The three days of the librarian

RS always cared deeply about libraries.

Probably you could say that the situation began with a ceremony: the 20-year anniversary of Republika Srpska. Twenty years, you say? But didn’t Republika Srpska become a legal entity with the Dayton peace accord in 1995? Is this a mathematical error? No, it was the point of the ceremony. People gathered to listen to an argument that RS became a legal entity when the deputies who walked out the Bosnian parliament and their friends decided to say it was. The implication is that RS is not the product of an ugly genocidal war that ended in a peace agreement that guaranteed a permanent hold on power to criminals, but the product of a parliamentary act that produced a legal entity that just defended itself, didn’t it, in places like Omarska, Keraterm, Trnopolje and Srebrenica.

That is to say, the ceremony was an effort by the people currently holding power in RS to show that they have the ability to produce a new history free of all that pesky guilt and genocide. The current representatives of the state that sponsored the effort – Serbian president Boris Tadić, patriarch Irinej of the Serbian Orthodox Church – tagged along to give the effort the blessing of political authority and God. And just to be sure that Mr Tadić stayed tagged along, they gave him a medal – one that had been awarded earlier to such criminal worthies as Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić.

But there were problems. One problem is that, contrary to stories about the unity of the Serbian people that come both from people who like the idea and from people who don’t, not everybody in Serbia is happy to be associated with crimes and the falsification of history. In fact there are a lot of people who do not, who criticized the ceremony and who argued that Mr Tadić was dishonouring the state and undoing the good work of the past few years by taking the medal in the process. The other problem might not be real. There may have been, and may not have been, some explosives planted in the hall where the ceremony took place. They may have been, and may not have been, planted by this fellow who works in the hall but is better known for working for State Security. The patsy may have been, and may not have been, motivated by political concerns. If you were cynical, you might say that there is an ongoing effort to make Mr Tadić fear that his life is constantly under threat from the nationalist right and try his best not to disappoint them. If you were very cynical, you might say that this explains the publicity that was given to some vague warnings of a conspiracy like the ones that were delivered by some weirdo diaspora astrologer from Chicago the following week.

We are talking about societies that pay attention to intellectuals! So in step the writers to make things worse, in the form of Andrej Nikolaidis, a reasonably well known novelist and essayist who is also, hardly incidentally, counsellor for culture to the president of the Montenegrin parliament. Mr Nikolaidis has good intentions: he wants to argue that the RS ceremony shows that there is still a group of intellectuals who have not stopped promoting the Greater Serbia project of the 1990s. He wants to argue that this kind of megalomania suits a small group of people who profit from it and not many other people. He wants to advance the idea that the difficulties people are facing in their lives derive from the fact that a small group of profiteers displaced the dear old class struggle and papered it over with their invented national one.

So let’s say that Mr Nikolaidis is an okay guy. But at the same time, he likes to be a provocateur. His long court fight over whether he slandered the agitfilm director Emir Kusturica has just ended, successfully for Mr Nikolaidis. At the same time, he seems a bit unclear on the fact that being a provocateur and being a state official are two interests that go together pretty badly. Also he seems be okay with the fact that his metaphors run away from him sometimes. So he writes an article setting forward his views, and it contains in it these provocative lines:

“It would be a step forward for civilisation if Bole [the suspected attacker] had used the dynamite and rifles he had hidden in the hall where the leaders, spiritual guides and artists celebrated the twentieth anniversary of RS. If Bole were, for example, a dissatisfied worker who understood that national religious antagonisms are just masks behind which the elite hides the basic antagonism of every society, the class struggle. If Bole had said, for example, I am a Serb but I am also a worker, so I will blow up the people who robbed me — wouldn’t that be an advance for civilisation? More than that, it would be poetic justice.

But that is the sad difference between fiction and reality: fiction, in contrast with reality, has a point.” 

 Look – the article is a badly written and badly reasoned piece. I think he is trying to say that it would be nice if some kind of genuine socially based political resistance existed in the region but that he thinks it does not, and he is phrasing it with what he thinks is witheringly effective bitter irony. But this is a conclusion I reached after rereading the piece several times and talking to a lot of people about it. The conclusion is not so obvious and it is definitely not shared by everybody. Rule #1 of writing in public: if you are advancing a theme where you know that some people might object, you had better make sure that you are clear about what you are saying and that you are not leaving room for people to accuse you of saying something else. Break Rule #1 and your provocation will leave people saying not “so clever!” but “this looks like support for murder”.

That’s exactly what happened. Especially in the tabloid media – but also in media that still retain a trace of prestige from the long-ago time when they were respectable media, like Politika—there was a sustained attack on Mr Nikolaidis, arguing not only that he was a supporter of terrorism but also that as an official of the Republic of Montenegro he was showing that Montenegro supports terrorism. It’s not just that (at least in my opinion) the attacks were wrong, it’s also that they were discredited by their sources. Here were people who really did actively support a real entity that really engaged in terrorism, large-scale murder, forced deportation, torture, rape and a full menu of other abuses. Their party was rained on by a guy who composed some bad rhetoric about an incident that did not happen. You may recall that dear old Shakespeare had an observation about people who protest too much.

Right, so a group of writers in Belgrade decides that the attacks are beyond the pale, a bit too reminiscent of the waves of attacks on public figures and writers in the 1990s that came accompanied by violence. Remember Dada Vujasinović and Slavko Ćuruvija? Journalists both. Ivan Stambolić? A fellow who had begun speaking in public. So fifteen of them sign a letter calling for an end to the media campaign against Andrej Nikoliadis. They are all fairly well known cultural figures, but only one of them is a prominent public official: Sreten Ugričić, the director of the National Library of Serbia.

Now, a word about the National Library of Serbia. For years, this was a dead, neglected institution. You know what interests nationalists less than almost anything else in the world? Real research about actual history. For years the library was closed. Next to the library millions went into completing the construction – and oh, the decoration! – of an enormous church. And the construction of floral walkways around the church. And supporting buildings for the church. Sreten Ugričić did what a competent librarian would do to revive the library. Building reconditioned and reopened? Check. Electronic catalog? Check. Catatalog available and searchable online? Check. Engaging public events? Check. Cooperative networks with local and regional libraries? Check. Pleasant coffee shop? Check. But the building is surrounded by gigantic religious objects. I was at a meeting there this week, and every hour the church bells made the conduct of the meeting impossible. Ding bong bong bing. Do you think they are tolling for us? Didn’t get it? Don’t worry, we will show you again in an hour.

The highest ranking signer of the letter being the director of the national library, the first politician to become engaged was the minister of police (Q: In what kind of country is the minister of police the person responsible for library directors? A: In a country that is uncertain about its own legitimacy, panicked about its past, and facing elections pretty soon). Ivica Dačić came forward with the suggestion that Mr Ugričić should resign. Then he came forward with the helpful suggestion that if Mr Ugričić wanted to sign letters of support, he could do it from prison but not from the national library. In fact Sreten Ugričić attended our meeting in the library, delivered his talk, sat patiently through the discussion, then presumably went upstairs to his office to check in on the fate that was being designed for him.

That afternoon Mr Ugričić received a demand for a report on his activity from the minister of culture (who is the minister responsible for the library, but he got involved in the story weakly and late). He came forward with a statement that looked pretty much like an apology: he was careless to sign the letter, he withdrew the signature, his support for free speech should not lead anybody to believe that Mr Nikolaidis had written a good article. The apology did no good. The following day at a hastily called session via telephone, the cabinet ministers voted unanimously to fire Mr Ugričić. I was told, but am not sure it is true, that this was the only unanimous vote by this cabinet. I am reasonably sure that it is the only incident in history of a government going into emergency session to join a propaganda campaign against a librarian.

One political party came forward with a statement condemning the return to the intellectual purges of the 1990s. Police minister Dačić expressed himself in many different ways until he lost control again: he responded  by accusing the head of that party of supporting terrorism. For a few days the back and forth continued over whether Mr Nikolaidis was a terrorist for writing an article, whether Mr Ugričić was a terrorist for signing a letter, or whether anyone who objected to people being called terrorists was a terrorist for feeling terrorized. While it did, nobody talked about the reason Mr Nikolaidis had written his article in the first place, which was the joining of political and religious authorities in an effort to scrub clean the history of Republika Srpska by erasing terror from it.

Even if the preceding account might not lead a person to believe it, Serbia does have laws, including laws that set out a procedure for what has to happen in the event that somebody is charged with terrorism or support for terrorism, both which are actual criminal offences. The lawyer Srdja Popović wrote a short piece explaining what the procedure is and why Mr Dačić used the cabinet of government ministers to bypass it. Formal application of the law is for people with different political associations, like Rade Bulatović and Aco Tomić. They were charged as conspirators in an incident where there really was a conspiracy and a prime minister really was murdered. But the charges were dropped after prosecutors were ordered not to investigate them. Afterward they got generous monetary compensation (669,700 dinars for Bulatović, 6 million for Tomić) for the inconvenience they had suffered before the investigation was abandoned.

By odd coincidence, I had been set to be the discussant for a paper delivered by Sreten Ugričić the day before he was fired, at an event that people were already beginning to guess might be his last appearance in his capacity as director of the national library. I received his text the night before the panel, a broad condemnation of meandering governmental amorality titled “contemporary Serbia is neither contemporary nor is it Serbia”. And I prepared notes that were fairly critical, arguing that confrontation and dismissal did not offer a promising path to dialogue. Fortunately I did not get the chance to deliver my critical response. The moderator hijacked the panel and decided to question us on why there is not a student rebellion (A1: there is. A2: maybe we could organise a conference about that, but this conference is about something else). And it turned out that Sreten Ugričić had calculated about right what the tone of his last public address ought to be.

5 thoughts on “The three days of the librarian

  1. Beautifully written article, thanks. Libraries are the soil in which intelligence grows. Toasting librarians is an activity I associate with the smell of sulphur.

  2. The Committee on Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) has published a dossier about this bizarre dismissal —

    http://www.ifla.org/en/publications/political-dismissal-of-the-director-of-the-national-library-of-serbia

    Political Dismissal of the Director of the National Library of Serbia

    by Novica Milić

    “The Director of the National Library of Serbia, writer and philosopher Sreten Ugricić was dismissed urgently on the 20th of January 2012 at the so-called “telephone meeting” of the Government of Serbia, on the initiative of the minister of the police, and with the reserved behavior of the minister of culture. The dismissal was preceded by a media campaign of nationalist and state papers after Mr Ugričić signed, together with 25 colleagues, distinguished Belgrade writers, intellectuals and public figures, an appeal for the protection of the freedom of thought and expression, as well as for the ceasing of the just started campaign against the Montenegrin writer Andrej Nikolaidis.″ — Kai Ekholm

    The reasons for this unusual dismissal, headed by the minister of the police Ivica Dacić, the former spokesman of the regime of Slobodan Milosević during the bloody wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo in the 90-ties of the XX century, and supported by the coalition partners from the Democratic Party of the “pro-European” President of Serbia Boris Tadić, have been exclusively political. Namely, one has not taken into account the enormous ten-year effort and work of Mr. Ugričić, who managed, as director of NLS in the hard times of the economic crisis, to create, from a national library whose programme and infrastructure had been neglected and which had isolated itself, the greatest cultural institution in both Serbia and the region, and to include it, through modernizing, re-organizing and inventive applying of the most recent ICT and digital technologies, in the circle of the prominent European libraries. During that period, there were lots of attacks on Mr. Ugricić in nationalist papers and by the right intellectual groups, above all because of his supporting of an open society, democratic dialogue and freedom of expression, as well as of his being against any kind of nationalism, particularly in culture. He was appointed, in 2001, by the Government of Zoran Dindić, the first democratic prime minister of Serbia, who was assassinated by the nationalist parts of the secret service of Serbia. Mr. Ugricić, known in his culture as an excellent writer, novelist and essayist, recently occupied important positions in the most eminent European and world institutions, such as: co-president of the Selection Board of the World Digital Library (WDL), Administrative Board of The European Library (TEL), Administrative Board of the Electronic Information for Libraries Consortium (EIFL), Administrative Board of the Conference of European National Libraries (CENL), European Ethical Working Group, Next Page Foundation.

    The event started independently of Mr. Ugricić. On the 8th of January this year, in Banja Luka (a town in the Republic of Srpska, a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina), in the hall of the local sport centre, the police found and removed some armament. A day later the Day of the Republic of Srpska was celebrated in that hall. The political and church leaders of the Republic of Srpska and of Serbia were present there. One day after the celebration the news on the armament was presented – with standard methods of media spinning – as an “attempt of terrorism”. Although no one was really endangered, since the armament had been found quite earlier, and the owner, a watchman in that sport centre, had gone to the police himself, saying that he had it put away in order to later resell it on the black market, the noise coming from the media – in the mainstream dailies and on television – increased to a hysterical scale. There will be elections in Serbia soon, so the ruling politicians thought they would get additional points before the elections by presenting themselves as endangered ones, in the period when the state did not succeed in becoming a European Union candidate because of the relation with Kosovo, in the period of huge problems, such as enormous unemployment and poor legal and economic infrastructure.

    In that noise coming from the media, above all the tabloid ones, with few reactions calling to patience until the police should issue the official results of the investigation, the Montenegrin writer Andrej Nikolaidis reacted with a text published on the 11th of January on a Belgrade internet portal. The text remained unnoticed all until the 13th January, when it was established that the author of the text – the text itself belongs to the field of publicist essays and is full of paradoxes and hyperbole – is at the same time the media adviser of the President of the Parliament of Montenegro. Soon after that the text was interpreted as a “support to terrorism”, and one established a connection between that “act” and the policy of the current Montenegrin authorities, marked with mainly disturbed relations between Serbia and Montenegro after Montenegro had been proclaimed an independent state several years ago. Since the author of the text was of Bosnian origin, the tabloids in Serbia raised the whole thing to the level of a regional plot against politicians in Serbia and against Serbia itself, too. While the hysteria lasted none of the media in Serbia issued the integral text written by Nikolaidis, though they cited parts of it providing “confirmations” of the plot, i.e. of the “support of terrorism”. The official authorities of Serbia raised the whole case to the highest diplomatic level, sending a protest to the Montenegrin authorities, which was followed by a clear and calm response to the text of Nikolaidis that it does not reflect the official position of the Montenegrin government.

    On the 17th January, the already mentioned group of Belgrade writers and intellectuals, gathered in the Forum of Writers, sent a proclamation to the public calling the media to stop the hysterical campaign and to issue at least, when dealing with a publicist text from the Internet, the integral version of the text, so that the public should be acquainted with it and judge it itself. Mr. Ugričić was one of those that signed that appeal to the public, and he did it as a writer and member of the Forum of Writers. However, certain members of that informal group of Belgrade writers and intellectuals have been a target of the tabloid media for a number of years, mainly because of their criticism of nationalism; so, the tabloids replied now with that campaign against the Forum. They picked the name of Mr Ugričić as the most prominent one from the list, the one of the director of the National Library (other ones that signed the paper are mainly freelancers, artists or state-independent intellectuals and public figures). In the evening of the 17th January, and especially on the 18th of January, there appeared titles such as: “Director of the National Library of Serbia supports the assassination of Tadić”, the very President of the Republic of Serbia, and similar titles and texts of Ugričić’s “support of terrorism”. On the same day, around noon, the vice-president of the Government and the minister of the police, the already mentioned Ivica Dačić, said in a television broadcast that “the director of the National Library can support terrorism, but from a prison cell”. At the meeting of the Government held in the afternoon, the minister of the police, supported by the minister of the army, asked for an urgent dismissal of Ugričić. The minister of culture was against it, asking for time to clear up the matter and saying that the Government had more important problems to urgently deal with, instead of dealing with signatures of an informal literary association.

    That, however, did not calm the political leaders, even though Mr. Ugričić signed himself as a writer in order that the freedom of speech should be obeyed, regardless of the fact whether one agreed with what others said or not, in order that one obeyed the right of publishing complete information so as to prevent fabricating and imposing meanings from happening, as well as in order that the readers independently and with no interpretations imposed in advance, and with no threats either, should read that text and any other one. The signature was interpreted among the ruling politicians and the media supporting them as a signature of a state official, i.e. as a signature of a director of a national institution. In spite of the reserve of the minister of culture and additional explanations of Ugričić himself, on the 20th of January and urgent telephone meeting of the Government of Serbia took place, and Mr Ugričić was removed from his position, without any broader public or any other debate, with no proper analysis and procedure, without even a possibility for anything like that. The nationalist tabloids and the state media acclaimed that decision as a contribution to the fight “against terrorism”. The liberal part of the public in Serbia could do nothing but be disgusted with that return of the policy “quick solutions”, “emergencies” and “national menaces”. The rightist circles also supported the decision of the Government, regardless of the fact whether they were close or not to the very authorities, while the media mainstream supported the moves of the national “homogenization”.

    In the days that followed, the tabloids continued, despite the protests, to attack the dismissed Mr. Ugričić, as well as to search for new targets among the liberal intellectuals that stood against the new nationalistic tabloid hysteria inspired from the top and by special services. In spite of the campaign, media frightening and threats, a part of the liberal intellectuals in Belgrade, with solidarity of the liberal circles in the entire region, continued to protest against such Gleichschaltung policy in Serbia.

    The public protest and support for the return of Sreten Ugričić have come from really numerous individuals and organizations from the fields of culture, literature, library science, non-government sector, both from Serbia and from outside: Forum of Writers, Belgrade; Independent Association of Journalists of Serbia (NUNS), Belgrade; thirty eminent professors from a number of universities in the world; National Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Croatian Society of Writers; PEN Centre of Bosnia and Herzegovina; PEN Centre of Montenegro. An indication of the state of being frightened and the state of political control is the absence of the reaction of the national association of writers and the Serbian PEN Centre. Some member of the Serbian PEN Centre announced their resignations as members and supported the idea that such PEN Centre in Serbia should not exist. At the moment, the support has been announced by PEN Centres from other countries. At the same time, there has been a number of reactions, protest notes and asking for support by individuals, public figures, artists, journalists, Belgrade University professors, as well as common citizens.

    After the murder of its first democratic prime minister Zoran Đinđić, Serbia has sunk deeper and deeper into institutional and political crisis. With an addition of the economic and financial crisis that is taking place with a special intensity in this part of the south-eastern Europe, one can clearly observe a growing populism, demagogy and return to repressive nationalism and xenophobia, instead of a strengthening of democratic rights and freedom. The “case” of the dismissed director of the National Library of Serbia Sreten Ugričić has been a clear sign of an enormous crisis that took hold of the Serbian state, politics and society.

    /The author of this report is Prof. Dr. Novica Milić, Head of the Literature and Communication Department of the Media and Communication Faculty in Belgrade. He is the author of ten books from the fields of philosophy and theory of literature, including two books from the field of the media theory. Currently he prepares a book on this case, i.e. on its broader and deeper political and cultural dimensions./

    Last update: 30 January 2012

  3. Contarary to what author of this blog and Ugricic himself would like to present to the public, ex-director of the National Library lost his well payed position not for protecting freedom of speech in principle, but because of supporting very concrete speech: that it would be good to kill somebody. Therefore, please don’t make a case for a new dissident and victim where there is a case for sheer stupidity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s