sceptic
pre 15 godina
Bragon,
Your view is superficial. After 1989 at all the transitional economies of Eastern Europe elements of capitalism occurred. Lack of legal framework permitted the occurance of events like Dafina bank in Yugoslavia, Russia and other countries. But governments like that of Milosevic tried to promote social changes with the least social consequences and social pain. The Milosevic government promoted a model that could be better described as “state capitalism”. Market forces operated, but the state control at the economy remained. Domestic production was also protected. If Milosevic government were procapitalist and new liberal, mass redundancies would have occurred and the percentage of unemployment would have been much higher. Of course, the cost of keeping many loss making enterprises alive and avoiding recession through injection of liquidity at the economy was high inflation. If you bothered to look a bit at the views of economists like Oscar Kovac, Kosta Mihailovic you would understand the differences. The policies advocated by the post Milosevic governments and especially the current one (DS + new SPS) is complete privatization (especially at the financial sector), selling almost all the infrastructure to foreign capital, abolishment of subsidies to goods like electricity, open of the economy to world market (abolishment of customs and tariffs, unilateral implementation of SAA). These policies mean that Serbia is more vulnerable to imported financial crisis (as now), the state has less tools of exercising economic policy, reducing inequalities, the domestic production in manufacture, agriculture will vanish. You will soon find out how unstable system is capitalism, how stressful is for the most employees in periods of recessions (although I have to admit that in self management many workers exploited the security and acted irresponsibly).
Cleptocracy is not a type of regime. Scandals and corruption exist everywhere, even in USA (although the sanctions, the nepotism, the immature democracy and the authoritarianism helped corruption to expand).
Despite all his mistakes (to be as brief as possible: a) Milosevic did not create the problem of Kosovo, but his policies alienated the proYugoslav Albanian elite and turned all the population in favor of independence and increased the gap between Serb and Albanian residents), b) All the leaders but Gliforov (and foreign powers that assisted the secessionist republics) of Ex Yugoslavia bear responsibility for the break up of the country. Milosevic was right to ask for alteration of the constitution of 1974. It was dysfunctional and had turned Yugolsavia to a de facto confederation. However, his uncompromising attitude and the mass nationalist rallies increased the tentions and in return boosted the influence of the secessionists in Croatia, Slovenia. It is naïve to believe that there could be a fair negotiation with the Tudzman government which aimed at assimilating or expelling the Serbs. Besides, the unilateral secessions of Slovenia, Croatia were illegal under the 1974 constitution.
Do you think Milosevic should have signed the Rambouillet pact in 1999? Under it, NATO troops had the right to move freely at all the territory of FRY. A government with national dignity would not have signed it (If Milosevic had signed the pact and sold the country to foreign capital, then despite the human rights violations in Kosovo, Serbia would not have been bombed). But national dignity is something unknown to successor governments: submission to terms dictated by the biased Hague tribunal, refusal to ask NATO for war compensations etc…
In Eastern Europe 3 governments tried to follow independent policy: Lukasenco (Bellorussia), Milosevic (Serbia), Mesiar (Slovakia). Non government organizations (like Optor) financed from abroad, exploited the economic hardships of the population, the mistakes of these governments and succeded to bring down 2 of them. And last: the current government of Serbia you seem to support, has a lot in common with that of Boris Yeltsin in post-communist Russia. Liberal and submissive to the West it led to the impoverishment of the vast majority of the population and the emergence of oligarchs. At the international relations, it was so submissive that no country dared to rely on it. It lost influence and eventually, as the NATO aggression against FRY indicated, noone bothered even to consult it. Eventually Putin applied a policy of state intervention and more independence. Is Russia better now or then?
32 Komentari
Sortiraj po: