Parliamentary Boycotts in the Western Balkans: Case Study, Serbia

Abstract

This case study describes the boycotts of parliament in Serbia since the multi-party elections in 1990, with a special focus on the 2019 boycott, as well as the main reasons behind and the effects of these boycotts. The research used the data from the literature and newspapers about the parliamentary boycotts from 1990 to 2019, the Open Parliament Initiative data on the conditions in parliament in the current session, as well as the original data obtained on the 2019 boycott through a survey of MPs and opinion polling. Our study shows that boycotts in Serbia are not a frequent phenomenon. The ethnic minority parties first started boycotts of parliament as early as the first multi-party elections in 1990. The first boycott of parliament by a nationwide group of opposition parties was in 1995 and was caused by the ending of live broadcasts of parliamentary sessions. On two occasions a single opposition party boycotted parliament for a prolonged period of time in 2000 and 2005. Finally, the 2019 boycott of parliament is only the fourth identified boycott, and the most radical since 1995. Due to the importance and the relevance of the ongoing boycott, we focus on the conditions in the 2016 parliament, especially the blocking of the minority’s role in the legislative and oversight functions of parliament, as well as the specific phenomenon of majority filibustering, effectively disabling the debate about the laws, which became a permanent feature in parliament from December 2017. The 2019 boycott was in the making since the “boycott of warning” in May 2017; however it accelerated from autumn 2018 in the context of mass protests and the formation of a coalition of opposition parties. Out of 88 opposition MPs, 55 MPs participate in the boycott. They explain their decision in terms of dissatisfaction with parliament’s performance and the reaction to the demands of the protesters. Their primary stated aim is to put pressure on the majority and change practices in parliament. However, polling in March 2019 showed that support for the boycott is not as widespread in the general public. Boycotts in Serbia usually occur in circumstances of pronounced power asymmetry between the majority government and the opposition minority. Boycotts are primarily a means for the minority to resolve the inability to communicate their messages to their voters through parliament. They usually happen in conjunction with other political developments, such as elections, mass protests and the formation of opposition party coalitions. As such, they are a product of the need to attain both internal (fixing parliamentary procedures) and external (mobilising voters) goals. In the Serbian experience they usually lack a clear strategy and do not escalate over time. As for the effects, in the short term, the effects on the legal/regulative environment are not significant. The boycotts might however have some effects in institutional terms, particularly on the legitimacy of appointees by parliament. The majority usually responds initially to the boycotts with disdain, however it might ultimately respond to the demands of the minority. The support for the boycotts is mixed in the electorate, and very low among international political actors. Finally, if prolonged/escalated, or continued into an election boycott, the boycott of parliament might lead to either further marginalisation of opposition actors or of parliament itself.