Home » Serbia twenty years after the killing of Đinđić / Serbia / Areas / Home

Serbia twenty years after the killing of Đinđić / Serbia / Areas / Home

by admin
Serbia twenty years after the killing of Đinđić / Serbia / Areas / Home


“Đinđić did not enter history by pure chance, Đinđić made history”, said Filip Švarm, author of the recent documentary on Zoran Đinđić broadcast on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the assassination attempt on the then Serbian prime minister on March 12, 2003

(Originally published by German wave March 11, 2023)

On the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the assassination attempt on Zoran Đinđić, you made a documentary entitled Đinđić – the story of Serbia [Đinđić – una storia serba]. Do you think there is still something to say about this tragic event that hasn’t already been said before?

I believe that today not even people who were very close to Đinđić, both personally and professionally, and those who investigated his murder, can add more facts to what we already know. Instead, what can still be done is to try to observe Đinđić’s political role from a systematic perspective, i.e. to go back once again to the 1990s – years that today’s Serbia has completely removed from memory – and highlight the importance of 5 October and the first democratic government.

Adopting this perspective, it clearly emerges that Đinđić did not enter history by pure chance, Đinđić made history. If it wasn’t for him, there would never have been October 5th.

Furthermore, ministers of the Đinđić government could freely express their opinion, the government accounted for its work in the parliament where various issues were then openly discussed. Finally, the Serbian media – one often hears it said today – was never as free as it was at the time of the Đinđić government. No one lobbied the media, the tabloids had taken an anti-government stance, which is unimaginable today. And the most important thing: in that period the European path of Serbia was traced which we still try to follow today, at least on paper.

So, does your documentary corroborate the argument that Serbia stopped with the murder of Đinđić?

Many trials had stalled, it is true, but to say that Serbia had completely stopped would be to underestimate the importance of Đinđić’s contribution. Many trials he initiated are still alive. When he came to power, there were no companies or foreign investments in Serbia, crime and corruption reigned supreme. It was Đinđić who waged a real fight against these scourges of society, a fight that bore fruit especially during the operation Saber [sciabola] following his murder.

See also  Forza Italia wants to change the abuse of office: "You remain only for those who knowingly harm others"

At the time of Đinđić’s government there was also an armed insurrection of Kosovo Albanians – a fact that is often forgotten – and Đinđić managed to resolve this issue as well. Furthermore, he had normalized relations with the countries of the region up to a certain point, giving life to many initiatives that continued after his murder of him, although perhaps not with the same intensity and in the way that Đinđić would have liked them to continue . Either way, Đinđić’s legacy has remained alive and no one has managed to escape his effect.

Both those who brought down Milošević’s nefarious regime and those who defended that regime benefited from Đinđić’s life and work. Today’s Serbia is very different from the Serbia of the period before October 5th. Even the most ardent supporters of Milošević have gained, today they too can travel freely, the country is no longer subjected to sanctions, the standard of living has risen, we can continue to list for a long time.

It seems that a cult has arisen around the figure of Đinđić that he certainly would not have liked. Do you think the assassination attempt contributed to Đinđić becoming something of a legend?

I wouldn’t call it a cult. After the murder and the funeral of Đinđić in Serbia there was one of the rare moments of national catharsis. Had he not been killed on March 12, 2003, Đinđić surely would have lost the next election. He is one of the few Serbian politicians who have never benefited from being in government. Đinđić had chosen to reveal uncomfortable truths to Serbian citizens, but always trying to move forward.

After Đinđić’s death, some of his collaborators, but also some people who had never had any connection with him, had tried to take advantage of that moment of national catharsis, that March 12 in which, faced with the emergence of the dark essence of the Milošević regime, Serbia had finally opened its eyes. Those people had appropriated Đinđić’s merits, thus trying to evade any responsibility to avoid being criticized. However, this strategy proved to be detrimental. Đinđić, on the other hand, had never given any importance to his popularity. His goal was not to win the sympathy of public opinion, but to change it. The figure of Đinđić ended up being embalmed precisely because some individuals and groups have exploited him for a long time to avoid their work being criticized.

See also  Oracle opens its first Italian cloud region in Milan


How do you comment on the fact that today everyone is trying to appropriate Đinđić’s legacy, from the current government to liberals, passing through nationalists who insist on some of the latest interviews given by Đinđić dedicated to the Kosovo issue?

In Serbia people tend to be appreciated only after their death. All those who opposed Đinđić while he was alive suddenly changed sides after his murder. Appropriating even a small piece of Đinđić’s inheritance had proved highly politically advantageous. On the day of the murder, only a quarter of Serbian citizens judged Đinđić’s work as good or excellent. A short time later, three quarters of citizens expressed this opinion.

Evidently Serbia had realized that it had misjudged one of the most important people at the turn of the century, yet no one had ever been able to observe the figure of Đinđić in its entirety. Even today, everyone is trying to appropriate that part of Đinđić’s legacy that they consider useful for their own purposes. Nationalists insist on one or two speeches in which Đinđić defends the interests of Serbia and the Serbs in Kosovo, but never employs nationalist rhetoric. The liberals, those in favor of Serbia joining the EU, bring up other issues. Then there are those who continue to quote various statements by Đinđić using them for their own purposes.

Shortly before the murder, Đinđić had become the subject of harsh criticism from both nationalist and liberal media. Then there was much talk of the “political background of the murder”. How do you explain this trend?

It was a clash between some political parties. Many media outlets were critical of Đinđić and his policies, but not because Đinđić tried to bribe or discipline the media. Subsequently, any criticism leveled at Đinđić by the media was interpreted as an integral part of a trend aimed at creating a climate favorable to the attack, thus as part of the political background of the attack. Some of Đinđić’s collaborators had carried on this discourse, hoping in this way to be able to clean up their past and avoid being criticized. A speech that had turned out to be an integral part of a clash between the Democratic Party (DS) and the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS).

See also  War in Ukraine: China's peace plan, here are the 3 main points

Then, when the Serbian Progressive Party came to power, many of those who for years had continued to underline the question of the “political background” of the Đinđić murder suddenly fell silent. Nobody talks anymore about Šešelj’s role and his meetings with Legija and Dušan Spasojević, nobody dares to quote some statements by Aleksandar Vučić made in the past. And the political background of the attack is spoken only on the anniversary of that tragic event. The discourse focused on the political background was never aimed at clarifying the factors that had led to the murder of Đinđić, including the climate that prevailed in Serbian society before the attack. The goal was always to silence and discredit political opponents.

Do you think it is possible to draw some lessons from that short period of the Đinđić government, but also from his murder?

I want to believe that we are capable of drawing several lessons. First, Serbia can be a normal country. Đinđić did everything possible to make the Serbian state and society more normal. Second, a breakthrough is possible, democracy and justice can win. We learned how important institutions can be and how important it is to call things by their name.

Today, however, it seems that Serbia has learned nothing at all…

If the current government behaves as if it has learned nothing, then we must insist that breakthrough is possible. It is a lesson that Serbian society could and should have already learned.

However, we have become more sensitive to threats and the current leadership takes advantage of it, continuing to talk about potential dangers and attacks, thus exploiting the awareness of citizens regarding the tragic fate of Đinđić. We have never gotten over the trauma of that March 12th.

Have you thought about a subscription to OBC Transeuropa? You will support our work and receive preview articles and more content. Subscribe to OBCT!

Comments, as far as possible, are screened by our staff before being made public. The time required for this operation can vary. Go to our policy

blog comments powered by

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy