By Andrej Nikolaidis, CdM columnist
Imagine any scandal you can relate to a politician. None of it can prevent Milojko Spajic from becoming a prime minister. How come? Why will people, regardless of the nature of a scandal, vote for the leader of Europe Now? Why is he practically scandal-proof?
On one hand, whatever happens – hypothetically – with the aim to discredit Spajic will be interpreted as an attempt by the broken political system and burnt-out elite to eliminate the anti-system candidate. The Montenegrin political elite – both oppositional and ruling – is, therefore, beyond burnt-out. However: they’re not burnt-out at the same level. The leaders of the DF are less burnt-out than the political figures of the former sovereignist majority, which sinks like a stone thrown into water. Dritan and Becic are burnt-out less than the leaders of the Front.
Spajic is new and that’s his power. The Serbian bloc in Montenegro has managed to get new people, new leaders. They managed to innovate the offer thus attracting the oscillating voters, as well as the sovereigns. They managed to set up URA, as their victory wouldn’t have been possible without them. Finally, they managed to set up Europe Now, and without it, the consolidation of the ruling bloc wouldn’t be possible. For that time, the former sovereign bloc did nothing. At least nothing constructive. By firmly sticking to a destructive logic – the team that’s losing shouldn’t be changed – they managed to lose the parliamentary election, local elections in Podgorica, all local elections and finally, the presidential ones. In the forthcoming parliamentary election, they’ll get a 20, or maybe 25% of support maximum.
On the other hand, Spajic brings in a forgotten quality to Montenegrin politics: hope. In this sense, he’s similar to Obama, who won the election with one word: HOPE. The one who succeeds in awakening hope among his voters – wins. Clearly: after hope comes disappointment. After Obama comes Trump. But that doesn’t diminish the power of hope. Which doesn’t function according to the principle ‘because of’, but ‘despite’.
The idea of independence in 2006 won thanks to the strength of hope. It was a progressive offer. The alternative – preserving the failed, impossible ‘common state’ with Serbia was a retrograde idea.
Hope lasted another three, maybe four years. After that, sovereign politics became reactive and reactionary. It became essentially conservative (“we have to preserve, conserve independence”) and to a greater and greater extent it became a policy of fear – above all fear that the “accomplishments of 2006” would be erased.
That fear is justified and the danger is real. The problem is not in the diagnosis, but in the therapy. Fear and anthropological pessimism are behind every conservative policy. Many conservative policies are both rational and constructive. The problem arises when fear becomes the only policy. And that’s exactly what happened with the policy of the 2006 majority.
There are many questions regarding Spajic’s politics. Is that policy progressive or “progressive”? Is it sustainable? Is it constructive or covertly destructive? All these questions are not only legitimate, but also necessary if we look at politics rationally. None of these questions, however, have any significance on the outcome of the election that will make Spajic prime minister.
This is one of the powers of hope: until it definitely lets down people, it successfully repels doubt.
The economy of Montenegrin politics is like this: everything I say about Spajic, apart from a clear and direct attack, inflicts political damage on Spajic. A journalist, however, is not a socio-political worker. A columnist presents an opinion, he/she doesn’t carry out politics. The conviction that some things shouldn’t be said because it could harm the so-called “our cause” has caused immense damage to that “cause”, as well as to Montenegrin journalism. However, this practice continues. Look at the most influential pro-government media: it’s not journalism, it’s guidelines for political action, including clear instructions for drawing a target on people’s back and correcting party policies. Look at the opposition media: it’s full of “we have to do this, we have to do that” and “we won’t allow it.” Journalism is not the discourse of the government in disguise, nor is it the discourse of activism, but the discourse of analysts. Doing the opposite is a mistake. Which is nothing strange to me. It’s a mistake I admit.
From my perspective as an analyst, things look like this. Spajic wins because he thinks faster and more modernly than his opponents. He says what voters want to hear. Sundays off work and the seven-hour working day are progressive policies. Full stop.
The Montenegrin voters are radically different from 2006. Every year, many – probably thousands – of new voters acquire the right to vote. Those young people don’t remember the wars of the 90s, the NATO bombing, the Seventh Battalion, Milosevic and Kostunica. Their hopes and their fears are radically different from those of their fathers. The essential problem of the former sovereign bloc is not Spajic, but the fact that they don’t understand these people and practically don’t address them.
(The opinions and views of our columnists don’t necessarily reflect those of the editorial staff of CdM)
