union.”
Vojislav Koštunica, the Prime Minister of Serbia unsurprisingly doesn’t share this view and instead makes the case that:
"The European Union has clearly said there is no grey area and that any result below 55 percent absolutely means that the joint state is preserved, by the will of the people."
Thanks to Solana’s meddling with what constitutes a democratic majority, they are in fact both right and the political impasse that would follow would inevitably be unpleasant. “Montenegro would remain divided over the issue of statehood and independence…while Serbia would still have to put up with a dysfunctional state union." concluded Srdjan Darmanović, head of political science at Podgorica University Law School. The position of President Svetozar Marović will become untenable almost immediately. Marović is a Montenegrin and is vice-present of the Democratic Party of Socialists in Montenegro (DPS). The party president is Milo Đjukanović himself and President Marović has made his position on the ‘grey zone’ clear:
"In essence, no matter what the formula behind the model, a majority is a majority and a minority is a minority and no formula can hide nor change that.”
In this situation, it is hard to imagine his tenure being sustainable.
The EU, recognising the threat of the ‘grey zone’, is apparently working on a constitutional contingency plan whereby the two nations act as one in terms of international relations but not in terms of domestic policy. However, this is largely the situation in the region already; legislative power resides separately with the Đjukanović and Koštunica governments but President Marović represents the union abroad. Serbia and Montenegro share an army and diplomatic service but have separate customs and border services. One must wonder, therefore, what the EU contingency plan actually achieves, other than codifying and propagating the status quo that best suits Javier Solana, at the expense of the democratic rights of the people of Montenegro. This unsurprisingly may not be good enough for the electorate, who are already joking about renaming the country “Solanistan” in case of a pro-Union outcome through a ‘grey zone’ result. When you consider that Serbia-Montenegro has no Eurovision entry this year because the final nomination of the Montenegrin band “No Name” led to Serbian allegations of vote-fixing and a riot in Belgrade, one has to be concerned as to what civil consequences would follow a disputed outcome in a vote that has already been tarnished with allegations of corruption and fraud against both parties.
The Solana formula is a brash flexing of EU power that supersedes national sovereignty at the most fundamental level. However, it also represents a dangerous and insidious arrogance that will inevitably have repercussions. Democracy cannot be subverted beneath arbitrary external demands and we can only hope that if a ‘grey zone’ vote comes in, that there is a nation in the EU that mirrors the courage Germany showed in recognising Croatian independence in 1991, and supports the majority of the Montenegrin people. It is doubtful, of course, as there is no nation in Europe or indeed the world with tight ties to the half a million people of Montenegro. However unless someone undermines this manipulation of democracy then a precedent is set that could conceivably see some of those nations that the EU itself lambasts for democratic shortcomings gain similar “democratic” legitimacy for continuing their corrupt and utterly undemocratic regimes. The ‘will of the people’ in Montenegro has been succumbed to the ‘will of the EU’ and by this Solana has led us the first steps down a path that we should all fear to tread.
Comments (2)
Estavisti's point on Milo Ðukanović's past is indeed valid, but I don't think has a bearing on the questions of the dangers that the EU 55% rule posed. The public logic behind the EU decision was the same 'what if 51% voted in favour' argument that is made in the above comment. However this does not stand up to the reversism of 'what if 54% voted in favour'. If you start playing with electoral maths, what is next: in order for the people of France not to ratify the constitution in a new referendum, over 60% must vote 'No'... Even without the general precedent that this has set, it risked destabilising Montenegro via a 'Grey Zone' result. Demanding a higher percentage turnout than the 50%+1 vote that the EU demanded would have been a better way of ensuring legitimacy in case of a low margin of victory than redefining what constitutes an electoral majority.
As a PS though, my second point of three - "that the EU has the audacity and the authority to make such demands upon a nation" is not valid. Serbia-Montenegro invited EU arbitration, so I retract that without hesitation.
Wayne
Posted by Wayne | May 24, 2006 9:37 AM
Posted on May 24, 2006 09:37
You make some valid points, but on the other hand, the media is either pro-independence (i.e. except one newspaper) and largely government-controlled/influenced. Ðukanović is basically a criminal and a smuggler (ongoing investigations/indictments in Italy) with many links to shady Russians, as well as a political manipulator who's gone from Commie apparatchik, to Serbian nationalist and admirer of Milošević, to Montenegrin nationalist and opponent of "Serbian hegemonism and opression". Imagine that the 55% rule didn't exist. Imagine 51% were in favour of independence and 49% against - hardly a recipe for stability, especially given the oppurtunistic nature of the Ðukanović regime, which cares more for its own security and well-being, than that of Montenegro.
Posted by estavisti | May 22, 2006 9:38 AM
Posted on May 22, 2006 09:38