OTPOR
I've used this symbol on my website, my car and now on this blog to represent posts of a political nature. It is not merely the drawing of a fist. It is emblem of OTPOR (the serb word for 'resistance'), the student youth movement that helped bring down Slobodan Molisevic. It was remarkable in that this non-violent movement was not seeking power, merely the overthrow of Milosevic. He did loose the presidential election on September 24th, 2000. He refused to step down from power. But popular pressure, with the help of OTPOR, lead to Milosevic stepping down on Oct 5th, 2000. Graffiti played a major role in the movement's mode of action and their mobilization of the rest of the population.
Otpor became famous because of its favourite weapon: caustic slogans spray-painted on the walls of Serbia’s cities. The first, when nobody had heard of them yet, was the clearest and simplest, a kind of birth certificate: "Resistance until Victory". In December 1999, Otpor wished everybody a happy new year of resistance. A few months before the events of October 5, "The year 2000 will be the one" could be read on walls everywhere. They were right. They also invented a new resistance measurement unit called the 'otpormeter'. After the September 24 elections, the famous "Gotov je" (He’s cooked) became the slogan spray-painted most on walls, staircases and in bar restrooms. On October 5, when a bulldozer broke down the door of the state radio and television headquarters, the government’s main propaganda mouthpiece, Otpor printed posters and calendars with the slogan, "A bulldozer-operator is asleep in all of us." Leery of all politicians, even if they belong to the opposition, Otpor’s new slogan is, "We’re keeping an eye on you." From UNESCO
4 Comments:
At 9:33 AM, Anonymous said…
Why do you think the international community and the opposition to Milosevic did not support new elections, when Milosevic was brought down? If the elections where not fair, nobody ever knew what the real results would be if they were fair, right? A.
At 6:05 PM, André Levy said…
Reply to Anonymous A: You're right, the elections were never certified. Milosevic claimed it was too close to call and that by law a run-off election was called for. The opposition claimed the results indicated Kustunica had 60% and thus had won the first round. There was also (justifiable) uncertaintly that the run-off election would be run properly. In any case, the proper democratic process did not truely unfold, but then one must consider whether elections under Milosevic were conducted fairly (one needs to consider that even in the US, particularly after the 2000 presidential elections). So it is faur to say, the transition in power came as a result of both elections and popular pressure, a revolution if you will. In which the West did bear its weight. Starting off with the US State Department's financial support for OTPOR (but then Milosevic made use of substantial state resources: there's no point in forfeiting your chances), onto diplomatic pressure for ousting Milosevic. But it should be reminded in this context, that (1) there was significant domestic popular movement and opinion to remove Milosevic, regardless of Western influence, and (2) Kustunica was not a puppet of the west: he openly opposed the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia and denounced the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia.
At 5:28 PM, Anonymous said…
Thank you for your reply.
1. I think that "popular support" is a dangerous concept. (Think about the situation in Venezuela, for instance.) If the international community never criticized the "democratic" Yugoslavia under which Milosevic was elected, then its constitutional order should have solutions for a crisis, right?
2. I didn't know that the Kustunica had dennounced the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. What did he say exactly?
A.
At 10:02 PM, André Levy said…
Reply to Anonymous:
2. Kustunica called the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia "an American tribunal -- not a court, but a political instrument" (quoted in Steven Erlanger and Carlotta Gall, NYT, Sept. 21).
1. Of course you're right that "popular support" is often in the 'eye of the beholder'. In this case, its my understanding that the uprising was in the right. Perhaps they should have waited for the run-off. It was a strategic decision I feel I can't properly judge on.
But then I am not an absolutist concerning the 'constitutional democractic process'. There are values I place above following the rules of democracy as set down in a constitution. I know I am treading in relativism's muddy waters here. But there are situations in history, where I believe that disregarding the rule of law was necessary. This is not to say that the 'ends' always justify the 'means'. But in the case of Yugoslavia, one can say that the means were largely non-violent in stark contrast to Milosevic
Post a Comment
<< Home