The growing nationalism in the region is no longer a recurring phenomenon, but a strategic tool of current political agendas, which use the politics of the past to control the present — through the church, symbols, media and education. Nationalisms in the region do not act independently; they feed off each other, become mutually radicalised and legitimised, while societies remain trapped in a cycle of fear, division and unresolved issues – as it was emphasised in the latest episode of Civic Angle of Centre for Civic Education (CCE) on TVE. Guests of Zvezdana Kovač, Director of Strategy and Communications at CCE were Ervina Dabižinović, activist of the NGO ANIMA in Kotor, Dino Abazović, sociologist and university professor from Sarajevo, Eugen Jakovčić, human rights activist and spokesperson of the Serbian National Council in Zagreb and historian Sanja Radović from Belgrade.
Speaking about the interconnection and political instrumentalization of nationalism, Ervina Dabižinović emphasised that nationalism is not a passing or recurring phenomenon, but a constant whose manifestations in Montenegro today are actively promoted as political objective. “It is no longer the result of something, nor the consequence of anything – it is simply the objective,” she said and added that nationalisms in the region are mutually conditioned and closely intertwined. “The radicalisation of one lead to the radicalisation of another, creating a tangle in which it is almost impossible to tell who starts it, who continues it or who brings it to an end,” Dabižinović explained.
Dino Abazović recalled the well-known thesis of Adam Michnik that nationalisms in post-socialist countries are “the last attempt of communism to establish authoritarian rule.” According to Abazović, nationalism cannot be interpreted outside the broader political and cultural context.
“No nationalism draws strength from itself alone, but precisely through antagonising other nationalisms they feed off one another,” said Sanja Radović. “Nationalist rhetoric is not only similar; it is almost inseparable. When that prefix is taken away, you cannot see the difference between them,” she stated.
Dabižinović holds the position that nationalism in Montenegro has taken on several forms: ethnic, cultural and religious. She pointed out that the Serbian World project has direct support from the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC) and that it represents a “negation of the authenticity of the Montenegrin national identity.” Dabižinović highlighted the symbiosis between politics and the Church, noting that “this alliance between the institution of the Church and politics today shapes the political and ideological discourse in Montenegro.”
Abazović emphasises the role of religion in the formation of political identities in the Balkans. “Since the 1990s, religion has become a solid political fact throughout Southeast Europe. Today, religion is lived as if we are born into it, not as something we choose. Religious symbols in this region have gone through a process of profanisation and then re-sacralisation as national symbols par excellence,” he said, stressing that the problem lies in the fact that religion no longer conveys universal values. “Today, a large number of people do not distinguish between national and religious identity,” Abazović concluded.
Eugen Jakovčić described nationalism in Croatia as “resilient and highly adaptable.” He recalled the hysteria caused by Cyrillic signs in Vukovar and the institutional silence of church structures at the time. “We addressed Pope Francis because bishops and priests did not respond,” he said.
“The revival of Ustashism has been simmering since the 1990s. HDZ and Franjo Tuđman did Croatia a disservice in that regard,” said Jakovčić, commenting on the attempts to relativise the Ustasha past. He warned of trends such as concerts featuring nationalist slogans and the tolerance of Ustasha symbols. “Soon, in Zagreb, we’ll have half a million people shouting Ustasha slogans. There’s always politics behind that,” he said.
“Graffiti and murals in Belgrade are not spontaneous — they are planned and uniform. It is a coordinated campaign aimed at creating the impression that everyone thinks the same,” said Sanja Radović, describing the situation in Serbia as concerning, with the systematic production of a nationalist narrative through the media and public space.She also pointed out the importance of the location of symbols, such as the mural of Ratko Mladić: “For years, those murals weren’t seen as a problem until they reached the city centre – that’s when the fight began.” She also thinks that the media pressure is constant, making it difficult to determine whether nationalism is coming from above or below. “To truly understand what people actually think, we would need ten years without a predominantly nationalist narrative in the media,” she explained.
“At one point, politicians tried to appear more civil, more pro-European, and they toned down the nationalist rhetoric, but it simply shifted to stadiums, theatres, and among fan groups. And now, it has returned once again to the institutions,” Abazović recalled, referring to a broader phenomenon and Jakovčić added: “Whenever politicians need the help of nationalism, they immediately reach for it.”
The fact that the President of the Parliament of Montenegro did not congratulate citizens on Independence Day is, according to Dabižinović, a political signal rather than an accidental oversight. “It actually reveals the intention behind such politics and clearly shows that, even today, within that political group, Montenegrin independence is far from certain,” said Dabižinović, warning about the way symbols are used to “stir up historical trauma.”
“Nationalism doesn’t come from just one side — it is both complementary and competitive. One nationalism feeds another, and together they conceal the real social issues — poverty, corruption and the disenfranchisement of citizens,” warned Dino Abazović.
Eugen Jakovčić also spoke about the political manipulation of collective myths in Croatia, particularly through narratives about “Operation Storm“ and “Vukovar“, noting that “anyone who presents facts that go against those myths is immediately identified as an enemy.” He stressed that 30 years after the war is still not possible to hear plural voices in the public space in Croatia when it comes to war memory. “We cannot see different narratives in public commemorations. It’s always about the return of Croatian refugees, while the fact that other people were simultaneously leaving their homes is completely ignored,” Jakovčić emphasised.
Speaking about the new generations, all participants expressed concern over the depoliticisation of young people and the lack of solidarity.
“Nationalism disarms empathy and destroys social cohesion. Communities struggle to communicate and that is nationalism’s greatest success,” said Ervina Dabižinović. Jakovčić added that “young people’s sensitivity has been dulled, focused only on their own small territories, while empathy for others is almost non-existent.” He particularly criticised political elites for their lack of response to global tragedies, such as the one in Gaza, saying they are “teaching young people to be indifferent.”
One of the few bright spots, the guests agreed, are the student protests in Serbia. “Nationalism in Serbia actively undermines every form of social cohesion. But it was the students who showed that connection is still possible,” said Sanja Radović, warning that as soon as the students raised their voices against corruption and injustice, they were immediately accused of anti-state activity. “The authorities’ first response was to label them traitors — but they didn’t react to that, and that is their greatest success,” she recalled.
In the final part of the programme, the question of the European Union as both a political goal and a reality wasraised. Jakovčić said that Croatia had “failed to play a key role” as a model for the region. “Instead of calming nationalisms, Croatia has become a country with a nationalist, almost chauvinistic government,” he stated. Ervina Dabižinović added that Montenegro’s accession to the EU without genuinely confronting its past would be “a disservice,” emphasising that “it is important not to join the EU before we resolve the fundamental problems that are wrong and the root of the entire situation.” Sanja Radović warned that support for the EU in Serbia has fallen below 40%, partly due to the Union’s unclear position. “Citizens have no trust because the EU often remains silent when the government crosses red lines. And when you have economic problems, an authoritarian regime, and a lack of external support — you create ideal conditions for the rise of nationalism,” she concluded.
The full episode is available at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bup6Dh7eDPM
The programme was produced as part of CCE’s project “Europeanisation through the Civic Angle”, supported through the regional programme SMART Balkans – Civil Society for Shared Society in the Western Balkans, implemented by the Center for Civil Society Promotion (CPCD), Center for Research and Policy Making (CRPM), and the Institute for Democracy and Mediation (IDM), with financial support by Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The content of the show is the sole responsibility of the CCE and the speakers, and does not necessarily reflect the views of CPCD, CRPM, IDM, or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway.
Maja Marinović , Programme Associate