Search

We explored links between competitive authoritarianism and populism in Serbia under Vučić via mixed methods. We conducted a quantitative content analysis of 228 political cartoons (2013–2017) by Dušan Petričić, a leading cartoonist and government critic, and qualitative visual and contextual analysis of four cartoons that reflected key themes—media freedom violations, unfair political competition, and populist and abusive rule. We found that populism appeared as the ‘soft’ face of competitive authoritarianism, tolerable to domestic audiences and acceptable to influential international actors because of its reliance on more informal and sophisticated and less repressive forms of authoritarian manipulation.

The article examines the quality of democracy in Serbia via the quantitative analysis of media discourse. It reveals robust competition, participation and accountability in the first decade after regime change, followed by major recent decline, thus showing that expert assessments from influential indices of democracy underrated democratic quality in the former period and overrated it later. Also revealed are the advantages of complementing expert assessments with those based on media discourse. The content analysis examined 1,921 coded items from print and electronic media coverage of major political conflicts at strategic points in the country?s democratisation.

Popular protest, which repeatedly occurred in Communist regimes, turned into massive mobilizational waves in the late Communist period. Why did some protests result in state cooptation and particularist nationalism (Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union), and others in state-society polarization (Poland) and protest containment (China), when these states shared important historical, political, and institutional legacies? Political regimes with origins in indigenous popularly-based revolutionary movements are more resilient to popular protests and other major crises than other authoritarian regimes. Protracted ideological armed struggle largely overlaps with broader patriotic causes, such as liberation wars or struggles against foreign intervention. The revolutionary regimes thus acquire patriotic credentials, while boundaries between partisan and patriotic identities become blurred, which strengthens their elite unity and popular base. Popular protests thus facilitate a complex political game of old and new actors that may result in regime survival or transformation. In other regimes, popular unrest tends to produce state-society polarization and, ultimately, regime delegitimation and breakdown. Popular contention in complex multinational institutional settings, if there is no major external threat, highlights old and triggers new conflicts along these structural and institutional divides and, where dual political identities prevail, facilitates identity shifts in particularist direction.

Burni događaji opisani i analizirani u ovoj knjizi govore o dramatičnom usponu i padu demokratije posle Petog oktobra – u svega deceniju i po. Posle masovnog otpora izbornoj krađi i sloma nedemokratskog režima uspostavljene su dinamične demokratske ustanove koje su opstale tokom više izbornih ciklusa, obeležene snažnim političkim takmičenjem, širokom participacijom civilnog društva i neprestanim pokušajima kontrole javnih funkcionera od strane javnosti. Ključni politički sukobi rešavani su demokratskim putem, na izborima i uglavnom unutar političkih ustanova, bitno menjajući odnose političkih snaga i određujući politiku zemlje, uprkos eksplozivne politike identiteta, institucionalnog nasleđa ličnog režima i nepovoljnih međunarodnih okolnosti. Posle prve decenije demokratizacije javljaju se prva neformalna ograničenja medijskih sloboda, koja se postepeno i sistematski pojačavaju posle povratka na vlast obnovljenih stranaka starog režima i kolapsa petooktobarskih stranaka, kulminirajući u slomu demokratije i usponu novog autoritarizma. Takva ocena izvire iz obimnog istraživanja konfliktne strane demokratizacije u ovom razdoblju, uključujući analizu sadržaja medijskog izveštavanja o ključnim političkim sukobima, razgovore sa ključnim protagonistima iz političkog i civilnog društva i istorijsko-institucionalnu analizu – u širem miljeu relevantne akademske literature i iskustava demokratizacije u našem i drugim svetskim regionima.

Odsustvo saradnje i međunacionalni sporovi u pluralnim društvima posle rata često ne izviru iz konsocijacije kao mehanizma za regulaciju sukoba, već iz nedemokratskog okruženja u kojem te institucije funkcionišu. Demokratski deficit konsocijalne demokratije, u vidu ograničene odgovornosti državnih funkcionera građanima i podsticanja kolektivnih na račun individualnih prava, višestruko se negativno odražava na konsocijalne aranžmane u autoritarnim i mešovitim režimima. Primeri socijalističke Jugoslavije i Bosne i Hercegovine i Makedonije posle ratnih sukoba – savremenih mešovitih režima – govore da se konsocijacija smatra mehanizmom za podelu plena, a ne za podsticanje saradnje i uzajamnu kontrolu predstavnika naroda u pluralnom društvu. Demokratija treba da obezbedi vertikalnu i horizontalnu odgovornost vlasti građanima i zaštitu individualnih prava, i tako omogući efektivno funkcionisanje konsocijacije., Lack of cooperation and intra-national disputes in plural post-war societies often do not arise from consociation as a mechanism of conflict regulation, but from a non-democratic environment in which those institutions function. The democratic deficit of consocial democracy, in the form of limited accountability of state officials before citizens and of promotion of collective rights at the expense of individual ones, has a multiple negative impact on consocial setups in authoritarian and combined regimes. Examples of socialist Yugoslavia and of post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia – the contemporary combined regimes – illustrate that consociation is considered a mechanism for distribution of prey, and not for encouraging of cooperation and mutual control of people’s representatives in a plural society. Democracy should provide vertical and horizontal accountability of government before its citizens, as well as the protection of individual rights, thus enabling effective functioning of consociation

By reporting on some conflicts but not on others, and by representing conflicts they report on in particular ways, the media strongly influence the dynamics and outcomes of democratisation conflicts, and thus also shape the prospects of success of conflict parties. This paper explores the literature on media and conflict by focusing on the ways in which media frame inter-state and civil wars, institutionalised conflicts and social movements in western democracies, and conflicts in nondemocratic and democratising states. Much of the literature discusses the ways in which western media frame foreign conflicts and domestic election campaigns and policy debates, while there is considerably less focus on domestic conflicts in nonwestern settings, such as those that arise during and after transitions from nondemocratic rule. There are only limited attempts to draw parallels between the media coverage of disparate conflicts. In contrast, this study builds upon research findings in these related areas to draw lessons for empirical research of media framing of the contentious dimension of contemporary democratisation. This study concludes that the political context is the main factor that shapes the media framing of various forms of political conflict. Several dimensions of the political context matter in this respect, such as regime type, international (foreign) or domestic perspective, elite consensus or conflict, policy consensus or uncertainty, policy area, more or less institutionalised nature of the political conflict at stake, and the stage of democratisation. Also, the literature suggests that media framing strongly influences political outcomes and thus fosters or undermines democratic institutions in new democracies. ., Izveštavajući o nekim sukobima, a ne o drugima, i predstavljajući ih na određeni način, mediji bitno utiču na dinamiku i rezultate sukoba tokom demokratizacije i tako oblikuju izglede na uspeh sukobljenih strana. Ovaj rad analizira literaturu o medijima i političkim sukobima, naročito onaj deo o medijskom predstavljanju međudržavnih i građanskih ratova, institucionalizovanih sukoba, protesta i društvenih pokreta u demokratijama Zapada, kao i sukoba u nedemokratskim režimima i tokom demokratizacije. Najveći deo literature bavi se načinima na koji Zapadni mediji predstavljaju strane sukobe - oružane i druge - i domaće izborne kampanje i rasprave o javnim politikama, dok je medijsko izveštavanje o domaćim sukobima u nezapadnom okruženju, kao što su oni koji nastaju tokom i posle nedemokratske vladavine, nedovoljno istraženo. Retko se povlače paralele između medijskog izveštavanja o tim, veoma različitim oblicima sukoba. Ovaj rad upravo insistira na upoređivanju nalaza iz ovih srodnih oblasti jer takvo poređenje sugeriše pouke - u vidu argumenata i hipoteza - za empirijsko istraživanje medijskog predstavljanja konfliktne strane savremene demokratizacije. Najznačajniji nalaz ove studije jeste da je politički kontekst ključni činilac koji utiče na predstavljanje različitih oblika političkih sukoba u medijima. Najvažnije dimenzije političkog konteksta iz ovog ugla su oblik političkog režima, međunarodni (spoljni) ili domaći ugao, konsenzus ili sukob elita, oblast javne politike i konsenzus ili neizvesnost oko njihovog donošenja i/ili sadržaja, oblik i nivo institucionalizacije sukoba i etapa demokratizacije. Pored toga, medijsko predstavljanje sukoba značajno utiče na političke ishode i tako podržava ili podriva nove demokratske ustanove.

This paper presents an overview of the main findings from a quantitative content analysis covering different types of democratisation conflicts (i.e., conflicts over citizenship, elections, transitional justice and distribution of power) in Egypt, Kenya, Serbia and South Africa. The key findings from the content analysis are organised around several themes: causes of democratisation conflicts, portrayal of conflict parties, preferred solutions to conflicts, perceptions of democracy, role of the media, authoritarian past, and tone of reporting and polarisation. The main finding is that cross-national variations depend on several factors: specific country contexts (and contexts of broader regions from which they come from, including the Arab Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and post-communist Europe); regime type and the stage of democratisation; and type of democratisation conflict (which reflects the main arenas of political contestation). Across all countries, the quality of media coverage is limited by bias, emotionalisation and - most importantly - polarisation. In particular, conflicts over the distribution of power trigger sharp polarisation, whereas elections-contrary to existing literature - seem to force media towards a more restrained style of reporting. The sample involves 5162 newspaper articles and news stories from the four countries.

U radu autor ukazuje da kvalitet medijskog izveštavanja o političkim pitanjima ne zavisi samo od uticaja vlasti, već i drugih činilaca. Oslonac argumenta je teorija „indeksiranja“ koja objašnjava bitno drugačiji oblik medijskog izveštavanja – o međunarodnim sukobima i spoljnoj politici u bitno različitom političkom miljeu, u SAD. Prilagođena političkom miljeu novih demokratija, ta teorija sugeriše da medijsko izveštavanje o politici izvire i iz dinamike „beleženja“ odnosa političkih snaga od strane medija u demokratskim zemljama, koje reflektuje politički uticaj i kredibilnost ključnih učesnika u političkom životu, kao i njihov kapacitet da nametnu medijima svoju verziju događaja. Preliminarna, delimična empirijska provera ovog argumenta ukazuje da takvo objašnjenje u velikoj meri osvetljava složene uslove u kojima mediji deluju u novim demokratijama.

The scholarly study of the breakup of Yugoslavia has advanced considerably in the past two decades. Research from the 1990s set a solid foundation for future attempts at explanation by offering a comprehensive overview of the causes and dynamics of the breakup and its implications, not least because it relied on a wide range of primary and secondary sources. Studies that followed built upon this foundation by narrowing down their research focus to specific dimensions of the breakup and by delving into a systematic exploration of primary sources. As a result, novel interpretations that were firmly based on empirical research started putting together a rather complex story of Yugoslavia’s breakup. However, a weak conceptual and theoretical foundation of much of the scholarly work, as well as a tendency to see this case as unique or exceptional, has held back empirical research in our field. The greater theoretical focus and insights from the literatures on political regimes and regime change, nationalist mobilization, national and ethnic conflict regulation, civil wars and other relevant perspectives may suggest important ways to improve empirical research in our field.

The paper shows that sustained popular protest is a recurrent feature in many authoritarian regimes and that a regime type strongly shapes its characteristics. Popular protest often leads to important changes in the personal composition and policies of elites, which considerably affect the structure and operation of authoritarian regimes, and at times produce regime change. Evidence is provided from authoritarianism in Poland and Yugoslavia, in which sustained protests contributed to the fall of communism, and from competitive authoritarian regimes in post-communist Serbia and Ukraine, which were repeatedly undermined by protest waves and brought to an end by pressure from below'.

Izraz „etničko čišćenje“ ulazi u širu akademsku upotrebu u poslednjoj deceniji zamenjujući raniji izraz „prisilno iseljavanje stanovništva“ i noviji „etničko proterivanje“. Ovaj izraz je u neposrednoj vezi s opštijim pristupima regulisanju nacionalnih i etničkih sukoba. U širem smislu, etničko čišćenje je generički pojam koji uključuje različite oblike kršenja individualnih i kolektivnih prava pripadnika jedne ili više etničkih grupa. U užem smislu, ovaj pojam označava samo jednu od više jasno razgraničenih strategija regulacije nacionalnih i etničkih sukoba. Režimi koji se nalaze na početku demokratizacije češće sprovode etničko čišćenje nego stabilni autoritarni režimi. Mada organizatori etničkog čišćenja smatraju da će dugoročno „rešiti“ pitanje etničkih sukoba, posledice su obično njegovo produžavanje i zaoštravanje sukoba.

Pojam konsolidacije demokratije unosi pojmovnu zbrku u oblast gde već postoji široko prihvaćeni konceptualni aparat i otežava empirijska istraživanja savremene demokratizacije. Jak teleološki naboj ovog pojma stvara nerealna očekivanja da će doći do podizanja kvaliteta demokratije u pojedinim zemljama u kratkom roku, a neispunjavanje takvih očekivanja proizvodi razočaranje i preuveličavanje razlika između starih i novih demokratija. Alternativa jeste razvijanje tipologija savremenih demokratija na osnovu njihovih pozitivnih obeležja i istraživanje činilaca koji omogućavaju pojedinim zemljama da pređu iz jednog oblika demokratije u drugi. U Srbiji danas postoji demokratski režim imajući u vidu činjenicu da su izbori slobodni i pošteni, da se slobode govora, štampe i udruživanja uglavnom poštuju i da nema „rezervisanih domena“ koji bi ograničili moć državnih funkcionera izabranih na demokratskim izborima. Ipak, reč je o demokratiji u kojoj je poštovanje ustava i zakona uglavnom ograničeno na ove oblasti a u ostalima je ponašanje ključnih učesnika u političkom životu uglavnom u skladu s neformalnim pravilima, kao što su klijentelizam i korupcija., The concept of democratic consolidation creates conceptual con- fusion and complicates empirical research in the field in which the- re is a widely accepted conceptual framework. It‘s strong teleogical flavour produces unrealistic expectations that a strong improve- ment in the quality of democracy will occur, which once unfull- filled create frustration and the exaggeration of differences betwe- en old and new democracies. One alternative is to build typologies of contemporary democracies on the basis of their positive featu- res and to explore factors that enable states to move from one type of democracy to another. Serbia today is a democracy since the- re are free and fair elections, the broad protection of freedoms of speech, press and association and the absence of „reserved domains“ that restrict the power of elected officials. Still, the formal rules are followed in these areas only, while the behaviour of key political players in other areas unfolds largely in line with the informal rules, such as clientelism and corruption

In debates over the Kosovo conflict, scholars and policy- makers have focused largely on broadly conceived Serb–Albanian relations, centred on: the conflicting nationalist ideologies of Serbs and Albanians; the status of Kosovo; and relations between Belgrade and Priština (or Priština/Tirana). Yet such a focus can be misleading. Another, equally important, dimension of the Kosovo conflict is the Albanian–Serb conflict within the province. Yet over the past two decades scholars and policy- makers have not taken into account the grievances and behaviour of local actors, particularly those of the Kosovo Serbs, within the climate of the changing political context within which they have struggled. The failure of local and external political actors – before, during and after the rule of Milošević, including that of representatives of the international organisations involved in the post- war reconstruction and institution building – has strongly contributed to the atmosphere of intractability that threatens to undermine a major opportunity to reach a fair and sustainable solution.

Članak istražuje odnos između jednog oblika mešovitog režima i politike protesta na primeru Srbije i pokazuje da je takmičarski autoritarizam strukturno nestabilan i naročito podložan pritisku „odozdo“.

The paper discusses territorial disputes that arose during and after the break up of Yugoslavia. It starts by outlining the institutional context of the multinational Yugoslav federation within which the application of the uti possidetis principle, that is, the transformation of interrepublican borders into international frontiers, and denial of collective rights and territorial autonomy to minority groups in new states triggered large-scale nationalist violence. The paper then discusses in detail territorial disputes and conflicts in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro (incl. Kosovo) and Macedonia