When the coalition "I choose the fight!" went to the polls, the idea of ​​a boycott initially failed

All opposition parties agree that the elections on December 17th were held in undemocratic and unfair conditions, that they were even brutally stolen, and that the conditions for holding the elections on June 2nd will not be any better.

They also agree that the struggle to improve election conditions should continue.

They diverged due to different assessments of whether, under the existing conditions, the Belgrade and over 80 other local elections should be held, or whether they should be boycotted. Both sides are convinced that they are right. The "Serbia Against Violence" coalition fell apart on that issue.

Why the elections should be boycotted

The thesis on the necessity of a boycott is represented by the Freedom and Justice Party, Serbia Center and Zajedno, which were part of the "Serbia against violence" coalition. The New DSS and the civil initiative ProGlas are also in the camp of the boycotters.

Their main arguments are that going to the rigged elections only gives legitimacy to the freakish government of Aleksandar Vučić, that the election theft that happened on December 17th is absolved, that the conditions under which the elections will be held on June 2nd are burning everywhere because the rest very little time to do something, to not go to the election fight under such conditions but to the "slaughter", that is, there is no point in going to the elections where you are doomed to defeat in advance.

One of the main arguments and objections to the parties determined to go to the elections is that, if only they had remained united, they would have forced Aleksandar Vučić to improve the election conditions and postpone the elections until the fall so that they could be implemented. And then, said the president of the Serbia Center party, Zdravko Ponoš, this regime would "pop" as early as 2025.

Advocates of the boycott are convinced that Vučić "would have to" relent and fundamentally improve the election conditions, that the opposition remained united in the position that they should not go to elections whose conditions have not been fundamentally improved and left them "to play by themselves".

However, they failed to convince their opposition colleagues that the boycott would bring the desired results.

Why should you go to the elections?

The former members of "Serbia against violence", the Green-Left Front, the People's Movement of Serbia, the Ecological Uprising, the Movement of Free Citizens, the New Face of Serbia and the Democratic Party, which joined the coalition majority, decided to enter the election fight. The new coalition is called "I choose the fight!".

Their representatives believe with equal passion and conviction that the elections must be held even under these conditions, because a boycott would mean surrendering the municipalities and cities to the coalition led by President Aleksandar Vučić without a fight.

These parties gave up on the idea of ​​a boycott because they believe that a boycott would make sense only if it were "all or nothing", that is, then the newly elected members of parliament should also leave the National Assembly, so that citizens are motivated for civil disobedience, mobilize to physically prevent the holding of the elections on June 2 through mass demonstrations or in some other way involving a critical number of people.

Their assessment is that there is no potential for such a thing in society, and that the leaders of the parties advocating the boycott have not shown any revolutionary inclinations. They complain to their fellow "boycotters" that they did not explain what they mean by an "active" boycott, and that if an "active" boycott is reduced to parliamentary debates, it has not brought anything so far.

Supporters of going to the elections believe that a mere political boycott of the elections, i.e. the non-participation of political actors in the elections and the mobilization of citizens to boycott the elections, would not be enough to force the ruling parties to fundamentally improve the electoral conditions, because a fundamental improvement of the electoral conditions would practically mean that Vučić and company handed over to the opposition Belgrade, Niš, Novi Sad, Čačak, Valjevo, Zrenjanin..., and that this will never happen again.

They say that Vučić would not be the happiest if the opposition boycotted the local elections, but that the alternative - a fundamental improvement of the electoral conditions - would mean the loss of power of the Serbian Progressive Party and its satellites, and that is simply out of the question for them. The controlled media would do their part to present another big victory, and there would be no international pressure on the government, because Brussels and Washington do not attach much importance to local elections, and the American ambassador to Serbia, Christopher Hill, said that it was all a matter of "Serbia and Serbs", and the other Western ambassadors had no objections to that.

The parties ready to go to the elections with the fighting name "I choose the fight" are convinced that it is the lesser evil, that even under unfair conditions they have good prospects for victory in some key cities and in a large number of municipalities, and that, if there is no will or energy for some revolutionary approach, only the fight for every inch of political action makes sense, that the basis for oppositional political action must be created locally, the ultimate goal of which is the overthrow of the government of Aleksandar Vučić.

And now what

With the participation of six opposition parties from "Serbia against violence", part of the right, offshoots of Dr. Nestorović's party and who knows what other election projects of the Serbian Progressive Party, the Belgrade and other local elections certainly gain full legitimacy. There is also Sava Manojlović's Start-Change movement, which hints at going to the elections.

And the announcement of the leaders of the Serbia Center and the Freedom and Justice Party that they will leave it to their local committees to decide for themselves whether to go to the elections or not does not contribute to the credibility of the idea of ​​a boycott.

In any case, from the point of view of the actors who advocate the boycott, their opposition colleagues have put them on the verge of a fait accompli by announcing that they will go to the elections. It is now up to them to make a decision whether they will continue to discourage citizens from boycotting the elections and by declaring that those who go to the polls are responsible for the "certain" downfall of the Vučić regime, whether those who disobeyed them would experience an electoral debacle. and they prove they were right, or they'll back off and let them try to do something. In the first few days after the breakup, they do exactly that.

While they are boycotting the elections, they still have the opportunity to actively participate in the control of the electoral process and collect evidence of electoral manipulations, which will certainly occur.

Both sides still leave open the possibility that the other will "come to her senses" because she is making a cardinal mistake, but there is almost no chance of that.

However, the prospects are still good that all opposition actors, whose ultimate goal is the same - the overthrow of the undemocratic government of Aleksandar Vučić, will show the voters that they know how to agree to disagree, continue to cooperate where this is possible under the existing circumstances, and show the voters how what a future government might look like.