“We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait to see what happens. If no one raises a fuss—because most people don’t understand what was decided—we continue step by step until there’s no turning back.”
Interestingly, and it will prove deeply true, this observation belongs to Jean-Claude Juncker and is not randomly chosen to introduce the continuation of the series on constitutional changes in Serbia.
A little bread and circuses
Western interventions in the highest legal act of the country wouldn’t have been successful or even possible without the engagement of the so-called domestic media, structures controlled and financed by external factors. A well-played show for the uninformed public garnered applause in the West.
In a country where sports, entertainment, and daily political scandals dictate the main topics, constitutional reforms went almost unnoticed. Additionally, the percentage of those who know the definition of the Constitution in Serbia is half the total turnout for the mentioned referendum. Someone, engaging in global-scale manipulations, counted on these facts.
One less obstacle
However, it was not the media that bore the greatest “burden” of this endeavor. As an overture to the mentioned changes and a prerequisite for their realization, the law on the referendum was adopted, thus fulfilling another condition set by the European Union for Serbia. Among numerous amendments and additions to the law, the most important one stated: the new act abolishes the 50 percent turnout threshold of registered voters, and for a referendum to be successful, a majority of the voting participants is required.
Hypothetically, if only 10% of the total electorate turned out for a referendum, it would be declared valid. Very democratic. The actual turnout result for the referendum on constitutional reforms barely exceeded 30%, reflecting the good prediction of foreign agents who studied the mentality and interest of our people in advance and prepared the ground. This law provided the foreign factor with the most dangerous weapon.
Interestingly, information about the authors of this law is almost impossible to obtain, and by the time this article was published, we had not received information about the members of the working group. However, the working group formed for Chapter 23 did all the preparations and amendments to the law. Thanks to a statement from YUCOM, which stated that they requested certain amendments to the law on the referendum from the Venice Commission and mentioned the working group formed for the constitutional amendment, including all preparatory laws, among which is the law on the referendum, we learned that it consists of the professional NGOs “Society of Judges of Serbia” and the “Association of Prosecutors and Deputy Prosecutors of Serbia.”
YUCOM’s contribution
The contribution of other professional NGOs is also evident, as YUCOM’s initiative mentioned in their report indicates. It states that they submitted a request to the Venice Commission for certain amendments to the referendum law:
“The National Assembly adopted a new Law on the Referendum and People’s Initiative in November 2021. YUCOM representatives actively participated in the advocacy campaign, media appearances, sending comments on the Draft to the competent Ministry and the Venice Commission, and participating in online meetings with experts from this Council of Europe body. The adoption of the new Law was necessary to align the procedure for conducting a referendum on constitutional amendments to strengthen the independence of the judiciary with the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia from 2006.”
Let’s clarify — Changes were made on October 5th
Although individuals, emphasizing the importance of the referendum, tried to explain to the public how the changes would affect their lives, the turnout percentage was disappointing. It was very difficult to convey that constitutional changes could influence key political decisions where the people would be completely disenfranchised.
Belgrade lawyer Aleksandar Cvejić was one of those who publicly opposed the constitutional reforms. In an interview with our portal, he claims that the constitutional changes were made on October 5, and that in 2022, only the institutionalization of those changes was carried out, and that disagreements within the ruling regime were merely an illusion.
“I simply don’t think the regime is very unhappy. I think they themselves pushed these changes, independently of the civil sector, because it suits them better this way. Previously, there was at least some semblance of independent members, in terms of law professors or representatives of the Bar Association. They especially avoided the latter. It went to the extent that they completely ignored the legal and constitutional obligation to accept a member appointed by the Bar Association of Serbia. In other words, they wanted to achieve what we now have—to choose by themselves. And now we have reached the paradoxical situation where judges and prosecutors are chosen by the state and probably the American deep state, the gray eminence of Serbian justice. This shouldn’t be hidden.”
How many more slaps must Serbia receive before sobering up and daring to say that their interests cannot be taken care of by those who habitually hate both Serbs and Serbia?
