Mirko Jović in a café in Belgrade. Photograph: Vuk M. Janković
CELIA PÉREZ CARRASCOSA, Prague (Czech Republic)
Mirko Jović: “We thought Serbia had to be first to separate and renew its state. If this had happened, I would like to emphasise, there would have been no armed conflict”
It has been a little over two decades since the dissolution of Yugoslavia. A state that brought together a large part of the Slavic peoples of the Balkans for most of the 20th century. First, under the Serbian crown of the Karađorđević dynasty, from 1918 to 1945. Then, as the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (1945–1963) and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) from 1963 until 1992. Finally, through the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which united Serbia and Montenegro from 1992 to 2003. This defunct European country was born as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes following the end of the First World War. It unified together what are today Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia — as well as present-day Kosovo, which is not recognised as a state by over 80 countries (including Spain) and is also not a member of the United Nations.
Yugoslavia, which etymologically means “the South Slavs”, was perhaps a hopeful idea of brotherhood among these Slavs of the Balkan Peninsula. It went through several phases. Like Czechoslovakia, it was also a product of the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the First World War. Likewise, they share the occupation by Nazi Germany and a long communist period. However, unfortunately for the former Yugoslavs, its end did not resemble the peaceful separation of Prague and Bratislava, but was marked by war, which culminated in NATO’s 1999 intervention against what was once Yugoslavia. A war that, like so many others, is often oversimplified by dividing it into sides of good and evil.
After the death of Marshal Josip Broz Tito in 1980, Yugoslavia began to gradually move towards democracy. One of the witnesses and key figures of that country leaving Titoism behind is Mirko Jović. He was one of the founders of the Sava Society, established in the late 1980s to preserve Serbian culture. This cultural society was the seed for the Serbian National Renewal party (SNO, by its initials in Serbian) in 1990. It is Mirko Jović himself who has been kind enough to meet with us and talk to us to shed light on the situation of the Serbs in Yugoslavia, as well as the political evolution of Serbia up to the present day.
The role of the Serbs in Yugoslavia
In a café in Belgrade, we met with Mirko Jović and Branislav Djurić, a lawyer and former director of NIS Petrol. In a relaxed conversation, we began to unpack the complex scenario that was Yugoslavia, specifically socialist Yugoslavia from the Serbian perspective. Serbia was, both territorially and population-wise, the largest socialist republic in all of Yugoslavia. However, Serbian representation in key positions such as prime minister or high ranks within the Communist Party of Yugoslavia was not proportional. As Jović points out, most of these positions were held by Croats. Although Tito’s Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, with Tito himself being Croatian, sought to prevent any one republic from having greater power or control over the others, it is true that most of the Yugoslav prime ministers were Croats. “Through the Yugoslav People’s Army of the time, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and the security services, the Croats governed Yugoslavia de facto”, Jović notes.
Furthermore, a fundamental point to understand the Serbian context is the 1974 Constitution. Through it, not only—among other things—was more autonomy granted to the six republics that made up Yugoslavia, but at the federal level, Serbia was divided into three parts: Serbia itself and the autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo. Jović explains: “Whenever there was any kind of vote in any state structure, the Serbs were outvoted despite being the majority. Due to the nature of the Yugoslav communists and the Constitution they approved, which also federalised all Serbian lands. The 1974 Constitution not only established republics that were almost states in themselves, but, moreover, within the territory of already small Serbia, there were two autonomous communities that legally had the right to block the rest of Serbia.” “It is as if two Catalonias had the right to veto decisions coming from Madrid”, Djurić illustrates. Therefore, despite having the majority of the population, Serbia saw its influence reduced in the federal government of Yugoslavia; even in its own parliament, due to the autonomies of Vojvodina and Kosovo. The division of Serbia into three parts meant that Serbia did not have a single voice in the federal government, unlike the other republics.
Given the essential nature of the 1974 legal text for understanding the Serbian context, it is necessary to provide a brief summary of how it came about. When the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia was established in 1945 following the Second World War, it was theoretically federal; however, in practice it remained a rather centralised state. Because Serbia was the most populous republic and had the longest historical trajectory, it tended to accumulate the greatest political power and control. But what happened? One of Tito’s aims was to ensure that no republic held political hegemony over another (yet paradoxically, Croats held the post of prime minister more often). For this reason, in 1963 Yugoslavia took a further step towards decentralisation by granting greater independence to the six republics and the two Serbian autonomous provinces. However, it was not until 1974 that the various parliaments were granted a greater degree of autonomy. Some of the powers that the 1974 Constitution granted to the six republics and the provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina included education, justice, and security forces such as the police. It is worth noting that they also had their own constitutions, including the two Serbian autonomous provinces.
Under Tito’s leadership, Yugoslavia remained united. However, after his death, the country went through an economic crisis and, without such a strong figure as him, nationalism began to surface. Upon Tito’s death in 1980, a rotating Collective Presidency was established, whereby a representative from each republic and autonomous province would hold the office each year. At the same time, Slobodan Milošević rose to the Presidency of Serbia in 1989. His arrival in government marked a turning point for Yugoslavia and Serbia, as he restricted the autonomies of Kosovo and Vojvodina. Jović explains: “The Croats controlled Yugoslavia until 1990. That was the moment when the communists, with Milošević at the helm, opposed that… When they approved a new constitution within Serbia—through which Serbia asserted its jurisdiction over Vojvodina, Kosovo, and Belgrade—Slovenia and Croatia lost their power within the Yugoslav Communist Party and their influence within the Yugoslav People’s Army. An open war began between them because Milošević proposed that decisions be made on the principle of one person, one vote; that the national discrimination that existed should end, and that a democratic voting principle should be introduced within Yugoslavia.” As Jović recounts, Milošević advocated for representation proportional to population within Yugoslavia and defended that Serbia should be granted the political weight it had been denied until then—something that was not well received by the other republics. Jović continues: “But he did it badly. He wanted to keep Yugoslavia at any cost, with a form of modified communism. He and his ideologue, Professor Marković, devised pluralism around Yugoslav federalism. We were the only political formation that made it clear we should not waste our energy trying to keep Yugoslavia—it was nonsense. It was a pointless endeavour.” Djurić adds: “He, Mirko, was the first to see that it was already breaking apart and that it made no sense to hold it together. That’s why the Sava Society and the SNO are so important—they were the first to say what was going to happen.” Jović goes on to explain what he perceived during those turbulent times: “In Slovenia and Croatia, the current or proposal for independence had already become the majority; it was clear they did not want a joint state. We saw that international factors had also condemned Yugoslavia to death. We were against Yugoslavia even before the conflict between themselves. We thought Serbia had to be the first to separate and renew its state, and leave all of that behind. Unfortunately, we were the only political option in Serbia in the late 1980s that was opposed to Yugoslavia. All Serbian communists and anti-communists were somehow supporters of Yugoslavia—confederation, some variants or similar. We made it clear we supported amputation. If this had happened, I would like to emphasise, there would have been no armed conflict.”
The Sava Society and the SNO
In July 1988, a group of anti-communist intellectuals formally founded the Sava Society in Nova Pazova, a small town near Belgrade. Among them were Mirko Jović, the painter Milić of Mačva—known as the Serbian Dalí—the poet Matija Bećković, Kosta Čavoški, Vasilije Krestić, Smilja Avramov, Radovan Samardžić, Milica Grković, Radmila Janković, Miloš Janković, and the bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church Atanasije, Amfilohije, and Artemije. As written by its founders, it was a “society for the preservation of historical truth, the Serbian language, Cyrillic script, and the defence of Kosovo and Metohija.” Before its official registration, the society had already been operating clandestinely; it was banned in 1990 and has not been reactivated since. As a point of interest, some of the founders were also actors in the 1989 film The Battle of Kosovo.
Why the name Sava Society? Saint Sava is the patron saint of Serbia—just as Saint James is for Spain, or Saint Wenceslas for the Czechs. Djurić explains why Saint Sava holds such importance for the Serbian people: “In 1221, Saint Sava established Serbia. He crowned his brother, Stefan I. That is why we have the Temple of Saint Sava in Belgrade today, after 800 years. When the Turks arrived, they dismantled that form of statehood. In 1804, Karađorđe organised the uprising, the rebellion, the revolts… to renew the state based on those same principles, where it had once been founded.” Saint Sava’s birth name was Rastko Nemanjić, and he was the youngest son of Stefan Nemanja, the founder of the medieval Serbian Nemanjić dynasty. The uprising Djurić refers to is the First Serbian Uprising against the Ottoman Empire, which forms part of the Serbian Revolution—a historic event also portrayed in Ivo Andrić’s novel The Bridge on the Drina. Djurić also recalls that Serbia became a kingdom again in 1882, having previously been the Principality of Serbia from 1817 to 1882. He goes on to highlight Serbia’s contribution to the First World War, specifically on the Salonika Front, which was highly significant for Central Europe: “The Serbian army broke through the Salonika Front, re-entered Serbia to return home. It also liberated the Croats and Slovenes, defeating the Austro-Hungarian Empire,” the lawyer emphasises. After the First World War, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was born in 1918—popularly known as Yugoslavia, which was officially renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929. Regarding the birth of this Slavic state, both Jović and Djurić believe it marked the beginning of Serbia’s problems, as it involved incorporating people who were not Serbian. Jović, echoing the views of some of my close Czech friends, believes that one of the aims of the war was the dismantling of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Germany, and Russia—in other words, the destruction of the old European order, which had been sustained by agreements between the great powers, most of which were empires. Jović continues: “We wanted to free ourselves from Austria-Hungary and from the Ottoman Empire, since parts of our people lived under each. We were allowed to liberate ourselves, but in the ruins of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia had to be born”. He describes it as a form of blackmail: “You’ll have your freedom—but you must take responsibility for parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire; and in doing so, they swallowed Serbia,” Jović states.
Returning to the Sava Society, the historical leader of the SNO delves deeper into the reasons behind the association’s name. “To show what our ideals and goals were—since Saint Sava founded and laid the foundations of what would become the Serbian Orthodox Church, which is a national church; the Serbian state, its structure and form of organisation; and the civil and social framework of Serbian society. Many claim—even some jurists believe—that the Zakonopravilo, written by Saint Sava, is merely a way to structure the Church. But that’s not the case. It is a kind of constitution, a very good kind of constitution for its time. That is why we founded the Sava Society, inspired by Saint Sava,” Jović explains. Before continuing, let us briefly explain what the Zakonopravilo is. Saint Sava wrote Serbia’s oldest legal text at the beginning of the 13th century, in 1219. To do so, he based it on Byzantine law, which he adapted to the Serbia of his time. The text primarily consisted of ecclesiastical regulations for the Serbian Orthodox Church, and it played a major role in shaping the legal structure of medieval Serbia. It was written shortly after Serbia gained autocephaly for its church—thanks to Saint Sava himself. It is also worth noting that in the 19th century, the Saint Sava Society was founded and remained active from 1886 to 1941. Its founder was the writer and university professor Svetomir Nikolajević. This earlier Sava association aimed to protect Serbian culture within the Ottoman Empire, especially in southern Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Legal documents of this kind were not common in medieval Europe, which is why the Zakonopravilo holds such significance in Serbian history. England also stands out, as in 1215 it produced the Magna Carta, which placed limits on the king’s power. Earlier still, in 1188, the Cortes of León were convened. Through these assemblies, called by King Alfonso IX, three estates were established: the clergy, the nobility, and the towns—which represented the common people. This marked the first instance of popular representation in decision-making, making León the birthplace of parliamentary government. For this reason, UNESCO includes the Cortes of León in its Memory of the World Programme.
In this context, the cultural society continued its activities until it evolved into the SNO on Christmas Eve 1990, also in Nova Pazova. As the small town of Nova Pazova became a focal point of resistance to authoritarianism, it also came to be regarded as the cradle of Serbian democracy. In fact, particular attention should be paid to the following statement by Mikhail Gorbachev, published in the American magazine Newsweek and later cited in the 24 January 1992 issue of the Serbian magazine Intervju: “It all began in a small place near Belgrade.” He made this remark in reference to the political changes that swept across the Eastern Bloc in the late 1980s. It is also worth noting that the SNO took its name from the Serbian National Defence (SNO, by its initials in Serbian), an organisation based in Chicago and founded in 1914.
And why did the Sava Society evolve into the SNO? “When we realised that this movement could not persuade the majority of Serbs, and that there was a need to renew our civil identity, to establish a system of multi-party democracy—because we are in favour of a multi-party system—we developed Sava into the Serbian National Renewal, which was the first non-communist political party within Yugoslav territory,” Jović explains. He also points out that the SNO encouraged both the People’s Radical Party and the Democratic Party to resume their political activities. “These are historic 19th-century parties that were banned under communism, from 1945 onwards,” Jović emphasises.
While it is true that Serbia was gradually moving towards democracy, the reality is that, by the late 1980s, it was still extremely difficult to express one’s opinion freely—especially when it ran so strongly against the dominant narrative, as was the case with the SNO. It must be remembered that Yugoslavia had only just emerged from Tito’s dictatorship and, as with all dictatorships, freedom of expression was virtually non-existent. For this reason, the Sava Society, the SNO, and other opposition movements faced pressure—and even police violence. The historical leader of the SNO recalls: “In the year before the first elections, we paid the price with 500 of our members being arrested. In May 1990, we suffered a proper lynching at the hands of the communists in the town of Vrbas. Under our pressure, the leader of the communists in Serbia, Milošević, between June and July 1990, changed the name of the party and claimed they would return to the socialist ideas that had existed in Serbia before the Second World War.” Jović also explains that between 1881 and 1941, Serbia had socialist movements and parties—but not communist ones: “And they were not anti-national. Between 1941 and 1945, the Communist Party of Serbia was formed through physical violence. It was deeply anti-Serb, anti-democratic, and hostile to both freedom and Serbian identity. Saint Sava was gone, the early laws were gone—everything had been erased. Imagine us founding the Sava Society when the Yugoslav Constitution banned all of that. At that time, we could be arrested—or even executed—at any moment.”
Shortly after the SNO was established, Jović recounts that there were those outside the party who saw the movement as a threat—particularly those opposed to multi-party democracy and to the monarchy. Some of these individuals eventually joined the SNO themselves, causing internal conflict within the party. One of the members and co-founders of the SNO, the writer Vuk Drašković, “tried to destroy the SNO. First, he attempted to take it over; and when he failed to do so or to adapt it to his aims, he created a new one with a similar name: the SPO,” Jović explains. “Of course, the anti-democratic circles supported him—those who ruled Belgrade, Serbia, and so on,” he adds. Vuk Drašković founded the Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO, by its initials in Serbia) in March 1990. He later served as Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia from 2006 to 2007, and previously held the same post in the federation of Serbia and Montenegro from 2004 to 2006.
One of the most distinctive features of the SNO is its support for the Serbian Crown of the Karađorđević dynasty and the restoration of the Serbian monarchy. From the SNO’s perspective—then and now—the monarchy represents a symbol of Serbian identity, and they advocate for a parliamentary monarchy. The SNO also supported renewing ties with Serbia’s traditional allies and the restoration of the Serbian Army. Jović further explains that Yugoslavia isolated Serbia from its traditional allies—such as the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Israel, since the Kingdom of Serbia was the first country to support the Balfour Declaration in 1917. In his view, communist Yugoslavia aligned Serbia with the USSR and prevented any understanding of Serbian history beyond the communist era. Regarding Russia, Jović emphasises that Serbia’s relations with Russia dates back to Imperial Russia—and is not something that arose from the communist period.
“We wanted to return to the Serbian Army, to the traditional way of administering the Serbian state, and to restore the Serbian monarchy. We want genuine democracy, not imitations or variants. Unfortunately, we haven’t achieved this. It is our programme for the entire Serbian people. What pains us is that the Serbian people did not fully understand that this was the only path to development and the future—the survival of our nation. Đinđić understood it, but he was assassinated in 2003. He was eliminated because he posed a threat to the Serbian deep state,” Jović explains. Zoran Đinđić, a member of the social-democratic Democratic Party (PD by its Serbian initials), served as Prime Minister of Serbia from 2001 until his assassination on 12 March 2003.
The House of Karađorđević and the SNO
The Yugoslav royals, Maria Karađorđević—widow of King Alexander I of Yugoslavia, who was assassinated in Marseille in 1934—and their son Peter II, went into exile in London following the Axis invasion in 1941. Before continuing, let us step back a few years. After the death of Alexander I, his son Peter was proclaimed King of Yugoslavia. As he was still a minor, the regency was held by his uncle, Prince Paul Karađorđević. However, Yugoslavia’s signing of the Tripartite Pact with the Axis powers was not supported by many politicians and military officials. As a result, a coup d’état was carried out, ending Paul’s regency and placing Peter II on the throne—despite the fact that he was still underage. Returning now to the Karađorđević family’s exile: the Serbian royal family remained very active among the anti-communist diaspora from 1945 onwards, which suffered numerous attacks and assassinations carried out by the Yugoslav secret police, the State Security Administration (UDBA by its Serbian initials).
The current heir to the Serbian throne, Crown Prince Alexander Karađorđević, and his family returned to Serbia in 2001, and have since resided at the Royal Palace in Belgrade. However, prior to their permanent return to the Balkan country, they had visited Serbia on several occasions. In fact, in 1991, Prince Alexander visited Belgrade with the intention of returning to his homeland, but the Milošević government did not guarantee his safety. At the time, the situation in Yugoslavia was already highly unstable, and he supported a peaceful solution between Serbia and Croatia[1]. However, his efforts were ignored, and the war between Serbia and Croatia escalated.
The SNO’s support for the monarchy was not limited to words alone; it also established cordial ties with the Serbian Royal Family to reinforce the prospect of a monarchical system of government. In fact, in 1990, the president and leader of the SNO, Mirko Jović, visited Crown Prince Alexander in London, marking the first visit by a political party to the Serbian Crown in exile. Moreover, Prince Vladimir Karađorđević, son of Prince Andrej Karađorđević and cousin of the current heir, also travelled to Belgrade in October 1991, where he met with the SNO. In addition to these and other visits, the Karađorđević family also expressed a desire to visit Nova Pazova, as it was there that, for the first time—and quite openly—the restoration of the monarchy was proposed at Christmas in 1990. As a result, Prince Tomislav Karađorđević (brother of King Peter II and uncle of Crown Prince Alexander) and his wife, Princess Linda Karađorđević, spent an entire day in the small town of Nova Pazova, where they were welcomed by locals and SNO members, including Mirko Jović and the painter Milić of Mačva. Others who have visited Nova Pazova include Crown Prince Alexander himself, Prince Vladimir, and Count Alexander Karađorđević.
An interesting fact, particularly for Spanish readers, is that Queen Sofía of Spain is the godmother of Prince Alexander’s son, Prince Filip Karađorđević. Moreover, Queen Sofía attended her godson’s wedding in Belgrade[2] in 2017.
Serbia, present and future
Mirko Jović: «They are the first generation that has protested and said “no. We want to stay here”»
For months now, we have been reading and hearing about the protests in Serbia. Protests that intensified in November 2024, after the collapse of a canopy at a train station in the city of Novi Sad, which tragically claimed the lives of 16 people. However, the situation remains unclear. Some media outlets suggest that the demonstrations in Serbia are masking a colour revolution; others claim the protests stem from Serbia’s growing closeness to Brussels and the Western world under President Aleksandar Vučić. So, what is really going on? The answer is neither another Maidan nor a rejection of EU integration. It is far more complex, and the protests reflect the Serbian people’s deep frustration and exhaustion.
The conversation gradually turns to present-day Serbia. Jović explains that the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS by its initials in Serbian), led by Aleksandar Vučić, initially appeared to support “this idea—one that sought democracy, closer ties with Europe, and the preservation of Serbian identity—but in recent years, we’ve seen the return of figures like Šešelj and others from those circles, pulling the party back toward authoritarian ideas.” He also highlights that, at the beginning, Vučić seemed likely to follow a more democratic path, as the SNS was formed by bringing together figures from across the political spectrum: former members of the Serbian Radical Party (SRS), the Democratic Party, G17Plus, SPO, and several other minor parties. Before we go any further, it is worth unpacking this mix of parties and personalities—and why, politically speaking, Vučić initially inspired some level of trust. In 2008, Aleksandar Vučić and Tomislav Nikolić founded the SNS as a breakaway faction from the ultra-nationalist SRS. The party brought together former members not only of the SRS but also of the social-democratic Democratic Party, among others. This political convergence of ideologically diverse figures who were, in theory, committed to democratic principles and national progress, appeared promising. However, over the years, Vučić’s administration has shown signs of inefficiency, as evidenced by the long-running and persistent waves of public protests. As for the current government: Vučić has been in power since 2014, serving as Prime Minister from 2014 to 2017, and as President from 2017 to the present day. One striking detail about Vučić is that he served as Minister of Information between 1998 and 2000, under Slobodan Milošević’s presidency and the government of Mirko Marjanović. As for Vojislav Šešelj, founder of the SRS, he was Deputy Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia between 1998 and 2000. Jović notes that the SRS is a party that straddles the line between ultranationalism and communism, resembling a form of national communism.
Jović emphasises that those coming from the SRS into Vučić’s new political project were a minority, and therefore he did not believe they had much influence in the government. However, since the protests began—which Jović points out did not start in November last year but in 2023 following a school shooting in Belgrade and the government’s plans to build a lithium mine in the country—people close to the president, such as Šešelij or Ana Brnabić (Serbia’s prime minister from 2017 to 2024), have, according to Jović, tried to scare or persuade the president to lead the country in a somewhat authoritarian manner. “So that what happened to Gaddafi doesn’t happen to you, where people end up lynching you—you have to create a little Belarus,” Jović states. “It’s as if it were so difficult to respond to the demands of teachers and students by fixing the system, both legally and administratively. We have to do it, protests or not. We are no longer in Yugoslavia, we have returned to Serbia, but the type of administration is the same: the principles, the protocols from the 60s and 70s. If we want to be a serious country, we have to improve it, even without these protests,” Jović continues. He stresses that the demonstrations are not only linked to the train station accident in Novi Sad but to widespread dissatisfaction with the current system. “Important matters cannot be decided, and that’s why this crisis exploded. Here in Serbia, mayors are not elected by the people but are placed by the ruling party. It can happen that someone who doesn’t have even 5% support in their city is appointed mayor,” Jović illustrates. Regarding the lithium mine, Jović explains that the local population was not taken into account in carrying out the project. “It’s a very fertile region, with clean waters and forests. It’s not a desert; it’s not like nobody lives there. The Drina River runs through the area, with branches that end in Belgrade. The local people could not decide whether they wanted it or not, which would have been logical. Even the local government of the town of Loznica was pressured, though it resigned—despite being close to Vučić—because it did not want to accept the mine, as it goes against the interests of the people living there,” Jović explains. In 2004, lithium and boron reserves were discovered in the Jadar Valley, located in western Serbia. Since then, the Anglo-Australian company Rio Tinto has shown great interest in carrying out a mining project in the Balkan country. Vučić’s government also supported this mining plan. However, following protests by locals, students, and Serbs in general, the project was halted in 2022. But in July 2024, the government announced it would resume the project[3]. Rio Tinto maintains that the mining complex will not cause significant environmental damage.
Jović maintains that the reforms demanded by the students should have already been implemented during Milošević’s era and under other governments. He emphasises that Đinđić tried to do so “and wanted to modernise the administration,” but he didn’t have time because he was assassinated. Additionally, he highlights that a large part of the Serbian people has emigrated. The Serbian diaspora is present both in European countries and in the USA and Australia. Jović is surprised that the government does not understand why young people are protesting. “A few years ago, there were posters around the city from private universities saying ‘finish your studies and get out’,” he points out. «They are the first generation that has protested and said ‘no. We want to stay here and raise our families here. Develop here, but we don’t want this kind of system that forces us to leave,” » Jović stresses. The leader of the SNO holds that, at first, the protesters, mostly students, were not even demanding political change, only justice and for the administrative system to be effective. He also explains that there are those close to the government who try to discredit the protests by arguing they are aimed against the state and intend to destroy it. At the same time, he notes that there are “enemies of democracy” infiltrated within the protests, but they are a minority.
And what is the proposal of Jović and the SNO in response to this situation of ongoing protests? “That decision be made through democratic elections. The students are calling for elections and Vučić is running away from them. We propose a roundtable, where groups from both the Government and the opposition can meet and hold a debate. Currently, in Serbia, the largest opposition group are the students and those around them. They are not formally organised as a political proposition, but it is clear to everyone that it is a significant popular movement. What they lack is development into a political option. We have some groups whose youth wings are among the students. They are not the most important factor among the students and young people, but they do exist. Apart from the roundtable, we propose that all opposition groups agree on a date for the elections. This date does not have to be tomorrow; it can be within a year, but it must be respected and a professional electoral commission must be formed—made up of professionals and the State too—so that the elections are not a sham where votes can be bought, rigged, and so on, but where the real will of the Serbian people is respected,” Jović asserts. He also points out the difficulties Serbians abroad face when trying to vote. For example, in the USA, the Serbian Embassy places a ballot box for voting, but those who want to participate have to travel to the Embassy, which entails a cost in time and money. Jović believes this could be improved through postal voting or technological advances. On the other hand, he also emphasises that the SNO supports deputies being elected directly by the people, which would be direct democracy. Jović highlights that those in the SNO, which was reactivated in 2024, are not seeking to make a living from politics, as they already have their professional lives settled. Their interest in politics comes “because we love Serbia” and want to work for the good of their country.
Likewise, Jović emphasises that the students are very intelligent and protest peacefully; however, he warns that there are infiltrators among their ranks who seek confrontation with the State and have even mentioned the possibility of a civil war. Regarding these infiltrators, Vuk M. Janković, a politologist and international analyst, Serbian from Barcelona, and grandson of two of the founders of the Sava Society and the SNO, also notes—over coffee in another café—that some NGOs tried to participate in the protests, but the students expelled them. In fact, if we look at photographs of the demonstrations in Serbia, there are no symbols considered Western, such as EU flags; on the contrary, there are Serbian flags, Orthodox symbols, and even some flags asserting Kosovo as part of Serbia. Furthermore, I had the opportunity to speak with common people in Belgrade. People, by the way, who were very kind and willing to talk with me. These individuals also expressed their discontent with the current situation in Serbia, which has been ongoing for several years.
Regarding Serbia’s position on the international and European stage, Jović understands that there are people in Serbia who oppose the current EU; however, he cannot comprehend those who are against Europe altogether and believe that national problems and unresolved territorial issues “must be solved through conflict with the West or the EU.” He points out that there are factions within Serbia promoting closer ties with the BRICS countries and distancing themselves from the EU. Nevertheless, Jović maintains that Serbia can only resolve its problems in cooperation with the West and recalls that the only Serbian victory during the long 1990s war was the creation of the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was one of the outcomes of the Dayton Agreement in 1995. He also emphasises that Russia participated in those agreements alongside the EU and the USA. Regarding Republika Srpska, Jović explains that before the war there were four million Serbs “in that small Serbian territory in Bosnia”; but due to the war, displacement, emigration, and other factors, today there are fewer than two million Serbs living in Bosnia. When discussing the reduction of the Serbian population in Bosnia, Djurić also wants to recall the Serbs who were killed and displaced during the Second World War by the Independent State of Croatia (NDH, by its initials in Croatian), a fascist state allied and puppet to Nazi Germany. The Ustasha regime carried out a genocide against the Serbs. “Between half a million and one million Serbs were killed. Half a million were displaced, half a million converted to Catholicism and were Croatised during the Second World War,” Djurić clarifies. It is worth mentioning that the four million Serbs who lived in Bosnia also lived within the NDH, which comprised present-day Croatia and Bosnia. Why did the Serbs need, and still need, a state in Bosnia? They feared expulsion or another fate similar to what happened in Croatia. It is also worth recalling the 1995 Croatian Operation Storm, which caused the displacement of Serbs from the Krajina region, a Croatian area with a Serbian majority. Currently, there are around one hundred thousand Serbs in neighbouring Croatia. Returning to Republika Srpska, Jović does not consider the stubborn confrontation of its president, Milorad Dodik, with the West to be wise, nor his exclusive reliance on Russia. “If we engage in real politics, we believe Russia can help us as it did with Dayton and Republika Srpska. That is, along with others,” Jović declares. He argues that Dodik should not project “a kind of Kaliningrad that Russia would defend to the death. It is an illusion.” To illustrate this, Jović cites the cases of Iran and Syria. “I see from this example that even here the Russians would not get involved; they would cook us like the Syrians. Look at Syria’s fate: ten million displaced, the country devastated, and the president in exile,” Jović emphasises. He also points out that Dodik is slowing Bosnia and Herzegovina’s EU accession because “he scares them with Russia, but without real support, just bluster.” On the other hand, he adds: “Of course, they (Brussels) will support Muslim Sarajevo before us. It is interesting that the Muslims, who are neither Christian nor proponents of Western civilisation, are Brussels’ choice, and not the Serbs.” He also recalls that during the Austrian Empire, Serbs had their representatives in Vienna, so it would not be unreasonable for them to be in Brussels now. Jović delves further into Serbia’s geopolitical situation to clarify his view of Russia, which is neither supportive nor opposed. He explains that after the 1990s war and the Dayton Agreement, it became clear that the Balkans would fall under Western influence, “more specifically between the EU and NATO, and more openly between the USA and the United Kingdom.” He continues by saying that 30 years have passed since the Dayton Agreement, and “the political, economic, media, sports, educational structure…” is already embedded in Serbia. Therefore, he believes it is madness to try to leave something so deeply rooted. “Our motorways, the Western companies that come here… it is clear there is an agreement. Even the most Russophile have seen that Russia withdrew from here a long time ago, that it has been agreed this European part should remain as it is. Just like the agreement they reached regarding Syria to withdraw from the region,” Jović concludes the Russian question.
After this, Jović insists that the goal of the old SNO was not to have a large representation in parliament or government, but to make Serbia progress towards genuine democracy. At the same time, he emphasises the importance of remembering Serbian roots and culture, thus advocating patriotism. He highlights that the SNO wants to return to the European, Christian, and democratic tradition. Furthermore, they are in favour of joining the EU; however, he stresses that if Serbia does not become part of the EU, those who oppose the EU must be realistic if they truly care about the Serbian people and cannot ignore what he has explained about Russia. For this reason, “we are supporters of making a living within the European order,” Jović adds. Although he disagrees with several measures and steps taken by the current EU, he values the approach and accession to the EU as something positive. What he criticises about Brussels is the increasing loss of sovereignty it imposes on member states. For example, on issues such as immigration or the war in Ukraine. He points out that countries with a communist past, such as Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary, are the ones who most oppose Brussels on these matters; these are countries that fought to escape communist totalitarianism and to preserve their culture. Consequently, he is against the EU becoming a superstate one day. He adds that Brussels’ centralism increasingly diminishes the identity of member states, which is why he stresses the importance of preserving Western values and the traditions of different countries. “Countries like Spain must be allowed to be Spain,” Jović exemplifies. “If Spaniards had been told they were going to admit so many Muslims and Africans, they would not have accepted it,” he emphasises. Besides this, he is also unconvinced by the EU because it is not clear who really elects the leaders of the supranational organisation and who makes the decisions, often against national interests. In summary, Jović and the SNO support the EU, but a Union “that respects countries,” from their sovereignty to their identity and culture. Regarding the European parliamentary group the SNO would join, he states it would be the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, to which, for example, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni belongs.
The thread of the conversation continues to lengthen, and we arrive at globalism. Jović states that, of course, there must be agreements and understanding between different states, “but the problem lies with those who have globalism as their ideology.” He fears that we may reach a point where there are no states at all, only large city-states or centralised confederations where people have no say and everything is extremely centralised. “The obstacle to that is the old European countries,” Jović emphasises. “Those for whom globalism is an ideology have significant influence in Brussels and Beijing. That’s where it’s happening. Globalists seem to like China for some reason,” Jović remarks. He also argues that opponents of globalism have gained ground in the US, where globalism was implemented much earlier than in Europe, once they realised where they were being led – and it certainly wasn’t to a fantasy world.
That said, after this excellent conversation, Mirko Jović makes it clear that he is someone committed to democracy and the progress of his country. He does not mind whether those who truly want to achieve this come from a social-democratic background, the traditional left, or from others on the conservative wing like himself. He also acknowledges both the mistakes and successes of past leaders who, in some way, plunged Serbia and Yugoslavia into a long war in the 1990s. He is a person without hatred, willing to talk to everyone in order to resolve the problems facing the country. Why is he a conservative? Because he wants to preserve Serbian culture and values, and thus understands the monarchy as an important symbol of Serbian identity. Furthermore, by preserving Serbian culture, he will also help to conserve Western culture, especially in this world stripped of our culture and history, to which some want to lead us — because Serbia is Europe, despite not being a member of the EU. Protecting your culture and remembering your country’s history, with all its lights and shadows, is considered backward in some Western European countries. At the same time, the new left has distorted the term “progress”, which they (the new leftists) no longer associate with prosperity and development, but rather with debauchery — which has nothing to do with freedom. On the contrary, Mirko Jović does stand for the development of his beloved homeland, while refusing to allow globalism to destroy it. He is also a realist, who observes what has happened in Syria and does not want Serbia to suffer a possible abandonment by Russia, despite the “crazy EU”, as he says with a laugh to keep from crying.
Serbia’s history goes back hundreds of years, like that of many European countries. It is also a nation that has suffered greatly and has been bombed four times: by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914, by Germany in 1941, by the Allies in 1944, and by NATO in 1999. Today, the situation it faces is not easy either, and young Serbs are simply asking for a system that works, so they don’t have to leave their country in search of a better life. The protests also show that the Serbian people are awake and are demanding that their politicians do their job properly — which is none other than to serve the people. In Spain, sadly, we seem to have become used to one corruption scandal after another and/or to constant failures on the part of the government — whether central or regional — and we no longer protest about anything. That is why it is encouraging to know that the Serbian people are determined to fight for their country. These demonstrations are, above all else, Serbian. If someone from outside tries to take advantage of the country’s discontent to steer it in one direction or another, that’s a different story. Although, on the other hand, I do understand why some believe that behind these protests lies a colour revolution — it would not be the first time; we have seen many colour revolutions and Arab Springs. Let’s hope that what continues to drive these demonstrations is truly the Serbian people, as they are the only ones with the legitimacy to decide their country’s path: both its present and its future.
Mirko Jović: reflections on the end of Yugoslavia and the long Serbian road © 2025 by Celia Pérez Carrascosa is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
[1] Crown Prince arrives in badly split Yugoslavia 06.10.1991 Carlos J. Williams, Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-10-06-mn-494-story.html
[2] La Reina Sofía acude finalmente a la boda de su ahijado en Serbia Consuelo Font 09.19.2017, El Mundo https://www.elmundo.es/loc/casa-real/2017/10/09/59db3eb2268e3ee1618b45b3.html
[3] Serbia retoma el plan de Río Tinto para construir la mayor mina de lito pese al impacto ambiental 17.06.2024 Euronews https://es.euronews.com/2024/06/17/serbia-retoma-el-plan-de-rio-tinto-para-construir-la-mayor-mina-de-litio-pese-al-impacto-a
