“THE DOUBLE OF THE STATE” MODEL IN CULTURAL POLICY OF SERBIA (1971-2021)

Vesna Đukić

Abstract

The subject of the paper is the “State Double” model, which has been developed by the dissident intellectual elite in the cultural policy of Serbia during the last fifty years, expressing disagreement with the ruling political and cultural currents.

The aim of this paper is to determine the correlation between this informal model and the official models of cultural policies in the period from 1971 to 2021. The research includes an analysis of the “Arm’s length” model of “self-government in culture” of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and state models of “blocked transition” with variations in the period of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and the Republic of Serbia (RS).

The results of the historical-comparative analysis showed that despite the theoretical differences between the “arm’s length” and “state” models of cultural policies, in practice the symbiosis of bureaucracy in public administration and the network of political parties, civil organizations, media and cultural and artistic elite operating within the dissident subcultural model. Thus, in the field of culture, a third model was created, which we called “the double of the state” model in cultural policy of Serbia.

The results of the research clearly indicate the continuity of the “double state”, but also the ambivalence of this model towards the state and government. We follow the phenomenon from the parastate model of self-governing cultural policy directed “against the monopoly of power” through dissident subcultural model цреатеcreated by intellectuals, cultural and artistic elite who were excluded from public life due to their undesirable ideological attitudes (1971-1975). Then we see how the previous model is transformed into a state model of “blocked transition in culture” which blocks the process of strategic conceptualization of democratic transition and consolidation of cultural system in two phases (1989-2000, 2000-2012). Finally, after the loss of power (2012), the “double state” through the subversive question “how much does the national interest cost” moves backwards “against the monopoly of power”. This closes the circle of ambivalence of the “double state” which, after 50 years of the “Congress of Cultural Action”, led to the reaffirmation of the idea of ​​a parastate model of self-government in culture corrected and adapted to the new situation. Thus, we see that the dissident subcultural model of the political, intellectual, cultural and artistic elite in Serbia tends to become dominant (mainstream), but due to its subversive and alternative nature, it remains committed to its dissident character even when its members are in power or close to power. The dissident character is reflected in the contact cultural action against the “undesirable” values ​​of the dominant cultural model.

This ideological dimension of dissident tutoring brings us to another characteristic of the “double state” model, which is reflected in the attitude towards the democratization of the cultural system. In this sense, dissidents first advocate the idea that society with its new achievements, democratization and self-government should remove restrictions on freedom of creation, and the results of research on transitional cultural policy in Serbia show that the “double state” and when it comes to power creation. Thus, we see that the dissident way of thinking is always the opposition of the government. Even in power, dissidents do not show responsibility for the democratization of the cultural system and the freedom of creativity of many different social groups that develop their own subcultural models. They remain committed only to the dissident subcultural model which, with the help of cultural policy instruments, seeks to transform it into a dominant cultural model. It is absurd that the restrictions on democratization and freedom of creativity are set by the intellectual, cultural and artistic elite, which by definition should encourage cultural diversity, the spirit of tolerance, intercultural dialogue and free cultural and artistic development. This is especially so because theoretical models in practice do not exist in pure form because the permeability between cultural models in practice is such that the audience moves freely from model to model.

When permeability is blocked and freedom of movement between cultural models is restricted for ideological reasons, we encounter undemocratic models of cultural decision-making. Since the model of cultural policy that we have called the “double state” is restrictive in its direction, it cannot be called true, but pseudo-cultural policy. It is only a step different from repressive anti-cultural policy.

References

• Anderson, James E. 1994. Public policymaking. 2nd ed. Princeton NJ:Houghton Mifflin.
• Andjelković, Nataša. 2022. Jugoslavija i Tito: Edvard Kardelj, otac samoupravnog socijalizma, deo velike četvorke, izabrani naslednik Broza i veliki ljubitelj klasike, BBC news na srpskom, 27.januar 2022. Poslednji pristup 21. mart 2022. https://www.bbc.com/serbian/lat/balkan-60124395.
• Antonić, Slobodan. 2013. Pink tranzicija u Srbiji. Kultura, br. 140. Beograd: Zavod za proučavanje kulturnog razvitka.
• Antonić, Slobodan. 2021. Antonić: Goran Marković – umetnik i klasni idiot. Novosti 19.12.2021. Poslednji pristup 25. decembar 2021. https://www.novosti.rs/c/kultura/vesti/1067645/slobodan-antonic-goran-markovic-umetnik-klasni-idiot.
• Dnevnik. Novi Sad dobitnik nagrade za najbolji evropski trend brend, 2021. Dnevnik 11.11.2021. Poslednji pristup 11. decembar 2021. https://www.dnevnik.rs/novi-sad/novi-sad-dobitnik-nagrade-za-najboli-kulturni-evropski-trend-brend-11-11-2021 .
• Dostanić, Dušan, „prev.” 2021. Panajotis Kondilis: „Nacija” u planetarnom dobu.” Srpska politička misao, posebno izdanje (5): 85-89. doi: 10.22182/spm.specijal2021.5.
• Dragićević Šešić, Milena i Stojković Branimir. 2011. Kultura menadžment, animacija, marketing. Beograd: Klio.
• Dragićević Šešić, Milena. 2018. Umetnost i kultura otpora. Beograd: FDU, Clio.
• Dulić, Jasminka D. 2015. Konzervativne orjentacije i stranačke preferencije. Srpska politička misao 48 (2): 153‒172, posebno izdanje. doi: 10.22182/spm.specijal2015/2.7.
• Đukić Dojčinović, Vesna. 2003. Tranzicione kulturne politike – konfuzije i dileme. Beograd: Zadužbina Andrejević.
• Đukić, Vesna. 2010. Država i kultura, studije savremene kulturne politike. Beograd: Fakultet dramskih umetnosti.Đukić, Vesna. 2011. „Pet razloga u prilog doživotnog učenja.” Dositeus: razvoj lјudskih resursa u kulturi. Dragićević Šešić, Milena ur. Beograd: Akademika, Res publika.
• Đukić, Vesna. 2013. „Programi političkih stranaka i kulturna politika u Srbiji.ˮ U Zbornik radova FDU, 169-180. Beograd: Fakultet dramskih umetnosti.
• Đukić, Vesna. 2017. „Politički mit vs pravoslavna kultura: formatiranje narativa o ʼnebeskoj Srbiji.” Zbornik radova Fakulteta dramskih umetnosti, 141–161. Beograd: FDU.
• Đukić, Vesna. 2021. „U potrazi za smislom: narativi o spomeniku Stefanu Nemanji.ˮ Transmedijalno pripovedanje i digitalno mapiranje: istorija, identitet, sećanje, tematski zbornik, ur. dr Nevena Daković, dr Ksenija Radulović, dr Ljiljana Rogač Mijatović, 155-169. Beograd: FDU.
• Zakon o samoupravnim interesnim zajednicama kulture. 1974. „Službeni glasnik RS” broj 48/74).
• Hadnađ, I. 2021. Apsurd Gorana Vesića bio inspiracija za zbornik „Beograd u rupi, rupa u Beogradu.” Danas, 10.12.2021. Poslednji pristup 17. decembar 2021. https://www.danas.rs/vesti/drustvo/apsurd-gorana-vesica-bio-inspiracija-za-zbornik-beograd-u-rupi-rupa-u-beogradu/.
• Jovanović, Natalija. 2018. Novi Sad 2021: privatna prestonica kulture. Birn.rs, 08.03.2018. Poslednji pristup 5. decembar 2021. https://birn.rs/novi-sad-2021-privatna-prestonica-kulture/.
• Kisić, Višnja, Subotić, Irina. 2020. Vrednovanje nasleđa margine, kultura sećanja i studije nasleđa u radovima prof. Milene Dragićević Šešić. „Putevi menadžmenta u kulturi: od obrazovanja do profesije”, Kultura, ur. Vesna Đukić i Ljiljana Rogač Mijatović, 201-220. Beograd: Zavod za proučavanje kulturnog razvitka.
• Komarčević, Dušan. 2013. Predstava „Konstantin: znamenje anđela” ili netransparentnosti, Slobodna Evropa 28. februar 2013, Poslednji pristup 20. decembar 2021. https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/predstava-konstantin-znamenje-andjela-ili-netransparentnosti/24915692.html .
• Kostić, Slobodan. 2012. „Zašto je smenjen direktor Narodne biblioteke”. VREME 25.1.2012. Poslednji pristup 25. decembar 2021. https://www.vreme.com/vreme/zasto-je-smenjen-upravnik-narodne-biblioteke/.
• Kralј, M. 2021. „Ušće opet u ćorsokaku.” Novosti 3.9.2015. Poslednji pristup 25. decembar 2021. https://www.novosti.rs/vesti/kultura.71.html%3A565579-Usce-opet-u-corsokaku.
• Kuljić, Todor. Jugoslovensko radničko samoupravljanje, Transversal, 8. 2005. Poslednji pristup 20. januar 2022. https://transversal.at/transversal/0805/kuljic/sr.
• Lončar, Jelena. 2012. Politike identiteta i kvalitet života u izbornoj kampanji političkih stranaka 2012. Javne politike u izbornoj ponudi – izbori i formiranje vlasti u Srbiji, Stoilјković Zoran, Dušan Spasojević, Jelena Lončar, Ana Stoilјković. Beograd: Konrad-Adenauer-Štiftung.
• Marković, Goran. 2020. Samoupravljanje u Jugoslaviji, kad proljeće porani, Online časopis Novi plamen 22.12.2020. Poslednji pristup 21. januar 2022. https://www.noviplamen.net/glavna/samoupravljanje-u-jugoslaviji-kad-proljece-porani/.
• Mihajlović, Branka. 2012. „Predstava o ubistvu Zorana Đinđića uzburkala Srbiju”, Slobodna Evropa, 23. maj 2012. Poslednji pristup 19. decembar 2021. https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/zoran-djindjic-ponovo-medjusrbima/24590435.html.
• Mihalјinac, Nina. 2021. Na šta mislimo kada kažemo…Nove kulturne politike. Beograd: Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju; Institut za demokratski angažman jugoistočne Evrope.
• Milanović, Branko. 2020. Milton Friedman i samoupravljanje, Peščanik, 5.11.2020. Poslednji pristup 13. januar 2022. https://pescanik.net/milton-friedman-i-samoupravljanje/.
• Molar, Klod. 2000. Kulturni inženjering. Beograd: Clio.
• Neš, Kejt. 2006. Savremena politička sociologija, globalizacija, politika i moć. Beograd: Službeni glasnik.
• Nikšić, Marija i Vojislav Marković. 1984. Samoupravne interesne zajednice, uvodne napomene, Informacije, Savez KPZ Jugoslavije, Beograd, br. 129, 31. maj 1984.
• Novi Sad 2022. 2021. Novom Sadu i nagrada za najuspešnije prestonice kulture, Novi Sad 2022, 6.12.2021. Poslednji pristup 19. decembar 2021. https://novisad2022.rs/novi-sad-nagrada-melina-merkuri/.
• Paunović, Vladimir. 2018. Četiri i po godine konfuzne tišine, analiza zaborava na Kongres kulturne akcije metodom usmene istorije. Kultura 161: 186-200. doi: 10.5937/kultura1861186P.
• Politika. 2020. Tema jugoslovenstva nije mrtva. Politika 1.12.2020. Poslednji pristup 19. decembar 2021. https://www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/467954/Region/Tema-jugoslovenstva-nije-mrtva .
• Portal za kulturu jugoistočne evrope See cult. 2017. „Završna javna rasprava o Predlogu strategije razvoja kulture 2017-2027”, See cult, 30.09.2017. Poslednji pristup 18. decembar 2021. http://www.seecult.org/vest/zavrsna-javna-rasprava-o-predlogu-strategije-razvoja-kulture-2017-2027.
• Prnjat, Branko. 1986. Kulturna politika i kulturni razvoj. Beograd: Savremena administracija.
• Radojičić, Zoran. 2021. „Beograd uskoro dobija još pet zaštićenih kulturno istorijskih celina.” Blic 07.12.2021. Poslednji pristup 19. decembar 2021. https://www.blic.rs/vesti/beograd/beograd-uskoro-dobija-jos-pet-zasticenih-kulturno-istorijskih-celina/76yjm78.
• Stoilјković, Zoran. 2012. Izborna obećanja i postizborna realnost: javne politike u izbornoj ponudi u Srbiji. Javne politike u izbornoj ponudi – izbori i formiranje vlasti u Srbiji, Stoilјković, Zoran, Dušan Spasojević, Jelena Lončar, Ana Stoilјković. Beograd: Konrad-Adenauer-Štiftung.
• Stojković, Branimir. 2010. Kulturna politika i slaba država, Kvalitet političkih institucija, priredio Vukašin Pavlović, Beograd: Fakultet političkih nauka, str. 129‒143.
• Ustav Republike Srbije, „Službeni glasnik RS”, br. 98/06.
• Vlada Republike Srbije. 2021. Strateški prioriteti razvoja kulture 2021-2025. Poslednji pristup 5. januar 2022. https://www.kultura.gov.rs/tekst/sr/6129/strateski-prioriteti-razvoja-kulture.php.
• Young, Eoin, Quinn, Lisa. 2002, Writing Effective Public Policy Papers, a guide for Policy Advisers in Central and Easter Europe. Budapest: Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, Open Society Institut.
• Zakon o delatnostima od opšteg interesa u oblasti kulture. 1992. „Službeni glasnik RS”, br.49/92.
• Zakon o kulturi [ZK], „Službeni glasnik RS” br. 72 od 3. septembra 2009, 13 od 19. februara 2016, 30 od 23. marta 2016 – ispravke, 6 od 24. januara 2020, 47 od 10. maja 2021, 78 od 3. avgusta 2021. Jovandić, Matija. 2020. Uloga glumaca u srpskoj demokratskoj revoluciji. Nova S, 19.oktobar 2020. Poslednji pristup 5. decembar 2021. https://nova.rs/kultura/glumci-u-politici-glavni-na-sceni-epizodisti-u-skupstini/.
• Аtelje 212. 2012. Repertoar, predstava „Zoran Đinćićˮ, 18. maj 2012. Poslednji pristup 29. januar  2022. https://atelje212.rs/predstave/%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD-%D1%92%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%92%D0%B8%D1%9B/.