Correspondence:  A Response to Brana Mijatović

Andrei Simić

University of Southern California

An article by Brana Mijatović, 
“(Com)Passionately Political: Music of Djordje 
Balašević,” appeared in the Spring 2004 issue of 
this journal.  In it, she described, in some detail, 
the significance of Yugoslav/Serbian pop singer 
Djordje Balašević, with particular reference to the 
recent crises in former Yugoslavia and Serbia.  
More accurately, this essay constitutes a not even 
thinly veiled political polemic.  In this sense, this 
work can be seen as emblematic of a widespread 
but far from universal view expressed by a 
significant number of young, largely urban, and 
educated Serbs deeply influenced by their strong 
attraction to the West and its perceived affluence 
and glamor.  For them, most of Serbia’s current 
problems are attributed to Milošević, 
traditionalism, and nationalism.  Like them, the 
author conveniently fails, even in passing, to 
consider other explanations and antecedents for the 
numerous tragedies that have characterized the 
recent history of former Yugoslavia.

In this paper, Mijatović leaves little doubt that she 
is expressing her own ideological position through 
the vehicle of Balašević, a position that is most 
clearly postulated in a single paragraph (p. 94).  
Here she cites a litany of sins entirely attributable 
to the Milošević regime: The suppression of 
political opposition, fraudulent elections, the 
destruction of independent media, responsibility 
for the [civil] wars in Yugoslavia, and economic 
ruin and poverty, among others.  While Milošević 
can be faulted in many ways, the assertion of his 
overwhelming responsibility for Serbia’s woes can 
be disputed by a considerable body of evidence.  
However, due to the lack of space provided here, I 
will deal only with the economy, and very briefly.  

It can be argued that measures taken by the 
Milošević regime in respect to the economy during 
that period when he was in power were not the 
cause of the impoverishment of Serbia, but were, 
for the most part, responsive to an externally 
imposed crisis.  For instance, Yugoslavia’s heavy 
borrowing from the West, beginning as early as 
the late 1960’s, established conditions for the 
destruction of the country’s socialist economic 
system.  As has been the case with other debtor 
nations, the International Monetary Fund and the 
World Bank demanded that the Yugoslavs 
undertake disastrous reforms, which included 
massive cuts in social spending and the closing of 

industries regarded as “unprofitable.”  This, in 
turn, resulted in massive unemployment, which 
was only temporarily mitigated by the exodus of 
guest workers to Germany.  This all occurred 
before Milošević came to power.  Similarly, the 
economic war waged by the United States against 
the former Yugoslavia from the 1980’s onwards 
only intensified the destruction of Yugoslavia’s 
unique form of socialism.  The unambiguous goal 
of this campaign was the imposition of a so-called 
free-market economy and the opening up of 
Yugoslavia for the exploitation of its resources and 
the creation of a cheap labor pool.  Serbia and 
Montenegro, the two republics in which socialism 
was most deeply entrenched, became the primary 
targets of Western hostility.  The final blow to the 
economy of what has been termed “rump 
Yugoslavia” were the sanctions instigated by the 
United States and several other Western countries 
during the Yugoslav civil wars.  Thus, it is no 
surprise that during this period, as well as at 
present, “the gray market” cited by Mijatović has 
flourished.

It is disturbing enough that many opinion makers 
and academics in our country, to say nothing of the 
American media in general, have so uncritically 
and unambiguously demonized Milošević and the 
Serbs as wholly responsible for the tragedies in 
former Yugoslavia.  However, it is even more 
remarkable that Mijatović lauds Balašević for 
having produced “cathartic effects by enabling his 
audience to experience deeply felt and yet often 
repressed emotions of grief, guilt, and shame” (p. 
101).  By this, the author implicitly calls upon the 
reader to embrace the concept of unique Serbian 
responsibility for the disasters that have 
characterized the past fourteen years in the history 
of Yugoslavia.  Such a single-dimensional view, 
excluding other alternatives, contributes little to 
our understanding of the origins of these conflicts 
and the uses and misuses of power.

Jen
Typewritten Text
99