Y Kosovo.... ¿mereció la pena la independencia?

Hacía algún tiempo que estaba yo buscando algo semejante a una explicación, muy clara y muy breve, sobre este proceso secesionista ocurrido no hace mucho en Europa.

Sugiero la lectura (aquí). Enjoy.

That's why we cannot believe in polls before going to vote... The case of Serbia


I've posted before something about serbian elections and considering the political landscape, I confess that I was surprised with the results of the ballots...

With the victory of Tomislav Nikolic in the presidential election, Serbia expects a period of political uncertainty. The ultranationalist Nikolic has a huge challenge to deal with: the corruption and Kosovo. Above of it, not all the servians are agree with this new pro-Europe direction of Nikolic, preferring sometimes a rapproachement with Russia, or both.

Nikolic’s name is strongly associated with the bloody break-up of the former Yugoslavia. He was in power when Serb forces expelled almost a million ethnic Albanians from Kosovo.

Nikolic refuses to recognise Kosovo’s independence, a position which is at odds with joining the EU. 

The former president and EU favourite Boris Tadic had begun the process of joining the EU in March. Despite his loss, Tadic’s pro-EU party have announced they will form a coalition with the Socialists in the wake of separate parliamentary polls. This could effectively leave Nikolic as a president without any real power.

Another unstable country to our european list...

A "forced" second round in Serbia: Why is so difficult to go to the ballots?

Sometimes I ask myself why people don't want to go to vote in the elections. This simple - but important - question is more frequent mainly in countries with a huge or significative past of authoritarian political regimes. I don't know if the lack of interest in politics can trully make people going to vote reluctantly, but sure there's some kind of impact in it. In these cases, citizens just forget all the fight for the right to vote, and quit going to vote.

The non-participation rates in the ballots depend on the country and also on the current political and economical situation. But in my opinion, untrue majorities can't be democratic. In spite of being a right of each citizen expressing their will with their vote, not always simple majority is democratic. Serbia can be mentioned as an example.

Last Sunday the presidential elections were held in Serbia, a complicated country with an intense political past (old Yugoslavia and recently involved in Kosovo's war). The voters participated with no hope for changes, mainly considering the fragile economical situation of the country. The elections produced conflicting results. The incumbent president, Boris Tadic (who received 26,7% of the votes), came out narrowly ahead of his more nationalist challenger, Tomislav Nikolic (25,5%) in the key contest for the presidency, meaning that the two candidates will stage a run-off in a fortnight. As you may see, the participation in the ballots was just a 58,7% out of the voters, and comparing with 2008 elections, this percentage decreased (61,3% in the last election).

But in the parliamentary ballot, Nikolic's Progressive party beated Tadic's Democrats into second place, according to partial vote counts. The result appeared to leave the third-placed Socialists, party of the late war crimes suspect and president Slobodan Milosevic, as king-maker, with its leader, Ivica Dacic, tipped to be the new prime minister.

Despite of the worries about staging the elections in the breakaway country of Kosovo, the balloting there passed off without much incidents.

The question is: can be considered a 58,7% of the voters a majority? It doesn't matter if is only the first round, but.... Is this democratic? I have my own doubts...

Well, just in case, I'll leave here a classic serbian song, because I really like their rhythm...   I hope you like it too...