The story of state symbols has once again divided the government in Montenegro - Democratic People's Party (DNP) Milan Knežević left power after their proposals to make the Serbian language an official language, standardize the tricolor as a "national flag" and allow dual citizenship with Serbia were not passed by the government. Also, the display of the "tricolor" on the institutions of the municipality of Žabljak at the initiative of the New Serbian Democracy triggered a reaction from opposition parties and part of the public.
The government and the opposition often did not have a consensus on this issue - during the 90s, the Liberal Alliance of Montenegro (LSCG) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) were against the then flag (tricolor), while at the time of its adoption, the current opponents were the Socialist People's Party (SNP), the Serbian People's Party (SNS) and the People's Party (NS).
However, during the process of adopting the current state symbols in 2004, there were disagreements between the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) and the SDP, even within the then government.
The current Montenegrin flag has been flying at LSCG and SDP rallies since the 1990s. It was only after the split in DPS and the SDP coming to power in 1998 that the path to "replacing" the tricolor with the red flag was opened, but even that process took time, with setbacks...
PREPARATIONS BEGAN AS FAR AS 2001.
According to "Vijesti" from November 2001, the SDP, as part of the ruling coalition gathered around the DPS, in cooperation with experts in the field of historical sciences, prepared a working version of the text of the draft law on the state symbols of Montenegro.
President of the SDP Legal Council Milan Filipović sent to the Deputy Prime Minister in February of the following year Dragan Đurović the draft law on state symbols for further processing.
That year, the SDP also organized a roundtable on this topic, at which academics Radoslav Rotković, Radoje Pajović and a professor Manja Radulovic In their introductory speeches, they emphasized that the flag of Montenegro should be “red with the state coat of arms in the middle, which is in the form of a two-headed golden crowned eagle in flight, with a scepter in its right and a crest in its left claw. On its chest is a golden lion rampant on a red shield with a green base”.
The Law for the Implementation of the Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro stated in Article 23 that the Law on the Coat of Arms and Anthem of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro shall be adopted by the end of 2003. Although in July 2003 the draft law on state symbols was on the agenda of the Parliament, at the request of the DPS it was returned to the draft.
"Montenegro needs state symbols that will be long-term, which it cannot do unless everyone accepts them, from north to south," said the then DPS MP. Miodrag Vuković.
However, according to the newspaper "Vijesti" from early June 2004, the president of the then Assembly of the State Union Zoran Shami organized informal consultations with representatives of the DPS and SDP in Belgrade with the aim of urgently adopting a law on community symbols at the session of the SCG parliament on June 15, but no agreement was reached.
On that occasion, the heads of the parliamentary groups of the DPS and SDP in the parliament of the community Ivan Kalezic i Borislav Banović, according to information from "Vijesti", conveyed to Shami that the symbols of the former community should not be adopted before their symbols are defined in the member states.
Also, "Vijesti" wrote at the time that the symbols of Montenegro were the main topic of a meeting of the top leadership of the DPS and SDP on June 4 of that year, when, according to the newspaper, it was agreed that the law on symbols would be adopted by the end of the regular summer session on July 31, but that at that moment there were differences - the DPS requested that the flag remain tricolor, but enriched with the coat of arms, while the SDP advocated a red flag with a golden coat of arms in the middle.
ONE FOR THE CRNOJEVIĆS, THE OTHER FOR THE PETROVIĆS
In June, the SDP proposed a red flag with a golden eagle, while the DPS insisted that the flag remain tricolor, but with the coat of arms in the middle.
At the session held on July 8, 2004, the Government adopted the draft law on state symbols and statehood day with the solution for the coat of arms advocated by the DPS, and at that time, the SDP proposal was also in the parliamentary procedure.
According to the government's draft law, the coat of arms would be the "original coat of arms of the Petrović dynasty", meaning that on the chest of a golden double-headed eagle with raised wings in flight would be a shield with a golden lion in passage, on a green field with a blue background, above the eagle's heads would be a royal crown, in the right claw a scepter with a cross, and in the left a pattern with a cross.
The SDP, on the other hand, proposed that the coat of arms should not include symbols characteristic of states with a monarchical system, that is, that there should be no crown, scepter, or pattern with a cross, so that the coat of arms reflects the civic concept of the state (the coat of arms of the Crnojevićs).
However, SDP ministers in the government also voted in favor of the law. The proposal also provides for the protection of "historical symbols, namely state and military symbols of the principality, kingdom, people's republic and socialist republic of Montenegro."
"Vijesti" wrote at the time that the initiative to adopt this law was launched by the SDP less than two years earlier, but that at that time "the DPS blocked it with the explanation that the symbols needed to be harmonized with the opposition."
"The dominant opinion in the larger ruling party was that the flag should remain tricolor with the coat of arms applied, but they eventually relented after the Svetozar Marovic "in a conversation with the SDP leadership, he agreed that the flag would be red with a golden coat of arms in the middle," the newspaper's text from 2004 states.
At that moment, Marović was already in the position of president of the joint state.
"Vijesti" also announced at the time that the ministers in the government did not have "a precisely defined look for the flag and coat of arms" before them, even though they voted for them.
OPPOSITION MAINLY FOR TRICOLOR
Opposition MPs boycotted parliament when the law was voted on. The parties gathered in the "Together for Change" coalition (SNP, SNS, NS) advocated for the tricolor, while the LSCG believed that voting for the symbols was an alibi for the fact that a referendum on independence had not yet been called.
"State symbols must not be a short-term thing and depend on the current party majority, but should be a symbol of all citizens and the whole of Montenegro," said the then leader of the SNP. Predrag Bulatović Tanjug, adding that "his party is for respecting what represents the past and historical heritage of Montenegro."
His party colleague and party vice-chairman Zoran Žižić said on that occasion that "the tricolor should remain the flag of Montenegro".
NS Spokesperson Budimir Dubak He said then that for them "the coat of arms is acceptable", but that placing that "old coat of arms of Montenegro which dates back to the Byzantine era, through the Nemanjićs, Crnojevićs, Petrovićs, to our days" on the red flag represents "rewriting history" and "combining the impossible".
The then president of the SNS Executive Board Budimir Aleksic He said in a response to "Vijesti" that half of the country does not accept the current flag.
"We do not need symbols that will not be accepted by half of Montenegro and that will last as long as the government," Aleksić said on that occasion, adding that his party had asked for the flag to remain tricolor, because "the red flag with the golden coat of arms is the Montenegrin war flag - which obviously makes it clear to the public that the regime is continuing its militaristic policy."
He also resented the fact that representatives of the Serbian people were ignored when determining the symbol.
LIBERALS CONSIDERED THAT THE FLAG WAS A "SHADOW TO THEIR EYES"
Former LSCG official Džemal Perović On that occasion, he said that after the Belgrade Agreement, the ruling coalition's talk about the referendum was like a joke "who is talking about what, a soldier about the reduction..."
"So, this is the daily repetition of the story about the referendum, it's coming, but it's not. This nonsense about state symbols fits in there," said Perović.
LSCG, which after the parliamentary elections in the spring of 2001 supported the minority government of the DPS and SDP of the Prime Minister Filip Vujanović, on 20 March 2002, it stopped supporting it. The party decided to take this step after the representatives of Montenegro and Serbia, with the mediation of the European Union, signed the Belgrade Agreement on 14 March 2002. This agreement envisaged the formation of a new state union of Serbia and Montenegro, instead of the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The agreement implied the postponement of the referendum on independence, which was unacceptable to the Liberal Alliance.
The liberals announced that the Montenegrin state leadership, led by the DPS, had deviated from the policy of full state independence and had thus betrayed the previous political agreements. As a result, there were special elections in 2002, in which the DPS-SDP coalition won absolute power. It was the convocation of the Parliament voted in those elections that adopted today's state symbols.
SDP FALLS UNTIL 12 MINUTES
The session at which the decision was made was scheduled for July 12, and on that day, before the vote, the SDP scheduled a session of the Presidency in the office of the then Speaker of the Assembly and the party, Ranko Krivokapić. However, that session lasted for hours and overlapped with the one in the plenary hall, so it was interrupted several times.
According to "Vijesti", SDP deputies opposed this appearance of the flag. Rifat Rastoder, Ervin Spahic i Džavid Sabović. However, Rastoder and Spahić voted “for”, while Šabović was “against”. The opposition MPs were not in the hall, and the MP from the Democratic Union of Albanians was also “against”. Ferhat Dinoša, while the representative of the Democratic Alliance in Montenegro abstained. Mehmed BardhiDinoša was against it because of the anthem - he suggested that the second verse should read "our home Montenegro", while Bardhi said that "Montenegrins should determine their state symbols because Albanians have their own symbols, no matter where they live".
"Vijesti" wrote at the time that the majority, by their own admission, were reluctantly provided by Rastoder and Spahić.
They explained that they were doing this so that Bosniaks would not be accused of blocking laws and Greater Bosniak projects, although they believed that the state coat of arms did not reflect the tradition and essence of Montenegro.
SPAHIĆ: DPS NEEDED TIME TO ACCEPT THE RED FLAG
Spahić assessed that the most controversy was over the coat of arms, and that they were in favor of the Crnojević coat of arms, which does not have monarchist features, but that there was also controversy about that.
"We believe that they are the founders of Montenegro. We were also promised that this would be discussed later, because there was a time limit. The discussion was on July 12, and the day after that, the flag promotion in Bijelo Polje was scheduled. The flags had already been purchased, and we accepted that in more settled times - when independence is achieved - there would be discussions about this," he told "Vijesti".
He pointed out that the DPS did not accept the Crnojević coat of arms at the time, but insisted on the current one. He also added that during the 90s, red flags were flown at rallies of the former Liberal Alliance and SDP, while the opposition parties - SNP, SNS and NS - were in favor of keeping the flag tricolor.
Responding to the question of why it took a certain period for DPS to agree to this flag, Spahić points out that there were probably people in DPS who were in favor of the tricolor even then, and that it took time for them to accept it.
"It was difficult to talk about independence. People had family ties. It was also difficult for the Bosniak people, they have great ties with their compatriots on the other side of the border," he said, adding that the campaign explained to citizens that "an alliance with Serbia was unsustainable due to the different size, population and economic power."
SIMONOVIC: VOTING WITHOUT OPPOSITION DEEPENED DIVISIONS
Former SNP MP Vuksan Simonović He told "Vijesti" yesterday that the vote on the symbol "deepened divisions in Montenegro", and that on that occasion "DPS MPs succumbed to pressure from the SDP", and he called the very act of passing the law "legal and political violence".
He recalls the opposition boycott, which continued even after that vote.
"They did it alone, without opposition MPs, because the then opposition, led by the powerful SNP, boycotted the Parliament from June 25, 2003 to October 20, 2004. The boycott followed the decision of the then obedient RTCG Council to abolish live broadcasts of parliamentary sessions. The boycott bore fruit and after 16 months, live broadcasts of the sessions were restored and they continue uninterrupted to this day," he told the newspaper.
He assessed that the adoption of the law away from the public eye was an undemocratic act:
"This, for the umpteenth time since the then SDP-DPS government, violated the legal order of Montenegro and fundamentally changed the state symbols of Montenegro, about which a high degree of agreement was achieved at the time of their adoption in 1993. If there had been political will on the part of the SDP and DPS to initiate a broad discussion on such an important issue in Montenegro, I believe that there would have been a high degree of agreement and a solution for state symbols that would reflect the historical, traditional, state-forming and constitutional essence of Montenegro."
He recalls that three years later, when the Constitution was adopted, his party proposed amendments that would prescribe, in addition to the state flag, a "national" flag (tricolor) on which the current coat of arms would be applied, and the manner of displaying it.
“Our proposal at the time stemmed from the undeniable historical fact that throughout the process of creating the modern state of Montenegro, its formal international legal recognition in 1878, and thereafter, the supreme Montenegrin military banner - the alai banner - was in use. Previously, the banner was red with a gold border and a gold cross in the middle. Later, in the middle of the banner, instead of the cross, there was a 'land coat of arms', a double-headed eagle, which from the time of the separation of secular and spiritual power in Montenegro, during the reign of Prince Danila and then the prince and the king Nicholas "becomes a dynastic banner," he explains, adding that, in addition to the dynastic one, a banner was also in use that was described through the national colors in the Constitution of the Principality of Montenegro from 1905 with the norm: "The national colors are red, blue and white."
He also reminds us that in the period from 1992 to 2004, the official flag of Montenegro was a tricolor of "red-blue-white without the applied state coat of arms", which, as he pointed out, is also a solution that has "foundation in the historical essence of Montenegro".
EU AND FLAG
Speaking about the latest DNP initiative, Simonović believes that it is "legitimate", but that the question is whether and how to begin a comprehensive political and expert dialogue on the topic between all political entities.
"Without a doubt, the priority now is for all of us to make maximum efforts to ensure that Montenegro continues to progress on its path towards the European Union, so that it can become a full member in 2028. And this includes the continuation of further democratization of society, strengthening the economic and social stability of the state and all citizens, and, number one, the continuation of the fight against corruption and organized crime as the greatest scourges that have ravaged Montenegro for two and a half decades during the rule of the previous government," he emphasized, adding that he believes that "a favorable environment for dialogue will follow on all other open issues, on which there has been no agreement so far."
NIKOLIC: WHEN THEY SCREAM, THERE'S THEIR FLAG
Journalist at the weekly "Monitor" Predrag Nikolić He estimates that flags are still relevant because "as a society we have only moved a few steps forward since then."
"The majority of political parties have only continued with this policy of abuse and manipulation of national, religious - flags and emblems. Whenever they are in trouble, their ratings drop, they are left without power and privileges, or they are caught in some major theft, they remember that part of the electorate that will forgive them everything because they are supposedly defending their national interests. That is a bigger thing, almost an ideal, because of which they are forgiven for their misjudgments, mistakes, lies, stupidity, bad intentions, incompetence, robbery."
He believes that this is "the most primitive, but unfortunately also very effective way of governing in Montenegro, which most of the new ruling majority inherited from its predecessors", but also that "most of the opposition is like that".
"That's why there is no dialogue and agreement on these issues, because that is the most important part of political tactics, blackmail and coalition building in Montenegro. And when things get tough, I can always put my hand on my patriotic chest, not refer to the Constitution, but to my favorite flag," Nikolić said.
Bonus video:
