From: abrodnik@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: Re: Leaders and people (was: A rare occassion of sanity)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:03:14 GMT

In article <Oct.12.02.56.31.1992.13590@andromeda.rutgers.edu> pshane@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ana M. Shane) writes:
>
>the leaders of all of our Republics are responsible for this war and said
>the following:
>
>In article <Oct.11.10.50.12.1992.21657@andromeda.rutgers.edu>,
>pshane@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ana M. Shane) writes:
>
>>But all of you
>>are in fact in the same pot: the only ones who could possibly have any
>>profit or gain are these leaders! They are playing with the lives of
>>their own peoples just like chess figures: with no regard for the
>>humanity and human lives.

		   [ Erland's comment deleted ... ]

>Andrej Brodnik made a comment:
> 
>>Though I mostly agree Ana and Erland, I'd like to add a small remark.
>>Namely that these leaders are fulfilling somebody's will. And this is
>>not only their personal will. Hence this "leaders" need to be
>>described a bit more.

			[ some text deleted ]

>>For sure the "will of _some_ people". The whole problem is basiclly
>>here, namely how many people? When somebody says "democratical will"
>>is assumed the will of majority of people. Or at least the will of
>>those who elected the "leaders". But yes, it is yet another problem
>>here. Namely how does one cast his vote? If certain nation elects
>>somebody with a majority, is this democratic? Never mind, but my
>>answer on your question is that they are fulfilling will of some
>>people at least.

		     [ some text again deleted ]

>At this point I want to make a comment
>
>What both Davor's and Andrej's remarks boil down to is that the leaders
>have to have some support from the people. I agree, they do have to
>have support of some people. How many? Majority? I don't know... but
>I wish to briefly remind you that:
>
>The media are almost 100% in the hands of the leaders and are (and were)
>spreading the strongest version of propaganda and lies (on all sides!!).

To reiterate, "please, define, who are these leaders". Though you have
a good point here, namely that they have (or had) complete control
over media. But let me add a remark here that if media is supporting
the same ideas as leaders is not bad per se. The real issue is who has
a right to name the editorial boards on TV, and who is the assigning
channels (if we are talking about TV, but similar questions can be
made reagarding any other media -- even this, we are using now!).

>The people were systematically, in the course of at least 10 (if not more)
>years, driven into an economic abyss, without any hope for recovery, and
>were at the point when the war started already terribly angry, desperate,
>and confused.

But I can hardly see how the current leaders were really the most
important actors in the events 10 years ago, though I agree that deeds
of current tragedy has to be searched there as well.

>The leaders are also in power to choose
>decisions and to predict an outcome of certain moves much better than
>the people. The people may have chosen them because of certain ideas
>they have promissed, but on the day to day's basis, they and only they
>decide what to do and what to order. And they tell the people that only
>that will fulfill whatever...

To add; on next elections they loose if they don't bring the things
people were promissed. The problem here is that this works in "normal"
situations. But as things were going on in ex-YU there was no more
trust in anybody and everybody was afraid of somebody even to the
point that he thought that it was possible to loose a life. At this
moment the only possible force which could hold country together was
Army, but it was built on wrong premisses and ideas what led to the
total destruction and horror we are whitnessing now. To conclude, the
tragedy of ex-YU is not easy to describe and even more difficult to
define the reasons for it, and blameing leaders is very simple though
much oversimplified. Ultimately, the bullets and shells are fired by
individuals ... (c.f.with a statement made by a POW, a Serb, in one of
recenet editions of BOSNET).

And the war is not ended yet, not talking about the conflict. Serbs
are moving out of Prevlaka and Konavli. Now the relatives of those who
lost their lives there will start to ask why they lost them. What will
be answer? And what will be answer, when trading will be reopened
between Croatia and Serbia, to Croats? How will look to others peoples
in the area of B&H (whatever will be the political map)? As I said
that many times, we are not living for today, but for tomorrow and as
Beaumarchais wrote: "Don't look where are you comming from, but where
are you going to!" And our children will have to look into each other
eyes. Will they be able?

Best regards,

Andrej