The Oxford Political Review speaks with the Prime Minister of Montenegro, Dritan Abazović. The interview was conducted in the morning of 23rd May 2023, by OPR Founding Editor-in-Chief Brian Wong. The following has been edited lightly for the sake of clarity and concision.
Dritan Abazović is the incumbent Prime Minister of Montenegro and the fourth youngest state leader in the world. He is also a scholar of political science and served as the Deputy Prime Minister in the previous government.
Abazović: Thank you very much, Brian. Thank you, everybody. It’s a great pleasure and I am more than sure that we will have a good discussion today. So please, be very open and share whatever you find to be interesting in your work. I will try to explain the some of my views in my capacity as Montenegro’s leader, but I also hope that with this interaction, we will come to some good answers for dilemmas that everyone faces in our society.
OPR: Thank you, it’s an honour. Allow me to start with the following. The 2020 parliamentary elections and the recently concluded Presidential Race played a key role in unseating Milo Đukanović’s leadership, putting an end to three decades of DPS rule since the end of the Cold War. Yet just last year, you received a vote of no confidence in your premiership, instigated no less by the forces of the DPS and others. Given this fact, and, as you put it previously, the forces of organised criminal syndicates, how can you feasibly take on the proverbial ‘Establishment’, given all the stops that it has pulled out to stop you?
Abazović: To begin with, I want to introduce a little the state politics in Montenegro, because the Western Balkans have a very complicated political picture. It’s got lots of different moving parts, especially in this last three decades. Montenegro began its parliamentarian life in 1905. We had never changed government via elections — never in the history of the country – until 2020. So, this is something that was really problematic for us. Whenever we had the changes to the government, it was through some large crises, such as the World War, and the clashes over communism on the streets in the beginning of the ‘90s.
And after that, we waited for 30 years for democracy. The first lesson of democracy, is that you have simple changes – more precisely, the possibility of leadership changes via elections. Why is this important? Because 2020 was the first time that people in Montenegro really felt that they can change the way things work. Before that, it was much more binary and simplistic. Everything was either against the government or for the ruling party.
When I started in politics, people would say to me, “Why are you doing that? You are good guy. We think that you have the right approach. But it’s impossible to change something in this country. So you’re just wasting your time, wasting your energy! It’s much better if you do something else. It’s okay. We support your approach… you speaking about the right things, but the atmosphere we cannot change!”
The outcomes of the 2020 elections were historic. It was a historic day for our country, because that was the first time we could have something new in the country. And now I am more than sure that we will periodically have these kinds of changes. These sorts of things are connected with what you asked me just then.
When you have one party for the long time in the power, you have the symbiosis between the party and the state institutions. Institutions become ensnared and embedded with an unprofessional approach, which leaves a lot of people feeling they are untouchable and above the law. This was very problematic. Two and a half years later, we in Montenegro are still in process of changing.
So, let’s look at the key question of the organized crime and corruption, as you asked. How have they [criminals] stayed in power for 30 years? Quite simply, in the beginning of 90s, we had the dissolution of former Yugoslavia. The good thing out of all the bad in this situation was that we didn’t end up with war within our territories, but Montenegro was also participating in the war in that decade. And upon the end of the war in 1995, people who had been in power started undertaking money laundering in different way. In the beginning, they used the war to make a lot of money through their businesses. But after the war, they turned to other tools to make more money for themselves – leaving all the less money for the state. In that period, especially in the end of the ‘90s and the beginning of the 21st century, we had encountered a lot of problems with the smuggling of cigarettes, which in beginning was authorised by the state to protect its economy. Montenegro is very, very small. But very soon, that [cigarette smuggling trade] became the business of the few people in Montenegro, which rendered this very problematic.
Montenegro was the conduit for 25% of all smuggled cigarettes in the black market in the EU, up until 2021. Around 20% of all smuggling cigarettes in the Great Britain were somehow connected with Montenegro. So… with the destroying of the smuggling of cigarettes in Montenegro, we are thus helping with the budget of the United Kingdom! The government of the UK is very thankful for all what did in cracking down on the trade here. That’s 500 million euros each year… that’s a huge amount of money, especially if you know that Montenegro has 600,000 people. It’s like one lage part of the London, or three or four times of Oxford’s population. This is a huge deal.
But those smugglers said, cigarettes alone were not enough, and so they turned to smuggling narcotics, especially cocaine. And they’re using the port of Bar, our main port, for different kinds of activities. Yet now, with the changing of political winds, there is a general political will for us to come to some incredibly good results. I served in the first government after the 2020 elections, as the Deputy Prime Minister responsible for the security. My first promise to the people was that the mafia will not leave the country anymore. And I am now proud because I think that we have met that promise, but there yet remains a lot that needs to be done for the future. But I definitely think that we had made something that is quite incredible.
Let me explain my earlier point on cigarettes. When I got into office, I began to come to understand the modus operandi of the smuggling of cigarettes, and how they [smugglers] use containers to great effect in carrying out their smuggling. We would have cigarettes coming with containers coming from some African or Middle Eastern country, and they would come in very regularly and say, “We have the papers […] we have in this boat 20 containers of the cigarettes.” They were OK’ed, given that the papers they presented seemed OK. But immediately two hours after or three hours after that, the same or a different boat would come in with the same amount of cigarettes… another 20. In writing, it’d say that they’d only be transferring one or two containers. The other 18 containers per batch then, would be distributed via trucks going to Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia… and such is the logistical network of folks engaging in such activities. The network would include people who are working at the ports, at the borders, in the traffic police. That had been the modus operandi for many, many, many years.
How do we catch these violators? It’s very simple. Because I saw the arrival of the boats… coming in at, say, 10:50, with 20 containers. They would leave with the same amounts of containers at 11:30. And look, even in Rotterdam, you cannot possibly transact at that volume, at that pace, within that compressed a period of time. We don’t have any of the facilities Rotterdam do. So, we know – we will ask these boats to report on their times of entry. And they become very, very afraid, because they understand that something is going to happen.
After that we also started to cooperate with the British security services, which gave us more information on what was going on in the Port of Bar. In 2021, my cabinet proposed the key decision, which was to block storages of any kinds of cigarette products in the Port of Bar – for without such storage, the smugglers would lose the facilities and areas to engage in such activities. The cessation of storage meant that you can bring cigarettes, but you cannot store them there. And we could catch offenders who break this regulation – this was one year after I came to power. We confiscated 148,000 packages of cigarettes – the largest operation of this nature in the history of Europe. We still have the cigarettes in a big hangar, but we don’t know what to do. My idea was to sell it, but our international partners told us that this was not incorrect. And now the cigarettes are still there, but the hangar is closed.
After this, we began to replace people [affiliated with the smuggling networks] everywhere. But this is almost impossible to do. Because there’s a truly huge number of people. And the problem is because you cannot very easily replace the people. So, when people ask me, “Why will you not replace the people in the borders or in the police?” The answer is because we don’t have alternatives to fill these very specific jobs. This remains a problem. In 2021, we confiscated 1.6 tonnes of cocaine in action. This was, again, a huge success given the proportion of confiscated drugs relative to the total port traffic at Bar.
Rotterdam’s daily traffic dwarfs us. It exceeds, I believe, our annual traffic. But we still managed to confiscate a more sizeable chunk of the traffic in light of our limited capacity. Why do I want to mention this and what is the original context? Because they’d say, “Montenegro, please do this, please do that.”
And I’d ask them a simple question, “I say, okay, when we talk about Montenegro, we really deliver. But my question is, to you, given that these drugs are making their way into the EU, if you want to say that our police is no good… our equipment or logistics are no good… we lack technology… then how is it possible that all of these drugs end up in your market anyway, despite your better police, technology, cameras… How is it possible for you to insist that we must do something, with Montenegro being just a transit country and the EU being the definitive market for these illicit drugs?”
They looked pretty surprised! In one conference in North Macedonia, we were discussing organized crime. And I talked about some of the results in Montenegro. One of my friends from the international community came to me. That was the first time when I understood that things were not good… in 2021. He told me that my government was not too pleased with what I had said in the morning at the conference. I said I was not aware of this, and pressed him, “What’s the point?”
“The point was”, my friend continued, “you know, you are destroying the old system. Because, if you don’t have the system that has been working in Montenegro, you are creating the problems for the people who are involved in Kosovo, in Serbia, in Bosnia, in Croatia, and they are feeling very unsatisfied. Because Montenegro is one part, but an import part, of the entire ecosystem. It’s out of order, it’s not functional. And they are very angry about this, because businesses are now stuck.”
And I replied, “Yes, now, I understand why some of my colleagues are not so happy with this and they ask me many times as to why I am doing this. They say this is neither crucial nor important. But I think it [cracking down on drug smuggling and trade] is indeed important. After the reforms we have introduced, the economy of Montenegro has started to grow. The environment is definitively changed. Those who have monopolised our economy for far too long, are now forced to accept increasing competition. Those who play by the rules of the economy fairly are now able to compete, whether it be in construction, tourism, or the service sectors. So things are going very well and the environment for the investment in Montenegro will continually improve.
Let me now come to address the vote of no confidence… [On this…] I was not surprised. I was not surprised. My agenda was very clear. And I have always insisted on saying what I think should be best for the country. And I say if you want to support my government, the top priority will remain fighting against organised crime and corruption. I understand that some of them [parliamentarians] saying, “Okay, we will support, but you should rather hold onto your position than to fight on.” But this is not how I work!
And then they’d say that at the end of the day, the key problem of my government was the agreement with Serbian Orthodox Church, which was a historically rooted thing. But I see this agreement as key in ensuring the easing of the present-day situation in Montenegro. A few months after the agreement was reached, no one talks about the Church, everyone talks about the economy. Our country is no longer polarised. What I often repeat here, is that in the Western Balkans, behind nationalism is corruption. Behind national tensions, it’s corruption. Only those people who have the problem with the law, who are corrupted, would set fire to politics every time, because that is how they distract the people.
To fight properly against corruption, we need to broker agreement and consensus over historical tensions. And I actually think tackling historical tensions is not that difficult. To sum up, I am very satisfied. Our recently concluded Presidential Election was organised incredibly well – perfect. Perfect. Two rounds. Like in Switzerland. The first round, few folks cared. The second round, many more folks cared. People felt more emotional, because there were only two candidates. These candidates congratulated each other. We now have the new president in office, who came into power three days ago. Very nice. Very good.
The parliamentary elections are coming up, and I anticipate them to be largely the same. Our country will go on. But without hard decisions and dangerous decisions, and taking the responsibility, it’s not possible to move things forward. It’d be impossible. Comfort zone cannot bring the difference. This is also a message for you. If you want to stay in your comfort zone, you cannot make a difference. Leaving the comfort zone can be risky, just like doing business in general, but only that could bring real success. I am really satisfied. I don’t know what will happen after the election. But I don’t care anymore, because I think that I will leave the office of the Prime Minister to another Prime Minister. Potentially, tomorrow. They [The new Prime Minister] only need to continue in this way and work on the economy. They won’t have big questions anymore. We have destroyed the criminal groups… the mafia… and have resolved the church tensions. So the new candidate will not be faced with difficult dangers or anything too problematic.
OPR: Thank you so much Prime Minister for riveting opening comments, it was terrific. Indeed, you have touched upon many of the roadblocks that stand in a way of further progress in Montenegro that you have sought your very best to clear – whether it be organized crime, drug trafficking, and other forms of corruption and embezzlement. These are issues that you speak of, and I’m glad that you suggest they have essentially been resolved under your tenure.
But you also speak of your tackling these problems… in the past tense. You said, “I did this, I’ve accomplished that.” You’ve performed a lot of these operations to cleanse Montenegrin politics and rid it of its malaise. But what about the future? You mentioned that you’re an outgoing Prime Minister, and that you would be passing over to your successor. Yet what role do you see yourself as playing over the next five years in relation to the presidency of Jakov Milatović. And where do you see Miodrag Lekić’s Demos and Danijel Živković’s DPS in this upcoming race? Do you think they will make gains in the upcoming elections in June? And are you worried about their return?
Abazović: That’s a good question. I do speak a lot about what has happened these past few years, but what about the future? I think we need to concentrate on a few things. So first of all, we need to change our judicial system. And this is why we need a clear and stubborn majority in the parliament. Traditionally, the judicial system is the most problematic part of our system in the moment. If we can genuinely make progress on that front, I think all another sectors, such as the economy and all, would be in a much better shape. But I suggest that for this election, my key message is that, we need to work on the big infrastructure projects. I am not saying that we are ready, but over the past two years we have undertaken extensive preparation on such infrastructural projects.
What is needed here is greater economic diversification. We are currently very dependent upon tourism. It’s OK that tourism is our key sector. 25% of total national incomes are directly from tourism. Indirectly… maybe 75% in total with both direct and indirect combined. But I certainly think that the energy and agricultural sectors can have a much bigger part in the future. In the energy sector, we are preparing a lot of projects – more than seven projects will commence immediately after the summer. They are all renewable energy projects. We have been discussing with South Korea the introduction of the first off-shore electricity power station in the open seas.
The second priority is access. Access is everything. We need to continue to build the roads, especially the highway connecting the Port of Bar with the borders of Serbia, and to start another highway connecting our East to West. So we’ll go to Albania, Bosnian and Croatia. Without that [access], we would be unable to access genuine societal development. Roads are vital for good reconciliation, business mobility, and individual mobility.
The third priority is the Port of Bar. The Port of Bar has conventionally been used for extensively smuggling. Few could understand how the Port of Bar could possibly be in such a shape. We are going to buy one part of the port, which currently remains under control by one to two companies. We want to bring in some credible international operator for the Port. Why is the Port of Bar important?
Because Montenegro cannot be successful, if our ports don’t have the infrastructure to support economic activity. We need the railways, the networks, in order to generate a big boost for Montenegro. And another thing that I will promote during this campaign, is the airports. Not just the two state-owned airports that currently exist, but also the building of a new airport in the north of the country, and maybe another airport for exclusively cargo in our second largest city. This is because there is a clear trend of increasing aerial transport across the world over the next decades, and it’s vital that we prepare for the future. So these are the directions we must take in order to succeed.
We have much more robust parliamentary institutions and higher salaries than many other parts of the region. Unemployment is very low – it has reached historical lows in our country. But we need to see how we can make our better in the future. Because there are big challenges. We will need more and more workers. And we will need more and more motivation for young people to stay in the country. But if we don’t make the conditions, then we cannot succeed.
And one another thing that I think we should focus on in the next five years, is the growing of the IT sector. I am inviting you to visit Montenegro here, and to see the place. It’s very unique. It’s incomparable to anywhere else in the world. I think that people who don’t have strong ties to a particular physical working place, would love to work in our country. It’s not crowded, it’s nice, beautiful, it’s very safe. It’s very safe. And it remains quite cheap! And I think that more and more people in the IT sector will decide to come to the country. Indeed, after the aggression of Russia Federation within Ukraine, we have seen some companies who are starting to move their businesses to Montenegro, and they’d want to stay there. These remain our advantages for the sector. And this [IT] sector is growing very fast, all around the world.
OPR: The question for many, I suppose, is, you’re such a remarkable figure in so many ways. What particular role and capacity would you play in steering this vision forward? Do you see yourself as returning to the premiership after the election in June? Do you see yourself as becoming an advisor and a sage helping out fellow statesmen? Or do you see yourself as a politician in Parliament trying to make changes from the legislature, in the aftermath of the June elections?
Abazović: This question… I cannot give a good answer, because we don’t know. A good thing about democracy… why is democracy good? It’s because it’s unpredictable. So this makes our lives interesting. Life is interesting, because it’s unpredictable. So you don’t know. You can have hope. But you just don’t know what tomorrow will look like. And I think that this election will be unpredictable in this samee way. But what I think that is 100% clear, is that we will have the increasing of these pro-European forces. And this is for me, personally very important. This is why I feel that I’m proud of my legacy, because I think that this is a part of my legacy.
I explained just then that we’ve been fighting against corruption and resolving religious tensions and animosities. We are all about destroying extremities on both ends of the spectrum, and the increase of pro-European voices in the parliament. So I really don’t know in what capacity I will serve. But I am ready for many roles… more than anybody else, not to be arrogant. Because I see the big problems in decision-making, and I have maintained very good communication with my colleagues from other parties. So we will see what the composition will be. I am ready to do to continue in any capacity within the government.
If not, I am ready to go to Opposition. Our country also needs to have a good opposition. I don’t see that as a problem. The most important thing is that we should form this new government pretty fast, if it’s possible. Why? Because it’s tourist season. When tourists come over and see that every three months we are in elections and undergoing campaigning… [that would be awkward] If it’s possible, the key thing should be to ensure that the government forms as swiftly as possible.
OPR: You touched on a really important point on the foreign policy dimension. You’ve been a firm advocate of closer and better ties between Montenegro and the EU at large. Indeed, over 63% of Montenegrin citizens in the 2020 Eurobarometer report affirmed the value in improvement of ties between Montenegro and EU. But here’s a fundamental question. The European Commission has claimed that political volatility, government instability and tensions have undermined the meaningful attempts at Montenegro’s prospective acceding to membership of the EU. If you had the opportunity to present the case to naysayers and critics within the EU, what would you say to them?
Abazović: Look, I am generally averse to criticizing the EU. Why? Because of the overarching principle that we want to join the EU. This is our will. The EU says it has will to accept us. Sometimes that’s true, sometimes it’s not. But it’s OK. And this is why I’m not criticizing the EU. But in a more academic sense, I can say that the EU does not seem to know what it wants.
I don’t know… I don’t see the vision. The EU doesn’t seem to know what it wants. If it wants enlargement… it’s easy for the decision-makers to enlarge by incorporating many more countries. Montenegro – it’d be a piece of cake. They [the EU] are not sure. They sometimes are for enlargement. They sometimes are not. They sometimes want to fast track, they sometimes do not. They would change the methodology, and say, “You finish that and that would be be enough.” But then they’d say, “It’s not enough!” Yet as it turns out, it would not be enough. They’d say, “North Macedonia, change your name!” After the name was changed, they’d say, “Wait for another round.”
I’m not sure. I’m not sure the EU has a vision. I’m sorry. I have to say the truth.
Now in Montenegro, there is a stubborn majority of the parliament. One of the biggest hurdles we faced was to do with the parliament, specifically the judiciary and the election of the Chief Prosecutor. If we can pass the required changes, if everything aligns, we should be ready by 2025. At this moment, we are better organised than some EU countries… So they can say all they want about stability, governance… but there are clear problems with governments everywhere. Bulgaria has had many government turnovers over the past few years. In the UK, we’ve seen multiple Prime Ministers too…
I’m not comparing. I am saying that we have a strong will to join the EU. You cited the 63% statistic, at the beginning of 2020. That was 2020. Today, 86% of folks – per a recent poll – are in favour of acceding to the EU. We remain incredibly EU-optimistic. Even if the EU has a dilemma, we don’t have any dilemmas. We have always wanted to be a part of the EU family. It’s absolutely vital for our country. I believe that with the new parliament, we can counter such questions and these kinds of critiques. I held another opinion on the EU previously, but I had not been directly connected with the realities on the ground. Now… I’m not saying that I’ve changed a lot, but I really hope there won’t be too much drama with this kind of process.
OPR: A minor quip, I suppose, is that in light of the UK’s changing its Prime Ministers more than once last year, I suppose that’s why Brexit happened – the UK is no longer a part of the EU! But you walk a very fine line on the Kosovan issue. On one hand, you’ve expressed support for Kosovo’s request to join the Council of Europe. And on the other hand, you have sought to position yourself as a candidate who can talk with and engage Belgrade for peace. Some of your critics accuse you of trying to have your cake and eat it, to play both sides on the Kosovan issue. What would you say to these criticisms?
Abazović: Look, that’s the biggest question in our region. It’s the question of security… of EU integration and all. And it’s not easy to fix it. And I don’t think that Montenegro… We have very good relations with our own neighbours. And we don’t want others to, in any aspect, understand that we are involving ourselves in the negotiations. Because it’s not our direct business.
But we are trying to give support. And we want to give our contribution. And I am proud, of the fact that I am a Prime Minister who has very good relations with the President of Serbia and with the Prime Minister of Kosovo. And to both sides, I think I am trying to convince them of the same story. And that is to come to the final decision. Don’t be the politician who always seeks to win just another election. Be the politician who will be a historic person, who may lose an election yet make something historic. Get the Nobel Peace Prize. Make something that nobody may know but everyone will benefit from. Don’t worry too much about how people perceive you. From my point of view, the German proposal is good. It’s not perfect, but it’s good. What I really don’t understand is, why they don’t want to accept the proposal. From my point of view, it’s not so complicated. It’s [The proposal is] a little bit better for Kosovo than for Serbia.
I also proposed a moderate appetiser to the final proposal, to both sides. This was my idea. This is not official. I say this like a friend. I try to propose what they need to do before they come to the final agreement. And this is something that is very, very good from my point of view. So I hope somehow they will come to the final decision. But I don’t think that that will happen soon.
When I say soon, I mean over the next few months. I don’t see how that could happen. But there is huge pressure from the EU and the US administrations. But without that, it’s impossible to talk about the future. We need to respect each other. Sometimes we don’t like each other. But we need to show the respect and to be ready to cooperate. And I think that ordinary people are much better in handling the situation than most politicians. Much better. Businessmen, tourists… they don’t want to fight anymore. They don’t want to support the negative policies made by politicians. I really think Kosovo and Serbia need to come out of their comfort zones and make something historic.
OPR: I want to redirect our conversation to Montenegro’s relationship with China, which has posed amongst some a level of discomfort. The 163km highway between Bar, the port in Montenegro, which is also your hometown, and Boljare on the Serbian border, has been touted to be a key infrastructure project under China’s Belt and Road Initiative within the region. Yet it’s also attracted substantial controversy with yourself saying that there’s a risk that this causes undue dependence upon China. What do you make of the trajectory of Montenegro’s relationship with China? Can it be improved? Can it be more mutually beneficial? Do you see a positive upswing? Or do you see a tenuous relationship going forward?
Abazović: This is a good question. I know that Europeans are really preoccupied with our relations between China. The US too. And I have criticised extensively the project of the coastal highway. I was in opposition at the time when we started the project… in 2016. And I voted against the law for the highway, not because I don’t like highways; not because I don’t want to see more highways in Montenegro, but because this is the one of the most expensive highways in the history of humanity!
It’s 27 million euros per km. So with 43 km, what we built cost us around 1 billion euros. The average is somewhere around 8 to 10 million euros per km. Sure there are mountains and everything, but it’s not just Montenegro that has mountains. I think that whole highway as agreed to in a very un-transparent process. This was why I was against the highway. I think that the contract that we signed with the Chinese company is bad for the national interest of Montenegro. We have given all responsibilities to Beijing should any kind of problems arise. We clearly have problems. And now we have come under pressures from the courts, because we didn’t respect some rules, we didn’t expect some particular timeframe. We shall see what happens next.
But at the end of the day, I want to tell you that Montenegro… it’s open for every single country and every single company which wants to work in a fair way, including Chinese companies. I want to underline that the Chinese companies work a lot in the EU. And I don’t want to foster an atmosphere where we in some fight with the officials of China because we are not that kind of country. We are not the kind of country. Our foreign policy — it’s very clear. We want to join the EU. We are already in full membership of NATO. We see our country like a part of the Western world. But also, we are a country that doesn’t have any kind of geopolitical aspirations. We want to build bridges and peace with every single country in the world. We want to cooperate with all of them and want that all people coming to Montenegro to feel safe and comfortable and welcome. This is our politics. We are not we don’t have aspiration. We don’t want to come into fight with our neighbors… with superpowers. This is not us!
We see ourselves in the Western part of the world, like the Euro-Atlantic world. This is the sovereign decision of our people, the will of our people. But this does not mean that we don’t need to have cooperation with other countries. It doesn’t matter if this is a country from the Middle East… from Far East, from Africa or South America. Our world is small and I think that we want to play the role of a good and peaceful country.
OPR: I want to transition into an aspect that perhaps hasn’t quite been brought up in many of your prior interviews. I want to talk about political theory and philosophy because the both of us are political theorists. So I’d like to ask you a question on your excellent work on contemporary global ethics and cosmopolitan culture on which you published a work 12 years ago. Could you perhaps tell us a bit more about the central thesis and the crux of that work and your general ideals and values in political philosophy?
Abazović: Yes. I feel like a cosmopolitan. It’s hard to explain what it is. I feel that I have to write and comment on that. In my first work, there were many theories I touched upon, but I focused really on two key theories on how we build national identities – because, you know, that is something very important. This is because deglobalization, especially after Trump, has started to become very important… with this immigration process into the EU too, it’s clear that it is important.
There are two key theories. The first one is the primordial theory, that you have connections with the land and via blood. But if that hypothesis [of national identity] is right, then we are all brothers and sisters – then why do we have to fight one another? Starting from small groups, everybody is connected, and now we are seven billion in number. Why should we see enemies in one another?
The second is the realist theory, which began in the 18th century, and remains very relevant even in the 20th century. You have rulers and armies dictating the borders in some places, declaring that “this is our national state”. The political elites of Poland, Germany, Montenegro, Italy etc. determining and decreeing that this is their land. So here you have the political elite of that moment that declare the borders and insist that everyone within these borders are ‘like these’. But if so, this again does not present us with any reason to fight one another – because the wills and views of the leaders of some groups… it’s not enough reason to push you in some direction to enter into conflict with another. Take today’s Italy — you have much more connections between people who live in the north of Italy and the south of Switzerland, than between those in the north and south of Italy. They even don’t have the same language! It’s still Italian language, but the North speak with totally different accents from those in the South! But the people from the south of Switzerland and the people from north of Italy… they are the same!
And I’ve tried to explain the book that national identities [determined as such] are not good reasons to fight. We all have our identities, but we can also possess cosmopolitan identities. You can be from Vietnam. You can be a philosopher or a biker. You can be a fan of Chelsea or Manchester United. Even if I were to be Jewish or Chinese, I need not necessarily be in a fight with a Japanese or of another race. I don’t understand what the problem is. So, these are two theories that I examined in the book. I am trying to make the case that people are fighting about things that are really not so important. It’s very hard to explain, because we humans are two components – the material, and the spiritual. The spiritual component is determined by our emotions, and we are sometimes very emotive about certain questions, especially in the Western Balkan. There’s a perceived sense of importance that we must explain to somebody that we are Serbs, we are Croatians… we are ‘proud’ of everything. Sure, we may be proud, but this does not give us enough reasons to fight against one another, OK? So long as we feel comfortable and good, who cares? In this other book I look at globalisation. Now look, I am not anti-globalist. I am for globalisation, but I want globalisation with more justice. I try to develop that kind of critique.
OPR: One final question. I appreciate your thoughts on the two different… shall we say, primordial and constructivist, theories of nationhood. And I agree with you that you have just raised some fair insights in highlighting the fundamental absurdity undergirding both of these frameworks. But here’s the challenge rooted in praxis. In reality, it is in fact the case that a lot of national leaders employ political constructions or symbols; draw upon religion and other tools at large, in order to create and reify these purportedly ontological differences that are rooted in little more than specious bases, as you correctly noted. Given that’s indeed the case, what is the best means of overcoming that and to promulgate the cosmopolitan identities that you speak of here? Thomas Friedman prophesised in his famous book that the Earth was flat. Yet a decade or so later, Trump came to power. Brexit happened. Le Pen rose in France. Alice Weidel in Germany. Geert Wilders in Netherlands. So on and so forth. Is there really a way of promulgating a cosmopolitan identity that can rise above the fray of populist, incendiary, xenophobic narrow-mindedness? Is it possible?
Abazović: You offer a good thesis. But I think here that education is everything. If we are to think about our future, the future of our civilisation and humanity, we will end up with new possible communities. There are lots of problems and questions that cannot be reduced into our nation-states alone – consider, COVID-19. COVID-19 changed everything. So I don’t think any country can go at it alone.
Yet you are right, the emotional nature of political discourse, such as over Brexit, this is indeed a real phenomenon. But when you cannot talk about something, you can still identify commonalities with other people. It is true that we have our own cultures – Brazilians may have a Latin American culture, Brits have their own culture. But our tradition is that via conversations and dialogues, we come to recognise our mistakes and then move on. That is quite some another approach – education allows people to talk with one another.
What the biggest concern is, from my point of view, is that people don’t realise the importance of dialogue. That they only come to recognise or understanding something when mass suffering arises. And this is a most disappointing fact of humanity. I nevertheless hope that with innovation, with technology, with improved knowledge of one another, we can come to foster actual, genuine, and deeper mutual understanding.
OPR: Thank you so much, it’s been an honour, Prime Minister.