che fine ha fatto OTPOR ?

[Paola Lucchesi <paola.lucchesi@mail.inet.it>]

Planning for an Uncertain Future
Brian J Pozun
Some think it should be a political party, some an NGO; others think Otpor
should disband.
http://www.ce-review.org/01/8/pozun8.html

The student-driven Otpor movement was unquestionably the star of the
October Revolution in Belgrade. But now that Milosevic is gone, the
movement is floundering in its attempts to define what it is and what it
must become.

In November 1998, Otpor burst onto the scene with a graffiti campaign
across downtown Belgrade. The movement's members prided themselves on the
fact that Otpor had no single leader or hierarchical structure, which made
it virtually impossible for the state to effectively repress them. After
years of public campaigns, it was their Gotov je (He is Finished)
pre-election campaign that was their crowning moment. The campaign sought
to mobilize as many voters to the polls as possible and clearly
contributed to the opposition parties' surprise win.

The first thing Otpor did after the opposition parties' rise to power was
to launch a new ad campaign, which turned the bulldozer that helped
protesters storm the parliament building in October into a symbol of the
power of the common man. The black-and-white ads show a stylized bulldozer
with the text Samo vas Gledamo (We are just watching you).

The idea is to remind the new leaders that the citizens of Yugoslavia
brought down one bad leader and would gladly do it again. The movement
seemed to be steadily assuming the role of watchdog.

In the lead-up to the election, several Otpor members were asked in
interviews whether the movement would change its name if the opposition
parties won. The unanimous answer was that the name would remain, since
they are not "resisting" Milosevic the man but the mind-set of the people.
But just a couple months after the defeat of Slobodan Milosevic, Otpor
members are no longer so certain.

Financial questions answered, unfortunately

All along, questions about where Otpor was getting its funding have
abounded. Spokesmen never denied they were getting help from abroad, but
when pressed claimed that they accepted it out of patriotism.

Ostensibly, the movement accepted Western aid to promote their goal of a
purged, democratized Serbia. When it became clear, however, that Western
governments were involved, many in Yugoslavia and elsewhere began to
wonder what sort of return those generous governments will want on their
investment in Otpor.

The New York Times Magazine featured Otpor members on the cover of their
26 November 2000 issue. In an approving and even congratulatory tone, the
accompanying article details millions of dollars as well as training
seminars and other support that the United States government had provided
to Otpor members.

Aside from the question of "repayment," there is the fact that in trying
to control Otpor's activities, Milosevic and his people ran an anti-Otpor
ad campaign featuring the famous Otpor fist clenching American dollars to
insinuate corruption and Western propaganda in the movement. With the
revelations about Otpor's Western benefactors, many are left wondering
just how far off the ad really was.

The second congress

Otpor's image was further tarnished on the occasion of the movement's
second congress on 4 February 2001. The event was held in Belgrade, and
aside from activists, several politicians and members of the government
attended. The centerpiece of the congress was a screening of what Free
Serbia called a "brilliant propagandistic film" about the history and
activities of the Otpor movement.

The congress was apparently the swan song of the famous fist logo; it was
Otpor member Ivan Marovic who told those assembled that the fist was being
retired. The radio station B92 quoted him as saying, "We needed a fist as
a weapon against Milosevic. It would be like a mine against a mosquito
against the new authorities."

Not everyone was convinced; some applauded the move, but many booed and
hissed. But the biggest expressions of dissent came later.

Vlada Pavlov, a leading figure in the Novi Sad branch of Otpor, gave an
address to the congress in which he detailed a new vision for the
movement.  This new vision is termed Novi Patriotizm (New Patriotism),
which Pavlov defined as "open patriotism, understanding and love for the
native country, universal solidarity and a civil state."

A young activist from Valjevo screamed out across the congress hall,
"Vlado, who stands for the people's movement Otpor? Ten people?! Present
are fifteen hundred Otpor members! Why aren't they consulted about
anything, but are simply told the decisions made in advance?"

Dissent

It is key that the voice of dissent came from an activist from Valjevo, a
provincial town far from Belgrade. In the capital, the movement was not
particularly popular and Otpor-organized events were poorly attended. But
the pain of life under Milosevic and under sanctions was felt hardest
outside of Belgrade, and the solidarity and vision of a brighter future
offered by Otpor was like a magnet.

In recent weeks, spokesmen from the provincial branches of Otpor have been
widely cited in the press as being overwhelmingly disappointed by what
occurred at the congress. They see a small group of cocky, big-city
Belgrade activists trying to impose a leadership structure on a movement
that prides itself on having no formal hierarchy or leaders.

Ivan Jocic, an Otpor member from the southern-Serbian center of Nis, told
the daily Danas: "At the second congress, a small group of people abused
the name and idea of the entire movement." Jocic was not only opposed to
the directives put forward at the congress but to the very congress
itself. "Otpor's first congress was conceived as a parody of the congress
of the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS). But the second congress truly
surpassed any SPS congress directed by Slobodan Milosevic and his crew."

Otpor's Nis branch announced soon after the Congress that they intended to
resist the centralizing tendencies of "a group of activists with political
ambitions from Belgrade," their vision being an Otpor composed of local
units formed into a decentralized non-governmental organization. Local
groups from the Vojvodina are also discussing decentralization and
regional cooperation to fight the centralizing forces in Belgrade.

Activists from Pozarevac agreed that the congresses of the SPS were more
democratic than Otpor's second congress, given the fact that the new
mission of "Novi Patriotizm" was presented as gospel even though virtually
none of the delegates had heard of the concept.

It was activists from the central Serbian city of Kragujevac who have gone
the furthest. To protest the second congress, they have suspended the
activities of their branch of Otpor entirely.

On the door to their headquarters, they have written the old slogan Gotov
je. Before the September election, those words were translated as "He is
Finished," referring to Milosevic; but now they must be translated as "It
is Finished," referring to Otpor...

A new mission?

Otpor was born as a resistance to the rule of one man, Slobodan Milosevic.
Now that he is squarely out of power, the question of whether there
remains a need for Otpor arises. The initial idea that the movement could
serve as a watchdog over the new government as expressed in the Samo vas
Gledamo campaign seemed worthy enough, but now some feel it is
insufficient.

The Belgrade branch sees Otpor's future as a political party. The Nis
branch sees it as an NGO. Many others, however, see no future for Otpor
and are convinced that if the movement wants to preserve its good name, it
must disband.

An article on the Free Serbia website pointed out some interesting
parallels between this movement and the old Polish Solidarity movement.
Both movements fought the powers that be and each won its war by
transforming from a small group with a narrow membership into a mass
social movement.

The article uses the fate of Solidarity to warn about the dangerous path
Otpor is now treading. "Solidarity and its leaders did not realize that
they had to protect the movement by declaring that it actually ceased to
exist. The consequence: Today Solidarity is a political party with about
one per cent of support among the electorate, while Lech Walesa became a
caricature of his own self instead of going down in history as a legendary
figure."

The concerns surrounding the foreign aid accepted by the movement, the
peculiarities of the second congress and the political ambitions of the
Belgrade group are all tarnishing the once-pristine image of the movement,
which is already on the cusp of a schism. Once the break between the
politically motivated and civil society-oriented factions is formalized,
the inevitable bickering about who can claim the legacy of the movement
that did so much to bring down the man who ran Yugoslavia into the ground
might well be enough for both new groups to be stillborn.

The old idealism seems to have worn off with the last moments of the
euphoria of revolution, and that loss is a hard thing for most to accept.
With each passing day, more and more peopleóboth within Otpor and
withoutóare reconsidering the idea and meaning of Otpor, and the
movement's leaders must realize this before it is too late.

Brian J Pozun, 26 February 2001

Central Europe Review:
http://www.ce-review.org