Belgrade,
June 20, 1999

ON CIVIL SOCIETY

The G8 foreign ministers’ declaration of principles to resolve the
Kosovo crisis (May 6) was already criticized for its determination to
bring peace to the region by “interim administration for Kosovo” rather
than by a sociological, grass-root and community-based peace-building
process. As Jan Oberg noticed, “This continues the disastrous top-down
‘engineering’ or ‘managerial’ approach to conflict where a shift to
consultation, trust-building, and regeneration of civil society is much
needed.” (See “G8 Kosovo Principles – Another Peace Plan Fraud”,
Transnational Foundation Info, May 7, 1999).

European Commission was more specific on the topic in its program on the
stabilization and association process for countries of South-Eastern
Europe (May 26). Stressing the “viability of civil society” and “support
for civil society organizations and initiatives”, the Commission gave
special encouragement to the projects of establishing and reviving
“local community-based organizations” which articulate and promote the
common needs and interests of ordinary people. “Particular emphasis will
be given, through civil society organizations, to the post-conflict
rebuilding of consensus, to conflict-resolution and to the lightening of
the psychological burden consequent to war”.

On the other side, the peace-establishing Resolution of UN Security
Council (June, 9) keeps dealing with political and economic issues and
neglects civil society completely. No doubt, it is very important to
specify the duties of “both (belligerent) sides”, to authorize “UN
members and relevant international organizations”, to establish “interim
administration”, as well as to encourage donors. But it is not enough.
If the peace is to be lasting, if all inhabitants of Kosovo are expected
to reconcile and live together, a new conflict resolution approach is to
be implemented. Therefore, it is important to get acquainted with the
failures of past solutions for solving the Kosovo crisis.

In the past decade two authoritarian nationalist (Serbian and Albanian)
policies were inter-playing on the edge of civil war. After amending the
Constitution of Serbia (March 1989) and abolishing the earlier autonomy
of Kosovo, the Serbian Parliament declared on the 26th of June 1990 the
state of emergency in the territory of the Kosovo province. Regional
government was dissolved and the central government took control over
almost
all spheres of life in Kosovo. As a reaction to these measures, ethnic
Albanians in Kosovo ignored the state of Serbia (Yugoslavia) and
declared their own “independent” state (which should be regarded as
“occupied” by Serbs). In its exclusive orientation to state building the
policy of the Albanian ethnic community, as formulated by its elites,
was therefore greatly neglectful of the whole range of needs and
potentials of ethnic Albanians as individual citizens. After this
“separation” both sides were reluctant to negotiate and devoted to
strong nationalist programs, as well as “maximalist” solutions for
solving the Kosovo crisis (status quo i.e. independence of Kosovo). Two
national communities, with two (unitary national) governments and two
(“independent”) states in the same territory, lived in relatively
peaceful coexistence under general repression and in some kind of
political schizophrenia. Sustained over a long period of time such a
situation gave rise to new tensions whose exacerbation reached its peak
with the appearance of the “Kosovo Liberation Army” (KLA)  in the spring
of 1996. Escalation of terrorism and state repression followed and
culminated in open civil war in 1998.

Living in harmony with their “governments”, two national communities
were all the time incapable of creating civil society, which is
essentially a non-state, self-generating agency which is always on its
guard against the state apparatus and its possible encroachments on
individual and group rights and autonomies. Instead of assuming the role
of self-conscious citizens in a principled opposition to each and any
state, people in Kosovo were obedient to “their” governments and at odds
with almost all members of the “other” nation. Furthermore, the dominant
social organizations in Kosovo were strongly patriarchal and there was
no place for a civil, non-state sphere comprising a variety of social
institutions, such as legally guaranteed and democratically organized
production units, voluntary organizations, community-based services etc.
This combination of political authoritarianism and patriarchalism proved
to be fatal. It led to the creation of two “statal societies” – to use a
syntagm coined by Mihaly Vajda – with their original traditionalist and
rigid structures (thought overlaid by some elements of modernization),
overwhelming collectivist attitudes and strong xenophobia. So, instead
of a fundamental conflict between state and society, Kosovo has, in its
almost entire modern history, experienced a deep-dividing conflict
between two nations (Serbian and ethnic Albanian), which were
transformed in the course of the nineties into two “statal societies”.

Fighting for “survival” against the “other” nation, no social group
thought of its autonomy and opposition to “their” government. As a
matter of fact, government (“ours”, of course) was perceived as
something good in itself and as an objective worth striving and dying
for. If the burden of such historical heritage is to be overcome, the
peace-establishing process in Kosovo should involve not only political,
military and economic measures, but also the building of civil society.
In civil society organizations and initiatives the common needs and
interests of ethnic Albanians and Serbs can meet and produce trust,
cooperation and benevolence. Dependence for the fulfillment of
existential and other needs on the paternalist state is a danger
commonly arising in areas devastated by war. Mobilizing the productive
forces within civil society can free the citizens of Kosovo from this
dependence. The experience of everyday participation in civil society
organizations and initiatives can help both ethnic Albanians and Serbs
to realize that there are values and qualities in life other than nation
and state. And, last but not least, participation in civil society can
be edifying. Because of having no borders, civil society is always
global, universal and Weltbuergerlich. Through participation in civil
society ethnic Albanians and Serbs may learn how to “think globally and
act locally” thereby getting prepared for joining the processes of
European integration which is the common future of the whole region.

Presidency of the Yugoslav Sociological Association

Yugoslav Sociological Association
Studentski trg 1
11000 Belgrade
Yugoslavia
Phone: ++381 11 637 115
E-mail:    ysa@afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu
                ysa@f.bg.ac.yu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit our web site      http://www.bg.ac.yu/
or one of our mirror sites     http://ubg-mirror.iccs.ntua.gr/
                                http://www.blueprintit.com/ubg-mirror/