Arguments for the Kingdom of Serbia (2)

Prof. Dr. Slobodan Vitanović (1928–2007), February 2003:

„Not only monarchy has the indisputable long history and exceptionally important role in the development and progress of Serbian state, but it also has doubtless advantages in the present and in the immediate future.

Serbia was a false republic within communist Yugoslavia, for its representatives were elected as life long, which by no means is a characteristic of republican form of government. When Serbia began trying to become democratic and parliamentary republic, its weaknesses emerged: conflicts between different political options that can’t be solved, between personal ambitions and ambitions of the leaders, possibility of candidacy of highly dubious characters, far too often and expensive election campaigns that only divide, depress and demoralize people, turning them against each other, finally, even the impossibility to elect the head of state. Furthermore, even if the head of state was elected, he would represent only an unconvincing majority, or more precisely, minority of the people. The advantages of a democratic parliamentary monarchy in that respect are becoming more than obvious. In addition, a monarch, who is the symbol of the state, its supporting pillar, represents the nation’s entity and his reign is not subjected to the mentioned election tests. By his very personality, his descent, his reputation and his natural connections with other monarchs and other heads of states in the world, a monarch has greater weight than any other politician who managed to get enough votes.

Contemporary monarchy has its roots in tradition, but also a well-matched fitting into modern age tendencies. The connection of the Crown and the Altar is tradition, but separation of the State and the Church is reality. The Crown unites and reconciles both. Monarchy is bound to the religion and the Church through its origin, but through its democratic and parliamentary determination it is laicistic.”