ISSN: 2560-1601

Vol. 7, No. 1 (ME)

May 2018

Montenegro Political briefing: A wave of historical pseudo-revisionism arrives in ? Ivica Bakota

1052 Budapest Petőfi Sándor utca 11.

+36 1 5858 690 Kiadó: Kína-KKE Intézet Nonprofit Kft. [email protected] Szerkesztésért felelős személy: Chen Xin Kiadásért felelős személy: Huang Ping china-cee.eu A wave of historical pseudo-revisionism arrives in Montenegro?

Centenary of what? “Celebrations of our new holidays and jubilees only remind me on our decay” apparently said famous writer Mihajlo Lalic after witnessing turbulent political changes in Montenegro`s history from WWI onwards. The quote itself would not deserve much attention haven’t it been used in a recent political debate over the most controversial jubilee in the modern – the loss of the Montenegrin statehood after the WWI. The controversy started in , country`s main tourist hub and the municipality rigged with many financial scandals that have only increased after the came on power following the last local elections. A week after the presidential elections and less than a month until the next local elections (May 2018), on road billboards appeared advertisements displaying Serbian ethic flag, photos of famous Serbian generals from the WWI in their historical uniforms with slogans such as “Centennial celebration of liberation of Budva” and “Glorious arrival of Serbian Army in Budva” among others. In the last week of April and in the first days of May, the billboard ads have been criticized and scrutinized by ruling and oppositional parties, while pro-Serb opposition parties retorted in their defence and thus initiated public debate on the role Serbia had in the event that is officially known as the loss of Montenegrin statehood in the XX century. Under pressure of the local government, the ads were soon taken down from billboards, however, while doing so the local government made some procedural errors which only served to ignite the controversy to date. The ads were commissioned by the “Committee for organizing centennial celebration of the liberation of Budva in the WWI”, consisted of V. Bozovic, M. Carevic and Dj. Vujovic, three prominent pro-Serb NOVA party members (part of the Democratic Front coalition) and councillors in . City councillors from DPS, SDP and URA have openly attacked the ads for

1 conspicuous use of “the state symbols of the certain foreign country” and invited to join debate. Central party organs of DPS, SDP and URA issued press releases clarifying their stance regarding the loss of Montenegrin statehood and criticized attempt to forge historical facts by calling the arrival of Serbian Army in Budva in 1918 a “liberation”. “The loss of Montenegrin statehood” refers to the events in 1918 after Austro-Hungarian troops retreated from Montenegro. According to official narrative, Serbian troops “without single bullet shot” simply entered Montenegro capturing military posts abandoned by Austro-Hungarian army and establishing military command over Montenegro and adjacent Boka region belonging to Austro –Hungary (present day part of Montenegro). Regarding the year 1918, official narrative also states that during the course of 6 months Serbian army used the state of disarray after the war and sympathies had for “brotherly” Serbian Army to orchestrate unlawful annexation of Montenegro. The central event happened in December 1918 when some citizens of Podgorica convened popular plebiscite (known as Podgorica Convention) and without due approval from King Nikola, who flew the country before Austro-Hungarian occupation, voted for unification with Serbia. The decision of Podgorica Convention served as legitimate basis to merge Montenegro with Kingdom of Serbia, abolishing all prerogatives of its statehood and in subsequent unification of Serbia with the State of SHS, Montenegro entered future as a mere Serbian province. After declaring independence in 2006, Montenegro in the preamble of Constitution declared the independence as “the restoration of the statehood”. The restoration unambiguously implied its “loss” in 1918. The government has also purified public language, debasing phrases reminiscent of the pan-Serb nationalism of the State Union period. over time lost their historical role of “fraternal liberators” and were to be addressed in non-ethnic terms, having geopolitical ambitions rather than nationalist ideals in “conquering” Montenegro.

2 Playing with patriotism(s) The first to spot inappropriate advertisements was Liberal Party, a weak descendant of Montenegrin proto-independentist and proto-civic Liberal Alliance. Their local branch condemned blatant disrespect towards the “host state” and deep ignorance for historical facts. Only day later, independentist SDP made a press release accusing DF of advocating “subservient and mythomaniac nationalism”, emphasizing great sacrifices Montenegro encountered during the WWI and “tragic events that occurred after Montenegro was liberated from Austro-Hungarian army”, which again “cannot be denigrated nor distorted by manipulations of modern politicians”. Of course, the release haven’t missed the chance to criticize slackness of the local government in tolerating shameful behaviour on its behalf and poked the Democrats, the minor partner in the local government, for being accomplices in anti-patriotic campaign. DPS propaganda also detected the jubilee controversy as a springboard to tune up its “paternalist patriotism”. DPS media team seized the opportunity to retort on SNP member Vucurevic “deliberate thesis switch” and throughout the text defended “honour and pride of Montenegro`s name”. Its patriotic capital seemed authoritative enough to dismiss any discussion with those who do not recognize the role and sacrifices of Montenegro in the aftermath of the war. After a while, all other political parties took jubilee controversy to toe their position along the quasi-ethnic cleavage. URA and Crnogorska expectedly gave support to independentist camp, while Democrats avoided ideological alignments and tried to play down their complicity in the controversy. D. Krapovic, leader of local branch of Democrats and the mayor of Budva, requested removal of controversial ads from all billboards in Budva and withdrew his consent previously given to the Committee for organizing centennial celebrations of liberation. On the other hand, pro-Serb political parties were very keen to elaborate their view of “1918 events” which, as they claim, goes beyond the politics of the

3 day. DF party members in their media statements made populist appeals by claiming that “the people should know to differentiate the liberation from the occupation”, accusing “experts, ‘fighters for Montenegro`s cause’ and other ruling party satellites to orchestrate media campaign in order to cast a long shadow on glorious jubilee of Budva`s liberation”. DF member Carevic added up complexity by saying that controversy over Budva`s liberation completely missed the point as Budva, at that time a part of Austro-Hungarian Empire, could only be returned under the ‘domestic rule’. Henceforth, ‘occupation- liberation debate’ turned into the debate over the meaning of the liberation itself. Montenegro`s government joined the deliberation by issuing a statement on April 27. Clearly upholding independentist position, the government called some political actors involved in the controversy to pay due respect to the sacrifices of the Montenegro in the course of the end of the WWI and to avoid distorting historical facts by claiming that Serbian army liberated Budva. The reaction of DF remained populist in nature with some chivalric undertones. They called all political parties “not to be afraid to freely express their genuine opinion and not to hide under hypocritical statements”. In the week following the government`s statement, the elitist game two camps were playing on the historical playground steamed off and subsided into a ‘proxy-war’ through various experts who engaged into op-ed ping-pong. The dispute gained more scientific discourse with historical accounts claiming to hold the evidence that “the people of Budva and surrounding areas” liberated Budva after Austro-Hungarian army left the city, while Serbian army just walked in few days later. Soon, a significant space in the media was given to debates over the role of the Serbian army in Montenegro during 1918, the Podgorica Convention, the influence Serbian government exerted over Montenegro`s leaders, etc. In the course of the ‘proxy war’, the DPS-led independentist camp won the battle by inviting the experts with more academic merit and more convincing argumentation. However, since it was sent off to

4 academic sphere, the dispute is likely to turn into a trench war that could last for a while.

Pseudo-revisionism For the political elites in the Western Balkans historical revisionism has always been one of the main tools to increase political visibility and – paradoxically – an instrument for progressive political action that surpasses populist intentions. However, in the last few years after the economic recession rendered political parties speechless on economic agenda, the wave of historical pseudo-revisionism became a new way through which political parties started to look for their niche on competitive political market. Although there are no strict boundaries between pseudo-revisionism and “healthy” revisionism from the past, the former can be recognized by impulsive and somewhat frivolous strategies of its advocates. Single-issue parties, breakaway party factions or radical civic organizations that appeared in the last few years with revisionist agenda were usually led by political arrivistes or careerist turncoats who never quite succeeded convincing the electorate that their revisionist agenda is more than just their “rite of passage” in the process of the reproduction of the political elites. In , for instance, some clerical organizations with the renegades from the ruling HDZ “professionally upgraded” anti-communist revisionism held by various veteran organizations. Due to inherited political problems that “refuse to go into history” (Kosovo, naming dispute, etc.), Macedonia and Serbia over a time also became a fertile ground for various pseudo-revisionist agendas, while for Bosnia and Herzegovina can be said that pseudo-revisionist trend has always been present through ethnopolitical discourse that dominates its political life. In these circumstances, it is rather surprising that Montenegro so far resisted a wave of historic pseudo-revisionism, especially due to its multiethnic character and the quasi-ethnic cleavage between the Serbs and the Montenegrins.

5 Of course, each political party during the course recreated pseudo-revisionist narratives to curry favour to its electorate, however, these trends were never strong enough to shake cross-ethnic consensus on which Montenegro`s exceptionalism is based. The main pro-Serb political parties such as SNP and NOVA usually borrowed pseudo-revisionist narratives from Serbia. Recently, in December SNP politicians made controversial statements on so called declaration on position of Serbs in the region which Serbian President Vucic announced to co-author with RS President Dodik. In January, Archbishop Amfilohije`s manifest on Kosovo dialogue which tackled the position of Montenegrin Serbs have also attracted some reactions of pro-Serb parties. On the other hand, civic political parties (SDP, LP) were known to question the role DPS-led government had in the recent wars in the Balkans, especially its proclaimed neutral or anti-regime stance. However, all this pseudo-revisionist appeals had a very short lifespan and never instigated broad public debate, instead were usually considered as a “stillborn of mediocre opportunism of its authors”. In explaining “billboard controversy” appeal, the URA member B. Jelusic very pertinently quoted Lalic`s “jubilees of our decay” when she spoke of the “chance for a one group to unscrupulously charge the patriotism by helping various mafia clans and other winners of the transition to march into city, feeding thus the disdain for such immoral and vulgar Montenegrity and creating a fertile ground for other`s nationalist rhetoric to win over.” This is what Lalic`s unpleasant message wanted to convey: Playing with revisionism – like nationalism more broadly, in Montenegro as elsewhere in the Balkans – signals imminent or recent evasion of public responsibility, an attempt that hides corrupt practices and economic misdeeds committed in the name of a group that have never seen any benefits from it. Judging from the news on the corrupt practices (of the old DPS and a new oppositional government) in Budva that immediately followed billboard controversy and rapidly downsized its media appeal, it seems positive that at least this lesson has been learned.

6 7