In the apparently indisputable statements of Minister Zorana Mihajlović after the accident in TENT, a long-standing progressive pattern of rhetorical obscenity is hidden. She thus tells us that she will not look for the culprits while the house is burning, but in the same sentence she reveals the culprit - snow, blizzard, bad luck - by which, implicitly, she says that there are no culprits in the team she is in: we're not going to hunt people down, are we? which we need to put out the fire they started themselves when it snowed in December which explains everything. And maybe Grdana and 101 Dalmatians are to blame
In the middle of the accident in the very heart of the Electric Power Industry of Serbia - because this year, to the general astonishment of the rulers of Serbia, the snow fell in December - the relevant minister Zorana Mihajlović stated, and more than once, that now no one is thinking about who is responsible for the accident, but that all resources are harnessed only to get out of trouble.
At first glance, there is nothing to complain about such a statement: if the house is on fire, you put out the fire first, and then, if you survive, you hunt down the culprits. On second glance, however, every word is problematic, because this statement is one in a chain of rhetorical obscenities produced by the master of electricity and his camarilla.
Minister Mihajlović's statement is nothing more than a variation of Vučić's famous sentence afterwards military helicopter crash in which eight people lost their lives, and in which he declared that he would not Potter i Gasic (although, let's remember, no one claimed them at that moment). Later, the fog, the drunken pilot, force majeure, Grdana and 101 Dalmatians were to blame...
Just as Vučić knew that Lončar and Gašić, with their irresponsibility, were probably the most responsible for the tragedy - so it is quite natural that they should be spared the consequences, since responsibility, unlike dog obedience, is not on the party's list of virtues - so did Minister Mihajlović quite unequivocally knows who is responsible for the accident (there is no need to be a genius or to have exclusive data, logic and common sense are enough): first the team that manages Elektroprivreda, then according to the chain of responsibility and the minister herself, but precisely because she knows, she pretends not to know.
No, therefore, it's just that the same incompetent team will now try to fix the thing that, with its incompetence, it spoiled, but that team, if we follow the previous practice of irresponsibility, is not in particular danger of bearing the professional, political and legal consequences of its negligence and his incompetence, unless, of course, the master does not judge that, for the sake of his joy, slander and survival in power, they should be thrown to the tabloids.
But that is not the only ugliness in the minister's statement. Equally painful is that implicit assembly, that closing of ranks, that call for brotherhood and unity in difficult moments, that gathering around one, whatever that one, that one, or that one is called (Comrade Tito, Slobodan Milošević, Aleksandar Vučić, Serbia, the Holy Spirit...).
On the authoritarian nature of the regime to which the minister contributes so fervently, we really shouldn't waste any more words (even, it seems, even the less intelligent understood it), but the discourse of such and such a regime always needs to be drawn attention to again and again as a masterpiece of absence. of all shame and sense. That discourse, therefore, on the one hand insists on unity - we're not going to engage in detective work and thus weaken our ranks - while, on the other hand, it serves to automatically reject the responsibility of the regime.
The minister will not look for the culprits while the house is burning, but in the same sentence she reveals the culprit - snow, blizzard, bad luck - by which, implicitly, she is saying that there are no culprits in the team she is in: we are not going to persecute people who are ours, are we? needed to put out the fire they started themselves when it snowed in December which explains everything.
What, however, if in the end somehow it turns out that she and the team are not responsible, or, at least, that they are not responsible to the extent that this little discourse analysis charges them with? Actually, there is no end, and the previous sentence presents an impossible dilemma.
This regime can no longer be irresponsible, and there is no longer any pretense of simplicity. The master and his team have covered the whole area and they are now responsible, literally, for everything. They would also be responsible for the earthquake, because not only can their discourse not be trusted, but now it is too late even if they would start telling (and they won't) the real truth: the wolf really did eat the sheep, and soon, hungry as it is, go after the shepherd himself.
If you like this text subscribe to the digital edition of "Vremena"
Read daily news, analysis, commentary and interviews at www.vreme.com