I choose the fight

...

The boycott is a means of exposing the undemocratic nature of the regime. However, the success of the election boycott is measured on the basis of the first subsequent elections, i.e. when those first subsequent elections were held, whether the assembly in which only the ruling parties are represented lasted a full term or was shortened mandate, what was the result of the opposition that boycotted the previous elections and whether the regime was forced to improve the electoral conditions.

Four years ago, in 2020, the majority of the democratic opposition boycotted the local, provincial and parliamentary elections. As we know, the next parliamentary elections were held in two years. In these too, the opposition parties won a very solid result, measured in terms of mandates, better than in 2016. That was the only success of the boycott. On the other hand, the election conditions in 2022 were unfortunately not improved. Earlier key recommendations of the ODIHR, such as stopping official campaigns, buying votes and pressure on voters, using state resources for the party's election campaign of the ruling majority, or the regime's control of the media scene and television with a national frequency, were not fulfilled.

At the same time, the provincial assembly and all assemblies of municipalities and cities resulting from the boycott had almost a full mandate. As a result, no one mentions the competences of the Assembly of AP Vojvodina anymore, nor are there recognizable actors in the opposition at the provincial level. Darkness prevailed in all local assemblies, which has lasted for almost four years. This led to the collapse of the party infrastructure of the majority of the parties at that time, which had more or less developed infrastructure in cities and municipalities in Serbia. Their committees are not enabled to perform one of their main functions, which is to represent citizens and promote policies and attitudes in local assemblies or to do the unexpected, but still possible, win the elections in an unequal struggle.

The criminal regime has long had no legitimacy. It is clear that there is no democracy in Serbia. Going to the elections does not give him legitimacy, just as accepting a mandate in the National Assembly does not acknowledge that the election conditions were fair or that there was no theft. What is ours is taken and the struggle continues to win the mandates that were stolen from us. Going to the polls does not mean giving up the fight for free and fair election conditions. That struggle must continue by insisting on the adoption of a law that would establish a commission for the revision of the voter list, on the establishment of a free media scene, as well as on the fulfillment of all ODIHR recommendations, first the priority ones, and then all the others.

In the December parliamentary elections and the elections for the Belgrade City Assembly, we showed that it is possible to shake up the criminal regime and defeat it. In addition to all the electoral malpractices, machinations and thefts and the illegal alteration of the voter list, they did not win in Belgrade. And in the parliamentary elections, the democratic opposition received the highest trust of the citizens in the past ten years. Calling now for a boycott of local self-government assemblies - and Belgrade is a local self-government - means giving up the fight at the very moment when we have shown that it is possible to defeat the regime despite all their thefts.

It is impossible to limit the boycott to only one city. Election conditions are equally bad in all cities. In smaller communities, it is even more difficult to organize politically, and the media darkness is much stronger. The previous boycott showed that the criminal regime was not shaken because we left local self-governments as a blank space. Calling for a boycott of local elections now means condemning citizens to another four years of darkness in their municipalities and cities, and leaving political activists alone in the fight against local sheriffs and their crews, but also depriving them of the institutional mechanism of struggle, and thereby preventing the development of capacities for political organization and full political struggle.

The political struggle takes place on two fronts. It must be both non-institutional and institutional. Through the election campaign and entry into local assemblies, political organization develops, activists gain experience in representing the interests of citizens and public policies, build institutional knowledge and experience for managing municipalities and cities.

Institutional action enables more efficient control of elections, due to membership in the permanent composition of municipal and city commissions and a larger number of controllers. Institutional protection is provided to activists and citizens who in previous years were the last barrier to the theft and destruction of public resources and property of our cities, the destruction of our rivers and coasts and the pollution of the environment. Through institutional action, a political organization is built, committees are strengthened, they are enabled to reach new people more efficiently, who then get involved in the work of the political organization. A position is being built for the possibility of change and regime change. In some cities and municipalities, that position has already been largely built by superhuman efforts and previous work. And it would be a huge shame to spill that previous work, because we backed down in front of the injustice we were faced with.

The author is a member of parliament from the ZLF