The modern world is increasingly resembling the one in the work Kafka, Orwell i Hobbes: international law often remains just a letter on paper, lies are proclaimed as truth, and the power of the stronger suppresses the weaker, assessed a Slovenian sociologist and political scientist Rudi Rizman.
In an interview with "Vijesti", he explains where this is most clearly seen, what small states like Montenegro can do in such an order, and why the European Union and the United Nations, despite their weaknesses, are still the key barrier to the "law of the stronger."
He believes that America has certainly embarked on an authoritarian path, while neo-fascist and neo-Nazi ideas and policies are also advancing in some major European countries.
It signals that it is time for the birth of new political elites who, with the support of citizens, will be able to stop the retrotopia of their societies, which is becoming more obvious every day.
He points out that nothing, especially retrograde authoritarian regimes, is eternal and that the experience of the non-aligned policy of the former Yugoslavia is certainly accumulated in the collective memory of the people and can strengthen the successor states.
You recently said that the modern world is “a combination of Franz Kafka, George Orwell, and Thomas Hobbes,” and that international law today often functions only on paper, while those in power write the rules as they please. What, specifically, do you mean by that, and where and how are Kafka, Orwell, and Hobbes most clearly reflected in today’s global politics?
To understand what is happening in the world today, it is essential to read these authors. Human history knows few respites in which peace, democracy, human rights or international law reigned. Today we find ourselves once again in a time that was excellently described by the aforementioned authors. Kafka, for example, how in authoritarian systems individuals are deprived of their freedom without a real accusation and proven guilt. Orwell writes about a world in which lies are proclaimed the only and true truth. Hobbes warns us about a social condition that, in the absence of action and respect for the rule of law, resembles a pack of wolves (homo homini lupus). You can see all this today in Ukraine, Gaza, previously in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and tomorrow it is possible in Venezuela. The collapse of our former state - Yugoslavia was accompanied by a similar situation.
When you talk about international law existing only on paper and the powerful dictating the rules of the "game", what can small and institutionally fragile states, like Montenegro, expect from such a global order?
Ever since the Greek historian Thucydides we know that powerful states subjugate weaker ones. In his time, there was no such thing as international law; humanity only came to this through the development of civilization, which, among other things, included the establishment of valid law and norms between states. All of this was destroyed by both world wars, but it returned after the aforementioned wars, first with the League of Nations, and then through the United Nations Organization (UN), which were founded precisely on international law.
Today we find ourselves once again in a time when the power of large states reigns over the weaker and over the law. Where is the way out for small states like Montenegro and my Slovenia? Great Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci offered the well-known formula of 'pessimism of the intellect' and 'optimism of the will', which our states can also rely on. That is, to insist on the active role of the UN and respect for international legal and moral norms. In the short term, it is difficult to believe that we will succeed, but it is different in the long term or, fortunately, even in the medium term. We must not, for the sake of the present, take away from future generations the faith in change and the hope that civilizational norms will eventually triumph again.
In that sense, what does the EU, which Montenegro wants to join, look like to you? Is the EU today at all a space based on rights and certain values, as small countries see it?
The EU is of course not an ideal political community, but historically it is the best thing that Europe has experienced in its history as a social, democratic and peaceful project. This should be maintained even today, when the European Union is confronted externally with the war in Ukraine and internally with the emergence of authoritarian policies and attempts by large states to suppress its original ideas. Small, old and future states can certainly play a positive role by supporting the aforementioned fundamental goals of the European Union, while at the same time demanding that the EU develop its own autonomous geopolitical power and actively support the United Nations within a broad bloc of states striving for an independent role on the global stage.
I see no other alternative for small and medium-sized states - otherwise, they risk becoming vassal victims of great powers.
What does the United Nations mean to you today, in this world like this?
The United Nations today more or less reflects the aforementioned situation, the dominance of large states over small ones. But we should not underestimate the role of soft power over hard power in history and politics, this applies to both the role of individuals and the state. Let us recall, first of all, the (Vaclava) Havela, (Nelson) Mandelu i Martin Luther King, and to poor countries - Vietnam, Afghanistan and others, which large and powerful countries could not defeat. Or to the current example of Ukraine, which Russia expected to occupy in a few days, but which has been insisting on its defense for four years. The same could happen to Canada and Greenland in the event that the current US president really tries to annex Canada to the USA as the 51st state.
Is there real democracy in the world today? If so, where is it and what is its future? What do you think about Fukuyama's thesis that last year's Trump victory in the US elections is the end of liberal democracy?
The vast majority of European Union members enjoy democracy, especially those in Scandinavia. (Francis) Fukuyama is more right today than when he wrote about the 'end of history'. America has certainly taken an authoritarian path. This has often happened in history in countries with great cultural heritage. I would mention the country Marx, Goethe, Schiller and others which was 'taken over' by the dictator in 1933 (Adolf) Hitler, or Italy, the country Dante and the Renaissance, which he ruled (Benito ) Mussolini. Unfortunately, neo-fascist and neo-Nazi ideas and policies are currently advancing in some large European countries, for example in Germany, or in our neighbors (Italy, Austria). Hungary has also embarked on a similar authoritarian path under the leadership of (Victor) OrbanWhether this development in the United States will continue and become permanent - we will see in the elections next year, namely in the presidential elections of 2028.
A few years ago, you stated that the time would come when today's Trumps, Putins, Erdogans, Orbans, Lučićs, and the like would end their role as "useful idiots" for the interests of big capital and when that capital would "throw them out." When, how, and why would that time come?
I have no doubt about that. I am only afraid of the scale of the human and material damage that it will, however, cause until its end. The duration depends on the engagement of progressive democratic forces, that is, citizens, public intellectuals in the context of economic and political crises, which have already begun to emerge. Authoritarian politics certainly erodes economic development and existentially threatens people's lives. It is time for the birth of new political elites who will be able, with the support of citizens, to stop the retrotopia of their societies, which is becoming more and more obvious every day. We are already witnessing this in our region. When Trump's authoritarian rule comes to an end, it will also bring political 'dividends' in the world, in the sense of a turn towards democracy in wider geopolitical spaces and elsewhere. No government is eternal, we should remember how military dictatorships ended in Chile, Argentina, Greece, Spain and Portugal.
How does the experience of the former Yugoslavia influence relations in the Balkans today? Does history help or hinder overcoming political and social tensions?
Nothing, especially retrograde authoritarian regimes, is eternal. The experience of non-aligned policy of our former state is certainly accumulated in our collective memory. As such, it can also strengthen the successor states (Yugoslavia). For example, let us mention the resistance to fascism and Nazism, to Stalin in 1948 and to the military pacts in general - the Warsaw Pact and NATO.
Which idea is closer to you - about the cyclicality or the unrepeatability of history in the Balkans?
In a special way, one goes with the other. It is important that citizens, and especially political elites, know history and learn a lot from it. We will see how today's politicians and policies will end up in future history books: whether on the right or wrong side of history. The history of the Balkans has accumulated a lot of wisdom - how to survive and stand on the right side.
The Church can talk about morality, but it must not shape politics
How do you interpret the strong role of religious institutions in the political life of Montenegro? Is it a broader Balkan phenomenon or a specificity of this region?
I have no problem with religious institutions advocating for certain moral values or norms. It is another matter if they oppose the modern principle that dates back to the French Revolution and refers to respecting the separation of church and state. Of course, this does not threaten the freedom of religious choice as an important part of human rights, but it does not mean that a foreign power directly interferes in the internal affairs of individual states.
Technology and AI a new existential threat, if not regulated
In your recent speech, you warned that the digital world, despite its potential for connectivity, increasingly leads to isolation and “information bubbles,” and that algorithms and artificial intelligence are not neutral, but shaped by the interests of powerful actors. How dangerous is the combination of technological control and social vulnerability, and what does this mean for the ability to think critically?
Critical thinking is the first to be attacked, and this fact prevents states, societies, and responsible individuals from timely preventing the dangerous consequences of unregulated information technology. Many great world thinkers, such as Nobel laureate Jeffrey Hinton, one of the 'fathers' of artificial intelligence (AI), prominent Israeli historian Yuval Harari, and the great linguist and intellectual Noam Chomsky, warn of these dangers. They all warn that we are witnessing a Pandora's Box, which is leading humanity to apocalyptic proportions.
Let's face it, information technology, especially AI, brings numerous practical benefits, but if its exponential and unstoppable development is not regulated, it can take a path similar to the discovery of nuclear energy - towards an existential threat to humanity and the planet. Every technological discovery in history carries ambivalent consequences - both positive and negative. That is why it is important for humanity to direct technological development in a positive direction. Unfortunately, this is not the case for now, and the question remains whether it ever will be.
Today, these facts should worry everyone: especially the increase in depression among young people who use the internet, the instrumentalization of information technologies for the production of lies in politics, and the fact that, instead of serving people and society, they increasingly serve to create material wealth and political influence for the richest people on the planet - on a scale unprecedented in history.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
