Research 25 Jan 12

Law Fails to End Serbia's Cultural Chaos

BIRN research in 11 cities across Serbia shows that two years after the adoption of a landmark culture law, its anticipated benefits have not been felt and confusion is worse than ever. Pročitajte ovo istraživanje na srpskom jeziku

By Nemanja Cabric and Jovan Ristic in Belgrade, Nis, Leskovac, Vranje, Pozega, Staro Selo and Sabac; Branislava Lovre in Novi Sad, Bela Crkva, Indjija, Backi Petrovac and Subotica; Pedja Popovic in Belgrade. BIRN

Over-mighty minister

Dimitrije Vujadinović, osnivač i direktor Balkankult fondacije

Most people working in culture expected the democratic changes in Serbia in 2000 soon to lead to changes to the Law on Culture passed in 1992 under the authoritarian regime of Slobodan Milosevic.

Cultural policy professor Vesna Djukic recalls that the 1992 law annulled a set of laws from the earlier period that took a better strategic approach to cultural development.

Dimitrije Vujadinovic, director of the Balkankult Foundation and cultural policy expert, says the 1992 law was soon outdated because it did not reflect the new cultural circumstances of the times, particularly regarding the emergence of companies and the independent sector. Therefore, the drafting of a new law in 2002 began with great expectations.

Vesna Milosavljevic, director of Seecult, a citizens association in Belgrade, expected the new law in 2009 to make radical changes, in terms of depoliticization, greater transparency and equal status for the independent and public sectors - together creating a foundation for the adoption of new legislation.

Ministry: Law on Culture Fulfilled Expectations

BIRN: Has the Law on Culture met expectations regarding the reform of cultural institutions – the transition to project funding and cuts in staff numbers in cultural institutions?

Ministry of Culture: Until the adoption of the new Law on Culture in 2009 no law, or any other major piece of legislation governing the field of culture had been passed for over 15 years. Along with this we should bear in mind the fact that the Law on Culture is the first systemic law in this field in the history of our culture. Another thing that should be noted is that the Law on Culture is a systemic act for this field that constitutes a basis for the passage of other laws that will individually regulate, in more detail, certain areas of culture.

So far the Law on Culture has met expectations because its implementation in practice is, at the same time, followed by a systemic regulation of the functioning of various procedures that are of vital importance for the functioning of our culture. We note that the role of the Law on Culture is not focused on determining the number of employees in the field of culture (this is a task for other laws outside culture), but, among other things, on a more efficient functioning of the cultural development system, on alleviating the pressure on the budget, on the development of creative industries, that is, on developing a system of cultural institutions’ self-funding and, in general, on the creation of a system in which culture will no longer be just a consumer but rather a driving force of industry’s development, not only at the level of the republic, but also at local level.

„Particularly important levers (at the time of the adoption of the new Law) were setting up the National Council and the adoption of a Culture Strategy, which were to serve as a basis for the adoption of local strategies,” she recalls.

But the National Culture Council has drawn complaints. This body, tasked with drawing up a development strategy, comprises prominent artists, employees of cultural institutions, members of cultural associations, academicians and representatives of national minorities.

According to Vesna Djukic, however: „The law failed to give the National Culture Council decision-making powers establishing it solely as an advisory body, while the minister is still the one passing the decisions.”

„This means that the state cultural policy model introduced by the 1992 law is still in force, even though before that we had a para-state (decentralised) cultural policy model.”

Vujadinovic is even more critical, describing the National Culture Council as redundant. It is merely „a smoke screen for the Culture Minister's broad powers,” he says.

Click on the links below to continue reading this article: