Arrogance without measure: how the end of a political game begins

The decision that Herceg Novi and Pljevlja will not mark the twenty years since the restoration of the state independence of Montenegro cannot be seen as mere local autonomy in choosing the holiday calendar. It is a political message - and a message in a series of similar ones that provokes the question of the relationship towards the state, its identity and its fundamental values. Although after six years the picture is clearer than the one under the ruins, at all levels.

It is neither unusual nor surprising, but the absence of a clear reaction from the state level is worrying. Prime Minister Milojko Spajić, as the holder of executive power, has a responsibility to respond to such actions, not by disciplining municipalities, but by articulating a clear position: what does the independence of Montenegro mean today and whether it is a common value for all its citizens and institutions. If he publicly admits that he does not know or does not see anything controversial in this politically sinister game, which is reminiscent of the Top List of the Nadrealists before the war in Bosnia, then it is time for him to go - because he has failed the citizens to whom he claimed that he knew how to solve the problems in Montenegro and that it is necessary for them to believe him.

The question that arises is not rhetorical but essential: are Herceg Novi and Pljevlja in Montenegro, and the other municipalities that have made similar statements? If they are - and they undoubtedly are - then the refusal to mark one of the key dates in contemporary Montenegrin history cannot be a neutral act. It is a conscious and public act of discontinuity from the state and political identity of the country to which they belong.

In this context, it is useful to understand what kind of "gains" this symbolic act of negation produces. Political actors who decide to suspend the celebration of statehood are not operating in a vacuum.

The symbolic benefit lies in the mere demonstration of power - in the message that even the founding dates of the state are not binding. The message is that even the deepest layers of contemporary history are not protected from the political will of local powerful people. The psychological benefit lies in the further production of a sense of community insecurity: a society that sees the moments of its political self-affirmation being relativized enters a space of disorientation and doubt about its own foundations. Previously, they did this through revisionism of the past and the glorification of war crimes, both new and old.

The social benefit (or harm, depending on the perspective) is reflected in deepening divisions - in encouraging the idea that it is legitimate to contest shared points of identity. The political benefit lies in the possibility of imposing a narrative after such gestures: who is the "real" interpreter of history, who has the right to define what is worth celebrating and what should be pushed into oblivion. Who to wiretap, and who to hide?

However, what we are witnessing today is not a sudden or isolated incident. This is an ongoing process. The difference is that it is no longer happening under the radar. What used to be done quietly, covered up with public lying, is now being spoken out loud and publicly.

Why? Perhaps because the political thought of local leaders has remained primitive or contaminated by political and financial theft, because the local government scandals that we have witnessed recently are being opened (Herceg Novi has a long history of governments that are not DPS. Who will they now accuse for the scandals that are being opened!) but their self-confidence has grown to the point of arrogance. Perhaps because they assessed that the space of what is permitted has been expanded - that the lack of reaction from the state means tacit permission. Or perhaps they were simply playing around, convinced that the consequences will not come.

But every political decision sends a message - first and foremost to those who elected those actors. And this message is disturbing: that anything is possible, that there are no stable values, and that even fundamental state decisions can be relativized without accountability. In such a framework, not only the idea of ​​the state collapses - but also the citizens' trust in their own choices.

Because if those who have been given the mandate to govern a community demonstrate insecurity or contempt for the core values ​​of that same community, then the question arises: what did these citizens actually believe in when they elected them?

That's why this is not just a question of an anniversary. This is a question of political maturity, responsibility, and the limits of the game that is played with the symbols of the state.

And perhaps that is precisely the key: when political actors begin to believe that everything is permitted, that they are above the symbolic order that created them - then this game enters its final phase. Because losing control is not a sign of strength, but the beginning of the end.

The author is a psychologist