"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains" - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
If we leave aside those who do not think anything and those who do not dare to say what they think, we will still find that the vast majority of citizens of Montenegro agree with the fact that national or ethnic antagonisms, as well as cultural separatism, threaten the cohesion of society and the integrity of the state . Back in 2007, the drafter of the constitution, aware of this danger, between the concept of the national state and the civil state, opted for the latter. Therefore, Montenegro is, among other things, civil state (Article 1 of the Constitution), and the most important - the bearer of sovereignty is a citizen with Montenegrin citizenship (Article 2). Ultimately, this means that national and any other identity or feeling are the private matter of each individual, that the position of each individual (citizen) must not and cannot depend on the aforementioned, that national or other entities cannot be the source and decisive factor of state authorities, as well as that national or ethnic entities should not look for a mechanism to protect and realize their rights.
In the time of ubiquitous political insanity in Montenegro, political parties that enthusiastically represent the interests of Montenegrins, Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians are increasingly using the political ideology of national personality, endangerment, exclusion or what not, as a crucial link in the function of family ties that from political parties creates one, bigger or smaller, family and represents the most important reason for voters' decision in elections. However, this political ideology and electoral strategy, although effective in gaining support within ethnic groups, seriously threatens the concept of civic identity and makes it difficult to build a stable state.
In other words, instead of citizens voting on the basis of concrete policies that concern everyday life - economic reforms, fighting corruption, improving public services, and the like - they vote according to national affiliation, the belief that only "their" party will protect "their" interests . The direct consequence of this is the deep fragmentation of society and the imminent, unconstitutional, ethno-federation of Montenegro. Montenegrin society, instead of focusing on the common progress of all citizens, faces constant internal tensions and blockages, since every given or circumstance is perceived as a victory or defeat of one ethnic group over another.
Civic parties that work, very little if we are honest, to overcome ethnic and other divisions and promote the idea of a common state for all its citizens - which is also a constitutional obligation - are often in a defensive position. Their messages of solidarity, justice and equality pale in comparison to the emotional rhetoric of tension, insecurity and fear that nationalist parties promote in their campaigns. Hoc loco, one only needs to remember the days before and after the census or election campaigns.
It is clear that (false) civic ideas are also present in ethnophilic parties, even their mouths are full of citizenship and European values, but that segment is often, if not always, overpowered by nationalist noise. However, the recent elections show that an increasing number of citizens, especially among the younger generations, recognize this danger. However, it was manifested, as it is now popularly said, by abstinence, that is, by not going to the polls. It seems that the leaders and agents of the Montenegrin political scene forget that political disinterest (read not turning out for elections) is largely a conditioned reaction to the stimulus offered by political parties.
In the end, it is quite clear that Montenegro produces more politics, politicking and similar evils than it can handle. The question remains: is it possible to overcome this divisive politics and create a society based on shared values, or will nationalist interests continue to dominate the political scene, maintaining fragile stability at the expense of a true civil state?
The path to civic identity, that is to free individuals who consciously obey the rule of law and whose electoral will is a manifestation of constitutional-political culture, is long and full of obstacles.
The author is a doctoral student in legal sciences and a member of the CIVIS at the SO Bar
Bonus video:
