Colliding Western Balkan Neighbors : Serbia and Montenegro in Post-Yugoslav Context – Identity and Interest Representation
| Autoři | |
|---|---|
| Rok publikování | 2022 |
| Druh | Článek v odborném periodiku |
| Časopis / Zdroj | Contemporary Southeastern Europe |
| Fakulta / Pracoviště MU | |
| Citace | |
| www | article - open access |
| Doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.25364/02.9:2022.2.5 |
| Klíčová slova | Serbia; Montenegro; nation-building; statehood and national identity; populism |
| Přiložené soubory | |
| Popis | This research seeks to examine the development of relations between Serbia and Montenegro after 2006, In the context of insufficient acceptance of a distinct Montenegrin identity by the Serbian state, elite, and public. The authors argue that, unlike elsewhere in the post-Yugoslav space, where inter-republic cooperation had decreased during the country’s breakup, Serbo-Montenegrin relations have mostly deteriorated “only” since Montenegrin independence. The authors attribute such developments to local identity politics, arguing that Montenegrin and pro-Serbian political actors manipulate identarian symbols both to strengthen their own positions and differentiate said positions from their political rivals. Identarian aspects (like state symbols, language and religion) are used not solely to underline one’s ethnic affiliation, but also for ideological distancing from opponents. These populist activities have caused a deep polarization in Montenegrin society for at least two reasons. Firstly, the use of aforementioned state symbols further strengthened the political divisions even at the inter-state level, resulting in the homogenization of the national and electorate corps. Secondly, ethnic affiliation has been influenced by geopolitical elements, namely, Russophile tendencies in the Serbian political actors and pro-Western tendencies among Montenegrin actors. The authors apply the ‘situational nationalism’ approach to show that the outcomes of the still-ongoing nation-building process in Montenegro correlate with both domestic policies (institutional top-down approach) and external factors (cross-border effects, including the geopolitics). |