Purifying history

The electoral runoff between the leader of the Serb Radical party Tomislav Nikolic and that of the Democratic Party Boris Tadic resulted in a win for the latter. Tadic took 50.5% of the votes and was thus confirmed, on 3 February, as the President of the Republic of Serbia. The pro-European Tadic won with a majority of 140,000 votes. “Serbia has chosen Europe”, declare the main newspapers of the country. According to many analysts, Serbia, by confirming Tadic as Serbian President, has wished to cut its knot with the past. Nikolic had served for two years as one of the deputies of Milosevic. The immediate future of Serbia is bound up with Kosovo, EU membership and a process of reforms to tackle the country’s domestic difficulties. We spoke of Serbia’s problems with the Most Rev. Stanislaw Hocevar, Metropolitan Archbishop of Belgrade.What’s your judgement of last Sunday’s vote?“I’m happy about how the ballot took place and the great participation of voters, over 67% of the electorate. We as Catholic bishops had invited the faithful to be responsible both in prayer and in participation in the vote”. Is the slender victory of Tadic over Nikolic the mirror of a divided country or are there aspects that inspire optimism about the future of Serbia?“The split is clear, but there are points held in common between the two coalitions and expressly underlined by the vote: a clear pro-European attitude – since many who voted for the nationalist Tomislav Nikolic are also pro-European; and the demand for greater attention to and responsibility for poverty. In Serbia there are so many poor people who live with enormous difficulty; there’s so much organized crime and corruption. The vote is an appeal to all politicians to strive to improve the conditions of the people by implementing reforms. But it’s also an appeal to Europe not just to support Serbia’s entry into the EU but also to concretely help the population. There’s also another lack that urgently needs to be filled”. What?“In Serbia there’s a lack of a widespread territorial system of schools, colleges and universities. Many electors, especially among those who voted for Nikolic, had no opportunity to study and thus to acquire some professional qualification. They did not even have the opportunity to travel in Europe because they could not purchase the necessary entrance visa due to their poverty”. So could entry into the EU help improve the country’s political, social and economic situation?“Of course, but without reforms it might not be enough. The fear of losing the Serbian identity should not be ignored. The Serb majority belongs to an oriental Christian culture and many, also due to lack of communication with the EU, fear losing it. It’s a fear shared by other countries in Eastern Europe”. Obstacles remain for Serbia’s bid to enter the EU: internal reforms and collaboration with the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, which is pressing for the handing over of men like Radko Mladic, who stands accused of the massacre of Muslims in Bosnia. How can these obstacles be overcome?“Collaboration with the international court is essential, but the problem would need to be addressed in its entirety, bearing in mind the Eastern mentality that interprets the past in a different way. There is no critical detachment from the past, because time is not only the past but also the present. The handing over of those who have stained their hands with crimes is undoubtedly necessary, but there ought to be more talk of an integral process of purification of history that is still lacking. We ought to take into consideration not only the history of the 1990s, but also that of previous decades and ask ourselves why Europe did not condemn Communism and Marxism more than it did. Tito, who had his admirers, killed large numbers of people and was never condemned by Europe. Judging severely is right and necessary, but it’s not right there should be two different scales of judgement, two different measures. The past, from the Second World War onwards, must be brought back to light and judged anew. The 1990s were the result of Communism and ideological atheism and many of the negative protagonists of those years conducted themselves by following in the footsteps of those who had gone before them. Europe reacted only when she saw her own interests threatened, but before she did not lift a finger”. Serbia has chosen Europe but risks losing Kosovo. What may the secession of Kosovo mean for the new Serbia?“The question of Kosovo deserves global attention and reflection. I repeat: it’s not right to judge or take decisions basing oneself merely on historical events relating to the 1990s. We ought instead to start out from the Second World War. There’s another aspect that should be recalled: the identity of Europe is not clear. The division between European politicians is well known; but the cultural and spiritual outlook of the Old Continent is unclear. The European Constitution, in which no mention is made of the Christian roots of Europe, is unclear. Given this lack of clarity, it is impossible for politicians to pass judgement on the complexity of Kosovo. Finding a solution to Kosovo must also involve the EU. I wonder why the Catholic representative is not invited to attend the talks on Kosovo, or why people never speak of the flight of Catholics from this land. That means a global view of the problem and the capacity to find a solution that may guarantee the security of all Kosovars are lacking. The decisions taken on Kosovo must not be hasty but be subjected to careful scrutiny, to ensure they respect the country’s identity and all its inhabitants”.