There are many forms of totalitarianism, but they share a common aspiration – to establish complete control over society and to suppress every voice of reason. Consequently, the responses to such regimes, especially those that culminated in the rise of fascism and Nazism in the 1920s and 1930s, had to be multifaceted. Within that resistance, a particularly significant role belongs to the legal responses, both in international and domestic law.
In international law, these responses are reflected through conventions criminalizing the propagation of totalitarian ideologies, and consequently, the incitement of divisions within society. In domestic law, these norms are translated into mechanisms that not only prevent but also sanction the promotion of Nazi-fascist ideas, symbols and attitudes.
Some of the most significant legal lessons were drawn precisely in states that historically experienced the horrors of totalitarian regimes. The example of Germany, through the concept of a “defensive democracy” and the establishment of “eternal norms”, testifies to the determination to protect fundamental values by legal means and to prevent any attempt to restore Nazism.
Antifascism has therefore become a value-based pillar – the negation of everything that leads to the erasure of individual and collective identity, and that threatens dignity, freedom, and equality. By preserving these values, we preserve antifascism itself. In contemporary society, antifascism essentially represents the protection of human rights and the pursuit of a democratic and pluralistic society, free from ideologically motivated historical revisionism and authoritarian forms of governance. Or, to put it more simply and in a rock-and-roll spirit, as Mile Kekin put it: antifascism is a matter of decency.
For citizens to be able to reflect on this topic in a mature, critical and free manner, it is crucial that political actors act responsibly and wisely. Beyond education grounded in historical facts, the state must demonstrate that the glorification of fascist, Nazi and extremist ideologies, organisations and individuals is not only ethically unacceptable, but also legally punishable.
Therefore, the adoption of a special law prohibiting fascist, Nazi and extremist organisations and symbols is not only justified, but necessary for the protection of the public interest. The daily developments across Europe and the region further highlight the urgency of enacting such legislation.
The European Parliament recognised the danger of spreading neo-fascist ideologies as early as 2018, when it adopted a Resolution calling on Member States to ban neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups. That document expressed deep concern over the trend of the “normalisation” of fascism, racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance, as well as over “secret agreements” between certain political leaders and parties with neo-fascists and neo-Nazis. The European Parliament also urged the European Commission, Member States, and businesses operating in the field of social networks to actively oppose the spread of racism, fascism and xenophobia online, in cooperation with civil society organisations.
At the national level, the need for such a law in Montenegro is evident. From the denial of genocide and the rewarding of “artists” who spread hatred, to ongoing attempts to erect monuments to war criminals and to glorify movements that collaborated with the Nazis and fascists – we are witnessing a worrying trend of politically motivated revisionism. The promoters of such narratives, often high-ranking church officials or senior state representatives, use public resources to institutionalise these ideas. This creates a dangerous framework in which war criminals and their collaborators are portrayed as tragic heroes and legitimate role models.
Such attempts cannot alter historical facts, but they can shape the political future in the long term, aiming to equate the anti-fascist and collaborationist movements. It is even more dangerous when this interpretation of history is imposed as the position of all Serbs in Montenegro, equating them with the Chetnik movement, a notion that is deeply wrong and socially destructive.
Therefore, the Law on the Prohibition of Fascist, Nazi and Extremist Organisations and Symbols must clearly define examples of fascist, Nazi and extremist ideologies, organisations, individuals and practices that are being glorified in Montenegro. It should explicitly state that any form of praise, relativisation or justification of these ideologies and their protagonists is unacceptable and unlawful. The main goal must be to prevent discrimination, hate speech and the spread of destructive ideologies that threaten social cohesion and the fundamental values of the Montenegrin state.
The law must also cover the digital sphere – social media and online platforms – as well as all forms of visual and “mimetic” display of prohibited symbols, with clearly defined monitoring, accountability and sanction mechanisms.
Experts from various fields – legal scholars, historians, sociologists and media specialists – must be involved in drafting the law to ensure that it is modern, precise and applicable.
Overall, the adoption of such a law would represent a civilisational step forward and a demonstration that Montenegro possesses the maturity and political will to confront extremism and revisionism. For antifascism is not merely a historical notion, but the very foundation of modern and democratic Montenegro – the shield of its stability and sustainability.
Dr Ivan Vukčević, Programme Coordinator for Human Rights, Centre for Civic Education (CCE)