FACULTY OF SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES Department Political Science Otpor’s usage of nonviolent action to undermine the authority of Slobodan Milosevic Bachelor thesis – Citizens in Europe Bachelor Political Science, Year 3, Semester I Thom Groot Student number: 5980178 Supervisor: Rosa Sanchez Second reader: Jurgen van der Heijden Deadline: Tuesday 29 January 2013, 23:59 Word count: 9589 UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM Table of contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Research question and scope ....................................................................................... 6 1.2. Theoretical framework ................................................................................................ 8 2. Research design ............................................................................................................. 11 2.1. Methodology............................................................................................................. 12 2.2. Data collection methods ............................................................................................ 13 2.3. Data analyse methods................................................................................................ 14 3. The hybrid regime of Serbia during Milosevic’s rule .................................................. 14 4. Data analysis .................................................................................................................. 16 4.1. Otpor’s usage of Gene Sharp’s work in their nonviolent struggle against Milosevic .. 16 4.2. Undermining the authority of Milosevic: Otpor’s usage of protest and persuasion ..... 19 4.3. Otpor’s strategy of noncooperation to undermine the authority of Milosevic ............. 23 4.4. Undermining the authority of Milosevic: Otpor’s usage of nonviolent intervention ... 26 5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 28 5.1. Reflection ................................................................................................................. 30 5.2. Suggestions for future research ................................................................................. 31 Appendix I: Data-planning matrix ................................................................................... 32 Appendix II: Timeline of the nonviolent struggle against Milosevic in Serbia ............... 32 Appendix III: Map of Serbia ............................................................................................ 38 Appendix IV: List of Gene Sharp’s methods of nonviolent action used by Otpor ......... 39 Appendix V: The key points of Otpor’s strategy ............................................................. 42 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 43 2 Otpor’s usage of nonviolent action to undermine the authority of Slobodan Milosevic 1. Introduction Over the past decade, the rise of social movements applying nonviolent methods of resistance against repressive regimes occurred in the post-Soviet region. 1 After the collapse of the Soviet-Union, Slobodan Milosevic became president of Serbia. His tenure was marked by the breakup of Yugoslavia, Serbia’s participation in four wars that resulted in more than 210,000 deaths, the creation of nearly three million refugees, and isolation from the international community.2 In the year 2000, in a war barely noticed outside Serbia, Milosevic fought to hold power. He controlled a battle-hardened army, a tough police force, and most media. However, Milosevic underestimated his opponents, led by a movement called Otpor (Serbian for ‘Resistance’). Otpor attacked the Serbian regime with nonviolent methods such as street theatre, humorous actions, demonstrations, postering, physical occupation, and a willingness to be arrested. Furthermore, Otpor organised symbolic protests which mocked and tried to undermine the authority of Milosevic. 3 Their courage and ideas inspired other Serbs to overcome their fear, and join the fight against Milosevic. Otpor-students were the shock troops in what became an army of human rights and pro-democracy activists, who systematically undermined police and army loyalty to Milosevic, and forced him to call early elections.4 When Milosevic refused to accept his defeat at the elections on 24 September 2000, the Serbian people responded with a general strike. As normal life ground to a halt, hundreds of thousands Serbs invaded Belgrade on 5 October 2000 to seize the capital in a triumph for democracy. Thousands of people took to the street to demand political change at a critical juncture in Serbian politics. By using nonviolent methods of resistance, Otpor managed to play a vital role in the fall of Milosevic.5 When a group of students founded Otpor in October 1998, the Milosevic-regime looked very powerful and seemed not to be swept away in the nearby future.6 Only two years later, the Serbian president was forced from power after an intensive campaign of strategic nonviolent action shaped by Otpor. The movement was initially formed as a reaction to the new repressive university and media legislation.7 After the NATO-bombing of Yugoslavia in 1 Nikolayenko (2009), p. 1. 2 Paulson (2011), p. 10. 3 In this thesis, authority is defined as the quality that leads the judgments, decisions, recommendations, and orders of certain individuals and institutions to be accepted voluntarily as right and therefore to be implemented by others through obedience or cooperation. See Sharp (2003), p. 31. 4 A Force More Powerful (2012). Bringing Down A Dictator. 5 Nikolayenko (2009), pp. 2-3. 6 Kurtz (2010), Otpor and the Struggle for Democracy in Serbia (1998-2000). 7 Popovic (2001), An Analytical Overview of the Application of Gene Sharp’s Theory of Nonviolent Action in Milosevic’s Serbia. 3 UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM early 1999, Otpor shifted its main focus to a political campaign aimed directly against Milosevic. 8 The movement wanted to bring change in the Serbian political situation by achieving three main goals: […] dismissal and accountability of Milosevic and his regime due to detrimental policies and effects over the last ten years, free and fair general elections by rules and under control of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the end of repression against journalists, news media and the truth.9 The task for Otpor was to mobilise the public opinion against Milosevic by using nonviolent methods. The movement emerged as a driving force behind efforts to promote democratic principles, and it did so by adopting the strategies and tactics of other successful nonviolent movements. More important, Otpor used the work on nonviolent action by political scientists – in particular Gene Sharp, a Senior Scholar at the Albert Einstein Institution – to undermine Milosevic.10 Sharp’s work has influenced numerous anti-government resistance movements around the world. His books, The Politics of Nonviolent Action and From Dictatorship to Democracy: a Conceptual Framework for Liberation, became very important sources of strategy for Otpor. 11 The former constituted the base for Otpor’s tactics, strategies and nonviolent discipline, in spite of that it had to be smuggled into Serbia. The latter was praised by Otpor as an effective blueprint for confronting the Milosevic-regime, because it contained a systematic reading of how power and the ‘pillars of support’ operated.12 In the beginning Otpor was a student movement, because it was explicate in a political ideology and moved by an emotional rebellion in which there was always present a disillusionment with and rejection of the values of the older generation in Serbia. Moreover, the students of Otpor had the conviction that their generation had a ‘special historical mission’ to fulfil where the older generation, the older elites and other classes have failed. 13 The student movement came into being in a time of sickness of society.14 The students of Otpor attempted to make life in Serbia better. As time passed, Otpor developed itself from a student organisation to a social movement, defined as a collective, organized, sustained and 8 Cevallos (2009), pp. 3-4. 9 Rennebohm (2011), Serbians overthrow Milosevic. 10 Cevallos (2009), p. 2. 11 Mvros (2010), p. 8. 12 Gene Sharp (2005) sets that the ‘pillars of support’ are institutions and sections of the society that supply the existing regime with sources of power required for maintenance and expansion of its power capacity (p. 35). 13 Feuer, L.S. as quoted in Nenadic and Belcevic (2006). From Social Movement to Political Organisation: The case of Otpor. Coventry: Centre For Peace and Reconciliation Studies, p. 9. 14 A complex combination of factors – including a shattered economy, increased repression, losing another war – contributed to the animosity and dissatisfaction of the Serbs. 4 noninstitutional challenge to the authorities.15 As Nenadic and Belcevic argue in their article on the Serbian movement: Otpor can be put in the family of social movements. When they [transformed into a social movement], they announced an alliance with democratic parties, non-governmental organizations, independent media and individuals. They broadened its membership to include well-known public figures. They were less elitist and willing to accept anybody who wanted