"Public hearings are not reality shows"

"If there are some useful effects along the way, in the sense that someone got aware of the mistakes he had done in the past, even better."

Mr. Matic, do you consider that Vucic supporting the working of your commission is a sign of him being aware of his past mistakes? And if so, has he touched on this issue some other way, too?

Mr. Matic,

I thank you for your views that help me further to understand the truly radical change that at least seems to have taken place in Vucic's thinking. I have no intention to deny the possibility that this change is genuine, but as it's not a matter of everyday life in the politics of the Balkans (do we have to go back to year 1948...) one can't swallow it without taking a good taste of it first.

I did read the interview of Vucic in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung last month and - even when there have been rather clear signs of change visible - I was somewhat struck by surprise when reading Vucic's words. He for example said that his greatest worry is the Serbian mentality, that he even fears "our way to think". His undisguised choice or words really took me by surprise. Then he went on commenting his past politics, telling that he was wrong with his past views, and that observing and expressing objectively the shortcomings of Serbia is the best way for everyone.

So there's some reason to think that miracles aren't over. Another issue is to look back in the workings of the DS during its years in power. What is the (complicated) truth?

I am not in a position to respond to your question minutely. The fact that he had characterized this murder as state murder, while he was high state official at that time, i.e. Minister for Information, I believe that he is aware of the mistakes he had made in the past. Along with his activities pertaining to the support of the Commission, I believe that he has lots of motives to speak about this himself, and to speak in a way that would represent criticism of the period when the Law on Information was adopted that made possible this relentless campaign against the media, drastic fines and practically created an atmosphere in which it was possible for such a murder to take place. I believe that civil society, such as our Commission, or Verica Barac’s Anti-corruption Council should constantly offer diverse initiatives exerting pressure on reviewing the past, by offering as much as possible documents and data that will serve as unambiguous evidence. With this pressure, I believe that it would be best to make conditions for facing with our own past of all the actors involved. People tend to forget bad things, they are reluctant to admit that they participated in something bad, and I believe that this is one of the ways to get them to act. This could bring a kind of catharsis to them, which could have a healing effect for the victims too, the families of the victims, and for the actors themselves.

I am not in a position to respond to your question minutely. The fact that he had characterized this murder as state murder, while he was high state official at that time, i.e. Minister for Information, I believe that he is aware of the mistakes he had made in the past. Along with his activities pertaining to the support of the Commission, I believe that he has lots of motives to speak about this himself, and to speak in a way that would represent criticism of the period when the Law on Information was adopted that made possible this relentless campaign against the media, drastic fines and practically created an atmosphere in which it was possible for such a murder to take place. I believe that civil society, such as our Commission, or Verica Barac’s Anti-corruption Council should constantly offer diverse initiatives exerting pressure on reviewing the past, by offering as much as possible documents and data that will serve as unambiguous evidence. With this pressure, I believe that it would be best to make conditions for facing with our own past of all the actors involved. People tend to forget bad things, they are reluctant to admit that they participated in something bad, and I believe that this is one of the ways to get them to act. This could bring a kind of catharsis to them, which could have a healing effect for the victims too, the families of the victims, and for the actors themselves.

"If there are some useful effects along the way, in the sense that someone got aware of the mistakes he had done in the past, even better."

Mr. Matic, do you consider that Vucic supporting the working of your commission is a sign of him being aware of his past mistakes? And if so, has he touched on this issue some other way, too?

Mr. Matic,

I thank you for your views that help me further to understand the truly radical change that at least seems to have taken place in Vucic's thinking. I have no intention to deny the possibility that this change is genuine, but as it's not a matter of everyday life in the politics of the Balkans (do we have to go back to year 1948...) one can't swallow it without taking a good taste of it first.

I did read the interview of Vucic in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung last month and - even when there have been rather clear signs of change visible - I was somewhat struck by surprise when reading Vucic's words. He for example said that his greatest worry is the Serbian mentality, that he even fears "our way to think". His undisguised choice or words really took me by surprise. Then he went on commenting his past politics, telling that he was wrong with his past views, and that observing and expressing objectively the shortcomings of Serbia is the best way for everyone.

So there's some reason to think that miracles aren't over. Another issue is to look back in the workings of the DS during its years in power. What is the (complicated) truth?