|
DANAS, 21. October 2004.
INTERVIEW: Dragomir Acovic, a member of the Crown Council
IN
THE HISTORY OF THE STATE THERE ARE NO GAPS
 Belgrade
- In the year 2004, in many
respects a multi-jubilee one, a celebration in Oplenac to mark
the 70th Anniversary of the assassination of King
Alexander the First Karadjordjevic, that took place on the 9th
October, opened again a question whether Serbia had managed to
enter the 21st century with its history reconciled.
Mr Dragomir Acovic, a member of the Crown Council, talks to
DANAS about a dispute with a top of state regarding the arrival
of the guard squad of S&M in Oplenac, about how relevant the
King Alexander’s work is today and about the ideological
prejudices between the Republicans and Monarchists.
-
Almost all
anniversaries that we had in 2004 had passed in the way which
would have been considered disgraceful in any normal, civilized,
European country. Even the celebration of the 200th
anniversary of the First Serbian Uprising and restitution of the
Serbian statehood have passed in a total confusion, chaos
and lack of basic understanding that such manifestations cannot
focus on popular theatrical plays with dancing and singing.
This chaotic awareness, without a finishing touch and
incomplete, was present at all levels. Therefore it doesn’t
come as surprise that the 70th anniversary of the
King Alexander’s assassination was one more example to what
extent we, as a society, have become irresponsible, lacking
sense for great historical moments and manifestations. Such
occasions anywhere in the world have a purpose to keep memory,
teach a certain lesson and get new strength, as well as to
consolidate a sense of belonging together which liaise citizens
of one country, regardless of their ethnic or confessional
background. This year it was also the 90th
anniversary of the start of the First World War, a capital event
in our, European history and in history of the rest of the
world. Our state failed to mark even with a single word a
beginning of such cataclysm, which has left its consequences on
us to the day - says Dragomir Acovic.
How
do you understand this?
- Preoccupied with items they
consider as their duties and obligations, which noone is denying
to be great, holders of political, states and if you wish
historical authorities in this country have permitted themselves
to behave towards those great dates, personalities and turning
points in our history with ignorance. Not only did noone from
the government or the opposition show up in Oplenac but not one
of them dedicated a single word to this anniversary. A paradox
is that only Svetozar Marovic was to be heard, after getting
involved into complaint against an attempt to engage a guard
squad to pay respect to the first victim of the international
political terrorism, to the man who was a supreme commander of
the Serbian army in the Balkan wars, in the First World War, and
who liberated Kosovo and Metohija, which we then lost. The only
one who thought it was well worth mentioning, but with the wrong
reasons and with unfortunate idea, was, therefore, Svetozar
Marovic.
Was
there any correspondence between Svetozar Marovic and the Palace
regarding the Guard and what was actually a controversial matter
in whole of that since Marovic’s complaint also concerned the
army presence at the celebration of the King Peter I Coronation
Centennial celebration?
-
As far as I am aware
there was no correspondence. However, if one can draw some
conclusions by reading media, I think that Marovic had taken
this as a chance to attack general Krga. A presence of the
Guard in Oplenac looked to him as a good opportunity and in the
whole story he did not give much thought to who King Alexander
or King Peter the First were. At the end of a day, had some
trivial stuff existed connecting general Krga and, say, a
distribution of the green tomatoes to the Army I believe Marovic
would have reacted with identical enthusiasm and will as he did
in this case.
Not
only for his military achievements but at least for two other
reasons a life and work of King Alexander are important and
relevant today as well. He was the first victim of the
international terrorism, which is being considered today as the
number one world problem, and also for his Balkan politics for
which he had been praised by the Western diplomats. Why doesn’t
one use those experiences
and
arguments on the international level today?
-
First of all, this is
the experience of a monarchy. Since you are listening to the
rhetoric of our republican representatives with the loudest
voice you may only come to the conclusion that monarchy is by
definition backward and retrograde in comparison to republic.
The supporters of “this” and opponents of “that” cannot accept
that “this” as a model takes something from “that”. Secondly,
King Alexander was a Serb. Had he been something else most
likely it would not have been any problems to refer to such big
experience. In such a way this blind spot has also spread onto
what should be our excuse, argument and direction sign. In this
society still exists an enormous ideological burden and, to make
things worse, a good portion of the population is not aware of
it. They have become axiomatic attitudes and as such no one is
examining them or thinking of them.
King Alexander was talented and
gifted in many aspects. Apart from the foreign affair’s field
after which he was really well-known at his time and praised,
but also denied by those in whose interest this was not, under
his influence a line of laws had been passed. They were
regulating internal life of the state and were regarded as
avant-garde at the time. Sometime ago a group of foreign
experts was engaged to advise the Ministry of Religion about a
bill concerning activates of the churches and religious
communities; they have looked into the pre-war legislation as
well. Their unanimous conclusion was that the laws concerning
religious liberties and level of the legally defined religious
tolerance were the most avant-garde laws at that moment in
Europe.
However King Alexander
was stigmatised for suspending a Constitution at one moment and
introducing personal reign. The ones who did not consider as
disputable that all constitutions from 1945 onwards were
octroyed constitutions and made according to the same model of
personal interest and personal power were the most adamant in
insisting on that. This stigma has been mentioned often even
among those who believed that a suspension of constitutional
rights during the Sabre operation was something totally
indisputable. A suspension of constitutional rights after the
assassination in the Parliament and direct threats of the
immediate civil war in 1929 have been taken as something one
must not forgive.
A member of SANU Mr
Matija Beckovic has mentioned in his speech in Oplenac that a
group of intellectuals had sent a proposal to SPC (Serbian
Orthodox Church) on the occasion of all anniversaries in 2004 to
declare King Alexander a saint by canonisation. Have you
received any reply from the Church?
-
No
reply has been received whatsoever and I haven’t expected it so
soon. The Church is an old institution; its mill is grinding
slowly. When it is regarding a canonisation it is good to be
like that since one has to think carefully and make conclusion
whether someone has crossed that thin line that divides
Christians martyrs suffering for their religion from the ones
that are saints. But submitting the proposal was an act that
needed to be done and those ones who had submitted that proposal
were aware of it and so they did it. Everything else is up to
the Church,
There were some
misunderstandings in Oplenac regarding the speech of Prince
Alexander Karadjordjevic. In some media they were represented
as an attempt from the part of those around him to “lobby” for a
particular political option. Is there any truth in the various
stories about an attempt to manipulate the Crown Prince?
-
If
anyone is informed about things going on around the Crown Prince
it is me, and I am not aware of such different attitudes. Not
only that I do not know but if that is to be proven true I would
be probably the most surprised. There is these days in our
environment, from the reasons to be excused, a phenomenon of
over-sharp senses. Having learnt lesson from the bad experience
we have begun weighting each word, nuances which could at least
give us some idea what is all about. As far as the Crown
Prince’s stands are concern, they have been so far coherent and
always from a consistent position. One of key differences
between a monarchy and republic is that, contrary to a president
of a republic who is or often is a leader of a party and placed
temporarily to that position by one group of citizens, thanks to
its size of other circumstances, and against a will of the other
group, and therefore he must have certain preferences towards
his own party and those ones who had elected him, if this
happens with a monarchy then a monarchy does not exist. And
then we talk about a lifelong president of republic or, as in
extreme case of the situation in Haiti or North Korea, about
lifelong hereditary president of a republic. This would be the
last idea to occur to anyone, from the Crown Prince up to the
last member of his advisers lined up in an alphabetical order.
One of the
arguments that the opponents of a monarchy are using is to say
that it is a burden on the public funds. Ever since three years
ago Crown Prince Alexander was granted a right to use Dedinje
palaces a question has been asked who was bearing their
maintenance costs?
-
Up
to this year all expenses had been paid by the Crown Prince
himself. From this year on there is a partial participation
from the budget funds. This is quite normal since, like it or
not, the state is the owner. The owner in all regimes and
systems has been always responsible for covering the expenses of
his own properties. Before the Crown Prince moved in, all
expenses had been paid by the state. That was also a case when
Josip Broz lived there, and at Milosevic’s time as well. These
expenses are in a way almost the same regardless whether
somebody lives there or not, since these buildings need to be
maintained. When you say that something is expensive, you
should first make enquiries to see how much something you
already have cost: how much does it cost to have elections
every year, to maintain all administrations, as well as
consequences of what you already have. Only than you request an
estimate for the cost of an alternative.
PALACE EXPENSES
-
It
is surprising that as far as I remember in last 45 years noone
from those asking how much this costs did not raise a voice or
asked how much it cost that before. What do you think, who had
paid for the famous Broz’s ‘inventory’ made after his death that
contains 42 or 43 residencies.
On the occasion of
the “Days of the European cultural heritage” the palaces had
been officially opened for tourist visits. Is the part of the
money raised from the visits going to be spent on maintenance of
the Palace compound or will it be given back to the Government?
-
The money from the tourist visits goes solely to the tourist
organisation that is organising those visits. The Palace has
nothing out of it, and nothing goes back to the Government. The
original calculation of the price of tickets made by the tourist
organisation (which included expenses, cost of registration,
coach transportation, guides) was so high that there was a fear
that no one would be able to afford it. Having received a
subsidy from several levels, from the City government up to the
Republic, a price of a ticket was eventually set. The Palace
and the Royal family do not wish to profit from it. Their wish
is that the money goes towards the visitors’ comfort and
possibilities to make visitors satisfied by their visit to the
Palaces.
Last year, on the 1
December, the advisory bodies of the Crown have officially
stepped out with the idea of the restoration of the monarchy.
Many thought that was an additional reason that divided Serbia.
After strong public polemics, the whole idea was forgotten. Was
that something just for the time being or this is a long-term
project?
-
Of
course this is not an issue just for the moment. We have
stepped out publicly with this idea because we thought it was a
right time, which was confirmed by everything that happed
later. This right time has passed now, but it doesn’t mean it
won’t be repeated today, tomorrow, in one year or five years
time. Stories that this divides the people of Serbia are only
impudent and empty phrases. I often ask myself whether these
people mean to say that this nation is divided because we have
been having a monarchy from 1945 onwards. Who is mad here?
Sorry, but this country had experienced a secession at the time
of the fiercest republican ideological and political system. It
has been rejected as their country even by national minorities
promoted by exactly that republican system.
Jelena Tasic |
