Civil society organizations have impact on politics anywhere in the world. This is especially applicable to unions and employers’ associations and we should be sensitive to the efforts of unions in Serbia to implement this practice, says Zoran Stojiljkovic.
Does this mean that union demands for parliamentary seats and maybe some other functions should be regarded as normal and expected?
I understand both them and their requirements, but the basic problem is that everything has turned into a kind of political trade where unions are trying to affect the ruling power by demanding secured parliamentary seats in return for their support. On the other hand, unions are promising tens of thousands of votes without previously establishing any rules of this game.
Which rules do you refer to?
Ground rules should be concerned at least with the Constitution matters – Serbia is a lawful state and democratic society and responsible decisions should be made in the process of dialogue. For example, it would be nice to hear union demands to take away tax benefits from the employers who do not pay taxes or to reduce the number of MPs and state expanses.
Therefore we did not see anything of their program concept when it comes to their talks with political parties. And it is necessary to set such requirements, rather than to seek parliamentary or ministerial positions. Unions are also able to establish some kind of mutual coordination and to come out with a clear list of demands. Only that could send a clear message to the public.
What has prompted unions in Serbia to opt for this approach?
The example of political parties like Party of United Pensioners of Serbia (PUPS) have showed that the smallest coalition partner can have great political influence and significantly affect the decision-making. It is logical they are trying to follow this pattern.
Unions had a number of different attempts to influence the decision-making. For example, Association of Free and Independent Unions (ASNS) took part in the elections in 2007. They got even less votes then during the application process. Independence party has tried to make a contract for development and employment with the parties that came to power in 2004. But from the moment they became the ruling, these parties have forgotten about the contract. The union has unsuccessfully tried to bargain with Democratic Party.
After all, unions lost their patience. They no longer believe in the possibility of genuine social dialogue and in the possibility of achieving anything by means of protests in the midst of crisis. Therefore, they are opting for a model they saw among the political parties.
Are there similar attempts of unions to influence decision-making in other countries?
There are different ways to achieve this. One is to lobby and advocate for certain interests, the other is public campaigns in the media and the third is the impact of the social dialogue in countries where this kind of dialogue is institutionalized. Direct communication with parties is only the fourth way in which unions can influence decision-making.
In countries with steady political scene unions and parties form partnerships which last for a long time. This relationship includes joint bodies and mutual coordination. There is a practice that party organs include union representatives. Examples for this kind of cooperation can be seen in the relations of Labor Party and unions in the UK, or the unions and social democratic parties in the Scandinavian countries.
Countries like Serbia and other former Yugoslav republics do not have a fully profiled union or party scene. Therefore, they often choose one-time arrangements such as: If you support me, I will vote for you