The very word exposition (exposition, report about something) used to be a very frequent political word, from this point of view it seems to me that my entire upbringing was limited by this or that Tito's "historical" exposition... Of course, as it usually happens, later it turned out that was much less historical in those exposés than the media and loyal audience of the time firmly believed.
It is similar today, when the adjective "historical" is applied quite lightly to everything and anything. History is an omnifagus, but these human labels often do not even survive copies of the newspaper that publishes them.
I am not sure that it is wise to stick the label of "historical" in the announcement. One should do, and not serve one's own or anyone else's vanity.
Whatever a good shepherd says to others, he himself confirms it with his actions (Mažuranić). One level of the story is the exposé of Mandatory Krivokapić, and the other is the entire, somewhat unexpected, spectrum of reactions to the exposé presented in the assembly on December 2.
The exposition actually looks like a wish list, but that's not uncommon. Were earlier exposés, for the most part, something other than wish lists? The reality from the exposition is, in principle, an idealized reality. In real life, of course, it's never quite like that. Think of the 40.000 new jobs, the leaping Mediterranean tiger, the highway from one end of Montenegro to the other, the general economic boom and who knows what other fairy tales. Exposition, as a genre, is by definition closer to fantastic literature than to any gloomy realism. It's always like that.
But... There is one place in Krivokapić's exposé that somewhat confuses the attentive reader. Namely, the mandate says, "This government will work to change the existing paradigm and way of thinking in every segment of society, raising security and moral values in society."
Changing the way of thinking in every segment of society? A totalizing approach and task usually results in either disillusionment or concrete totalitarianism.
To what extent is it the constitutional competence of one (any) government? The order of moves is slightly different. By changing the economic and other forms of reality, raising the quality of the school and health systems, for example, then increasing the standard of living, in the long run it is possible (fortunately) to change the public paradigm and way of thinking, but a government can and should only be interested in this first part equations.
That is, to create at least a tolerable reality, and then something will happen with the way of thinking. But believing that the government needs to change its way of thinking is dangerous. Because there are many forms of changing the way of thinking, when they decide to deal with the political elites and the addresses of Power. History is full of it - from the medieval Inquisition to Mao's Cultural Revolution (in both cases we have a classic example of changing the way of thinking in all segments of society by the government, or Power.)
And only this raising of security and moral values in society. That's my favorite part. How are moral values raised in a society? And it usually ends up in shades of inquisition or "cultural revolution".
But, despite such objections, there would probably be room for more of them, but it did seem like the conquest of a new democratic territory: Krivokapić was attacked by almost everyone, in one way or another, and no one doubts that the government will be elected.
This government has a fundamental problem, which will probably completely mark its existence: an inadequate solution to a position of particular weight - a fourfold ministry. If that solution heralds the "identity policies" of this government, then Montenegro is in big trouble.
Just as it has one huge problem, this government also has one undoubted quality. A fighter like Dritan. Will it be enough for this society to remember it as a good government? Or will it be remembered only as a kind of political intermezzo.
Bonus video:
