Dissent is a form of individual resistance to the rigid and closed political ideas of the government and the prevailing legal and any other dogmatic practice. Simply put, dissidence is resistance to the fiction that has seized power in a state.
Dissidents are more significant as exceptions and hardened fighters against any utopia in power, than as literati or as great scientists, philosophers, sociologists, writers and similar minds. Although there were such (great and versatile minds) among them.
The struggle of dissidents is always individual, isolated and most often martyr-like.
We would conclude at the outset that - primarily - their character, morality, and life experience are far more important attributes for dissidence than education or talent, for example.
In a word, dissidents are a dangerous, even deadly "weapon" for any government. But also for the people and their consciousness. Because their words influence people towards critical thinking, both of the individual and of society as a whole.
Language and “brainwashing”
So, one of the functions of the dissident word is their power and the linguistic “silence” that stands behind their words. Therefore, the political control of the language of dissidents has a first-class political role and importance for any system of closed power. Because totalitarian governments impose their ideology and their vision of society with an “iron” language. Some also call it a “wooden” language.
Whatever it's called, the language of absolute power has no “juice” in it. In other words, it has no free ideas in it, no free politics.
Modern authorities - points out at one point in the novel "1984" a profound and razor-sarcastic connoisseur of modern society George Orwell - that "the party is not interested in overt action: all we care about is thought. We do not stop at destroying our opponents: we change them."
It is, therefore, Orwell says, about "brainwashing" and controlling people through language as a political tool and task of the modern era. This is an attempt to shape and direct the consciousness of individuals and entire societies in a desirable direction.
Well, dissidents are the most powerful barrier to such a plan.
The rarest species
But they also have various orientations, of which liberal dissidents are the rarest and most valuable "type" of dissidents. Because they are far above and beyond the government. But they are above and beyond any opposition. (The opposition fights for political power, dissidents fight for social ideas.) And even, dissidents are above the people as a political subject.
Briefly. Oppositionists are active on a daily basis on the social, media and especially political scene. Dissidents are the opposite. They are “passive”, often ostracized idea builders who have mastered martyrdom and the art of waiting. (With the hope that it is not “Becketian” waiting for something that will never come.)
The power of the dissident atmosphere is not publicly visible, nor can it be. Their subversive power is “from the shadows,” regardless of whether the “shadow” is imprisoned or under house arrest or excommunicated in foreign exile, for example.
The struggle of dissidents is exclusively solitary and always in confrontation with the government. Even when the government is good. Because - they start from the "higher" premise - that nothing is good that could not be better.
Therefore, the government does not understand them, nor does it want to understand them. Because they have become too detached from society. They see the government as a temporary torment, if not a temporary evil.
But in addition to the government, dissidents are not understood by the ruling cultural "elite" that is part of the government or its extended arm.
Also, dissidents are often not understood by their own people. They view their people exclusively from a critical perspective and from a distance.
So, dissidents are similar to Indian sages who are above the time and space they live in. Often even beyond history.
In short, dissidents see social reality from their own orbit and from “their whole” (H. Hese) analyze the reality of their society and leading political ideas.
In society, dissidents are like a stone in a shoe that forever hurts.
They are a kind of “modern hermits” or more precisely “modern saints” who have something religious in them. And even religious, as in the case of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, for example. Their struggle is exclusively pacifist, evolutionary and anti-revolutionary - in the short term. However, in the long term they do indeed influence a change in the state of mind of the people and are thus revolutionary.
Deeper down, a dissident is a human convert who is not the creator of a “new social order” or a “new social experiment.” On the contrary. Dissidents believe in the power of truth and the multiplicity of realities. They advocate an (ideological) alternative. Primarily the universality of human rights, democracy, and freedom. But they also understand what one’s power is and how to accept it or circumvent it.
Pole-dissident and ethno (folklore) dissident
But dissidents also have - it has been said - various political ideological orientations and visions of the development of "their" society. This results in different degrees of their usefulness for the individual. But also dangers for society and its future. At the level of "quality of dissidents" (J. Brodsky) could be classified into three groups: liberal dissidents, semi-"dissidents" and ethno (folklore) "dissidents".
For the purposes of this text, let us pay attention to semi-"dissidents" and ethno (folklore) "dissidents" who leave harmful spiritual and even material consequences in society. Often, their role can distance "their" society and even exclude it from the history of human civilization. (History abounds with such examples.)
Modern Montenegro from the late 20th and early 21st centuries abounds with semi- and ethno (folklore) “dissidents.” They are easy to recognize, because they are most often an extended arm and skilled interpreters of the “progress” of every ruling policy.
Pole - "dissident"
Dissidents who are very dangerous to the stability of society are semi-"dissidents". They are a cultural and moral degradation of the idea of dissidence. They mildly and peripherally "criticize" the system, ideology and state power. The criticism of semi-"dissidents" is always internal and closed in nature. They very rarely criticize their government in the international cultural and political public and through social networks.
Of all the dissident groups, semi-"dissidents" are closest to the privileges of the government and its cultural institutions. Most often academic and university ones.
One gets the impression that semi-"dissidents" are an extension of some secret politics. And maybe even a secret service, who knows. Their work is dangerous for the stability of society, because they dull and render meaningless the edge of liberal dissident criticism.
Semi-"dissidents" create a dangerous illusion of social freedom and democracy.
Semi-"dissidents" misuse the national/ethnic past and future for the purpose of personal "scientific" promotion. And they often derive material benefits from the government (apartments, positions, ambassadorial posts, etc.).
So, semi-"dissidents" are very greedy and power-hungry. They see reality from a "personal" orbit. They almost don't see the people.
In the breakup of Yugoslavia, semi-"dissidents" played a catastrophic, anti-civilizational historical, cultural and moral role. Their consequences were most visible in the early 90s in the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Montenegro had more semi-"dissidents", mainly in the teaching and assistant staff at the Faculty of Economics and Electrical Engineering in Titograd (Podgorica). (At the faculty in Nikšić there were mainly another type of dissidents, which we called ethno/folkloric "dissidents".)
“Dissident” ethno/folklore
Ethno “dissidents” or folklore dissidents are the most numerous “apostate” group. They are devastatingly dangerous for the stability of any society. From the “binoculars of the past” they criticize society and seek political correction of historical injustices. They are recruited from various cultural backgrounds.
It would not be an exaggeration to call these "dissidents" a farcical political and even cultural phenomenon. From the perspective of the past, they were advocates of populist and nationalist aggressive policies that grew on the fragile foundation of the spirit of Balkan medieval history.
They are the most intellectually banal and uncreative “dissidents”.
These are "dissidents" of the local, and at most municipal-republican scope.
They are very eloquent.
However, if this profile of “dissent” gets a chance to promote itself internationally (for example, before the Hague Tribunal), they get their “five minutes.” Then, in their ethno-legal statements, they are extremely primitive, vulgar, arrogant, arrogant… catering to the political taste of “their” i.e. domestic public.
In the collapse of communism, ethno-"dissidents", in synergy with semi-"dissidents", played a devastating political and civilizational role. They "killed" the opportunity for social and individual freedom before it was even conceived after the collapse of communism in our country.
The civilizational consequences of the destructive actions of ethno/folklore "dissidents" are not yet sufficiently visible in Montenegro, because they still persist despite being disguised in civilian and elegant suits.
The time of crisis of political ideas
Concluding remarks (the case of Montenegro).
Only liberal dissidents are a very important "reserve bench" for both the government and the opposition in Montenegrin society. They are an important corrective in the state organization of power. And Montenegro suffers like any rural society in the organization and management of society. Organization, management, division of power is created for generations. And it is never a finished job. Especially today when - it seems - political parties have passed their zenith of usability and usefulness.
In the global crisis of political ideas of both the East and the West, liberal dissidents are necessary for every country. And so is Montenegro. Therefore, they need to be nurtured and socially affirmed. In this sense, let us return to the experience of others many years and even centuries ago, in order to see the Montenegrin present and our future more clearly.
Regarding the strength and significance of heresy in every society, it is no coincidence that the Bible says that “in the beginning was the word.” To put it a little differently, the Bible considers (pro)thought to be the forefather, creator, and initiator of everything in humans.
There is no doubt that modern (European) man has established and accepted thought, word and criticism as the condition and basis of his existence and its progress. Somewhere Anatole France wrote that “the word is our first weapon.” But - we would add, and this is important for political dissidents - our only weapon is hope.
If by some unseen heavenly miracle, the first dissident in Christianity, the apostle Paul suddenly appeared in Montenegro today - and he remembered his stated "Corinthian maxim of 11.19." about the political need for dissidents - it is possible that the Apostol would communicate this maxim to the citizens of Montenegro today in the form of "if there are no liberal dissidents, they should be invented."
So, the great agitator of Christianity, the Apostle Paul, 2000 years ago, sheds a profound and far-sighted light on the phenomenon of "apostasy" when he says: "For there must also be heresies among you, that those who are sincere among you may be made manifest."
And beyond the end.
There is a famous Montenegrin centuries-old experience that says - when a brotherhood does not have a wise and courageous leader to protect some interest of the brotherhood - how their "brotherhood suffers". So, what is meant is that local (brotherhood) history did not give birth to the first among equals who would worthily protect the group (brotherhood). And even protect them from the attacks of the central Montenegrin authorities from Cetinje.
Modern Montenegrin history of the 19th and 20th centuries did not have, nor could it produce, many great liberal dissidents... It had two, but what kind: Marko Miljanov i Milovan Đilas.
The first (MM) was a great national liberal dissident at court of King Nikola, and the other was a great international dissident at court Josip Broz Tito.
The differences between them are not great. However, perhaps primarily based on emotional judgment, the author of this text would give preference to Marko Miljanov.
Bonus video:
