Union of the Royalist of Serbia, Member of International Monarchist Conference
Whereas Serbia was founded by monarchists loyal to the Crown, and has continued to be loyal to the Crown, rather than loyal to a republic;
We, the loyal, patriotic supporters of THE KINGDOM OF SERBIA state that,
i. We are of different racial, ethnic, religious and cultural background.
ii. We share different political and social beliefs.
iii. We support the position of the monarchy in Serbia from all republican movements, political parties and other organizations, and believe that the monarchy should continue to represent Serbia even as a leader in Balkan and to be a standard for a stable constitutional monarchy in The World.
iv. We remind those advocating the republican constitution in Serbia, Serbia has always been a monarchy -- from its first days, to the modern monarchy, which was nullify by the tyranny.
v. We allege that the republican drive to now nullify Serbia's unique institution of monarchy is an injustice to those who founded this nation.
vi. We are not a group that wishes "British" model of Serbia, in such matters as a constitution etc... and refuse the notion that those who defend the HRH CP Aleksandar II of Serbia and the institutions he represents are less Serbian or less nationalistic or less modern than those who promote republic constitution.
vii. We believe the republicans' drive is a distracting and divisive issue when Serbia is faced with many other issues and challenges to overcome.
viii. We allege that our past system of monarchy, especially coherent like the Spanish constitution and the Spanish model of transition, from the tyranny to the modern democratic monarchy, will be provide Serbia with an excellent record of democratic government and full measure of independence and egalitarianism which republicans do not advocate. We resent the xenophobic republican attitude that Republic of Serbia better represent a will of the people of Serbia, than KINGDOM OF SERBIA.
ix. We believe that the xenophobic republican attitude is hurting Serbia -- a nation which is one of the few in the world which have over a 1000 years long monarchist history. Serbia was always the monarchy, when she was in the freedom.
x. Some of us believe that we are already becoming more Americanized. By taking this last step, to vote for the continuity of republican constitution imposed by the force of communist paramilitary group, so coled Partizans , we are not only losing a part of our history and culture, but also our identity.
xi. Some of us simply enjoy the history, and the ceremony associated with our monarchy. We believe that the Crown and Church are a symbols of our past and should continue to be a symbols of our future.
xii. We are also angered by the past and recent attacks on the HRH CP Aleksandar II Karadjordjevic of Serbia. His Royal Highness Crown Prince has served Serbia to the best of her ability, and we believe the recent attacks are unjustified.
Whatever our differences, we are united in support of our monarchy and her role in our nation. We are not ashamed of stating that we are and to fight for KINGDOM OF SERBIA...
Loyal to Serbia our beloved nation, and His Royal Highness Crown Prince Aleksandar II Karadjordjevic, future King of Serbia.
Long Live Serbia. God Save Our King.
YOU MUST BE A SERBIAN CITIZEN OR SERB IN A DIASPORE TO SIGN THIS PETITION.
S obzirom na to da je Srbija osnivana od strane monarhista lojalnih Kruni, i nastavila da bude lojalna Kruni, radije nego republici
Mi, lojalni rodoljubi, pristalice KRALjEVINE SRBIJE smatramo da
i. Mi smo različitog rasnog, etničkog, religioznog i kulturnog porekla.
ii. Mi delimo različita politička i društvena uverenja.
iii. Mi podržavamo poziciju monarhije u Srbiji kontra svih republikanskih pokreta, političkih partija i drugih organizacija, i verujemo da monarhija može da nastavi da reprezentuje Srbiju čak i kao lidera na Balkanu i da bude standard za stabilnu ustavnu monarhiju u svetu.
iv. Mi podsećamo one koji se zalažu za republikanski ustav u Srbiji, Srbija je oduvek bila monarhija -- od svojih prvih dana, do moderne monarhije, koja je ukinuta tiranijom.
v. Mi ukazujemo da republikanski put da se ukine srpska jedinstvena institucija monarhije jeste nepravda prema onima koji su formirali ovu naciju.
vi. Mi nismo grupa koja želi britanski model Srbije, po takvim pitanjima kao što je ustav itd. ..i odbijamo tvrdnju da oni koji brane NjKV Princa Prestolonaslednika Aleksandra Drugog i institucije koje on reprezentuje jesu manje srpske ili manje nacionalističke ili manje moderne od onih koji promoviše republikansi ustav.
vii. Mi verujemo da je republikanski put uništavajuća i podeljujuća tema kada je Srbija suočena sa mnogo drugih tema i izazova koji dolaze.
viii. Mi se zalažemo da bi naš nekadašnji sistem monarhije, naročito usaglašen kao španski Ustav i španski model tranzicije, od tiranije do moderne demokratske monarhije, promovisao Srbiju sa jednim odličnim dosijeom demokratske vlasti i prave mere nezavisnosti i jednakosti koji republikanci ne zastupaju. Mi odbijamo ksenofobičan republikanski stav da Republika Srbija bolje reprezentuje volju naroda Srbije, nego KRALjEVINA SRBIJA.
ix. Mi verujemo da ksenofobičan republikanski stav povređuje Srbiju--naciju koja je jedna od nekoliko u svetu koja ima preko 1000 godina dugu monarhističku istoriju. Srbija je uvek bila monarhija, kada je bila u slobodi.
x. Neki od nas veruju da smo mi već postali mnogo Amerikanizovani. Preduzimanjem ovog poslednjeg koraka, glasajaući za kontinuitet republikanskog ustava nametnutog silom od strane komunističke paramilitarne grupacije, takozvanih partizana, mi ne gubimo samo deo naše istorije i kulture, već i naš identitet.
xi. Neki od nas jednostvano uživaju u istoriji, i ceremonijama vezanim za monarhiju. Mi verujemo da Kruna i Crkva jesu simboli naše prošlosti i treba da nastave da budu simboli u budućnosti.
xii. Mi smo, takođe, ljuti na prošle i sadašnje napade na NjKV Princa Prestolonaslednika Aleksandra Drugog Karađorđevića od Srbije. Njegovo Kraljevsko Visočanstvo Prestolonaslednik služio je Srbiji najbolje što je mogao, i mi verujemo da su sadašnji napadi nepravedni.
Kakve god da su naše različitosti, mi smo ujedinjeni u podršci našoj monarhiji i njenoj ulozi u našoj naciji. Mi se ne sramimo da ostanemo ovde gde smo i da se borimo za KRALjEVINU SRBIJU...
Lojalni Srbiji, našoj voljnoj naciji i Njegovom Kraljevskom Visočanstvu Princu Prestolonasledniku Aleksandru Drugom Karađorđeviću, budućem Kralju Srbije.
Živela Srbija! Bože čuvaj Kralja!
VI MORATE BITI SRPSKI DRŽAVLjANIN ILI SRBIN U RASEJANjU DA BISTE POTPISALI OVU PETICIJU.
OVO JE SLOBODAN PREVOD PETICIJE KOJU MOŽETE PROČITATI NA ENGLESKOM, JER JE TAKAV SAJT NA KOME JE BESPLATNO POSTAVLjENA, I POTPISATI JE AKO SE SLAŽETE SA NjOM
Copy in yours browser and see the True:
We live in the 21st century, the age of democracy and equality of opportunity. We elect our leaders and hold them accountable to our representatives and to the law. Despite all this, a significant proportion of the World's democracies have as their head of state an unelected, hereditary monarch, chosen by nothing more representative or accountable than chance of birth, and normally removable by nothing other than death. The status of these individuals defies the principle of equality and meritocracy. Why do we continue to accept it? What does monarchy give us that makes this apparent anachronism worth preserving?
Part of the answer probably lies in the principle "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". In Europe, monarchies have survived in countries which have remained relatively stable over long periods, evolving gradually into modern democracies, evolving the monarchy along with them. In their cases, there has been no sudden or radical shift in political philosophy, leaving the monarchy floundering as a symbol of the old and discredited regime. Monarchies have fallen as a result of revolution, invasion, or catastrophic defeat in war, but never (in Europe) through a lawfully taken decision of a legislature or constitutional process where no wider major conflicts were involved.
Whatever faults the British monarchy may have, they don’t appear to be enough to warrant its removal, or enough to outweigh the benefits. There are various constitutional and political arguments which may underline the benefits of its existence. Not all the arguments which apply to the British monarchy will apply to others (or even to other realms of Her Britannic Majesty), but I will concentrate here on the British arguments.
The constitutional argument puts the monarch at the centre of the state. Although she exercises very little power at her own discretion, the Queen is the central cog in the machinery of state, the common link between executive, legislature, judiciary, civil service, military, church and other institutions, and keeps them all working. The Crown embodies the central authority under which these other bodies operate; it gives the final stamp of approval, the Royal Assent, to legislation. In a country without a written constitution, the Crown is the source of all state authority (although it is still subject to the law of the land – its authority is not absolute) . The authority, and those who exercise it, could be codified in writing, and the particular functions of the Head of State granted to a President, but we would lose the flexibility of a constitution which can evolve to meet changing circumstances without the difficulties of a formal, and sometimes difficult, amendment process.
The existence of a hereditary monarch keeps the politicians in their place. However eminent a Prime Minister may become, he is always subject to a higher personal authority. Ambition, politicking and intrigue can never take someone to the highest office in the land, and he can never aggrandise himself by claiming to be the head and ultimate representative of the nation. A British Prime Minister can be verbally mauled in the legislature, and summarily dismissed by it, with a level of disrespect which few nations would be happy to show to their Head of State, but might like to inflict on their lesser politicians. Although, in practice, it is always the politicians who give the orders and run the country, if they go far beyond their authority, others can, in theory, defy them by claiming allegiance to the higher authority of the Crown, which is duty-bound to uphold the democratic order without personal interest or favour. This argument has never been put to the test in the UK, and has had mixed success elsewhere.
Proponents of a republic might argue that their head of state has at least been chosen by the people, and so has a right to command their respect, but the flip-side of that is that every elected president was opposed by a sizable section of the population, which may feel little loyalty or respect for the man they didn't want to represent it. While it is true that nobody ever voted for Elizabeth II, it is equally the case that not one person has ever rejected her at the ballot box either. While we have a vague idea where she stands on some issues, we don't really know her views in the way in which we would with a politician or ex-politician, and it is difficult to feel resentment towards a person who has never imposed, or attempted to impose, an unpopular policy on anyone. Personal loyalty is easier to achieve, and personal loyalty perhaps has more resonance than loyalty to an inanimate flag or amorphous state.
That loyalty is also easier to feel towards people with whom one has been familiar all one's life. With only the gradual changes of births and deaths, the Royal Family has always been with us, without the constant changes which come with elections every few years. By the same token, members of the Royal Family know from an early age that their lives will be ones of public duty, and are brought up in that ethos, in a way which a private citizen is usually not. As a result, they rarely go wrong in their public role, even though they may be no more successful than the rest of us in achieving ideal private lives.
“Monarchy” means rule by one person, but modern monarchies can offer more than the services of one person, or one person plus a spouse, because they are supported by a royal family. The Queen alone is responsible for the constitutional functions of the monarch, but she can delegate other duties (such as investitures) when necessary to other members of the family, all as well-known and familiar as herself. Part of what gives constitutional monarchy an enhanced social role is its ability to espouse many worthy causes, and take the time to attend events and functions without having to take time out of the essential job of running the country to do so; and that role is greatly enhanced further by the fact that there are a number of princes and princesses to carry it out. By contrast, an individual non-executive President in a parliamentary republic is more limited in number of roles he can play and causes he can espouse.
As well as the familiarity with the members of today’s monarchy, the Crown also gives a sense of continuity with the past, in a way which a very modern institution doesn’t, and in a more personalized way than a non-hereditary, older institution can. It is instinctively conservative, and can preserve and represent traditions which date back centuries; its current representatives are the descendants of its former ones, and its family continuity over centuries enhances the sense of identity with a nation’s own history and culture.
The nation wouldn’t fall apart without the monarchy. Its culture isn’t entirely dependent on royalty, and ways can be found to preserve traditions and handle the constitutional issues which its absence would create (in fact, some would argue that such issues would be better dealt with through a written constitution, with clearly defined powers for the institutions of state). Because of its enduring nature, its importance can be romantically overemphasized. It’s not an institution which could be created today embodying all the features which give it its distinctive character, because its history is part of what makes it distinctive. But given that it exists and that it enhances the character of the nation, it would be a shame to lose it.
- Paul James
Na obnovljenu inicijativu Srpskog pokreta obnove, uskoro bi na dnevnom redu u Narodnoj skupštini Republike Srbije trebalo da se nađe Predlog zakona o otvaranju dosijea službi bezbednosti u Republici Srbiji.
Predlog zakona o otvaranju dosijea službi bezbednosti u Republici Srbiji možete u celini da pročitate ovde.
Građani će imati pravo da saznaju ko ih je špijunirao.
Biljana Pekušić za Southeast European Times iz Beograda -- 20/09/10
Srpska tajna služba dala je odobrenje da parlament usvoji zakon kojim bi se omogućilo građanima ili organizacijama da provere da li su bili predmet šprijuniranja i ko je to činio. Takođe će im biti omogućeno da pregledaju sadržaj bilo kakvih dosijea o sebi kojima raspolaže tajna služba, uključujući one iz doba Miloševićeve vladavine.
Ceo clanak na internet adresi:
Praška deklaracija je doneta 3. juna 2008. godine u Senatu Skupštine Republike Češke na skupu koji je nazvan praška konferencija „Evropska savest i komunizam“, i odnosi se na potrebu da se razotkriju šest decenija sakrivani zločini komunističkih režima Istočne Evrope, da se njihove žrtve obeštete i obezbede mere da se isti više ne ponove.
Tekst deklaracije glasi: „Imajući u vidu dostojanstvenu i demokratsku budućnost našeg Evropskog doma, i činjenice da:
Mi, učesnici Praške Konferencije "Evropska savest i komunizam", s obzirom na rezoluciju Evropskog parlamenta na šezdesetu godišnjicu završetka Drugog svetskog rata u Evropi, 8. maja 1945, 12. maja 2005,
pozivamo da se postigne:
Mi, učesnici praške konferencije „Evropska savest i komunizam“, pozivamo sve narode Evrope, sve evropske političke institucije uključujući i vlade, parlamente, Evropski parlament, Evropsku komisiju, Savet Evrope i druga relevantna međunarodna tela i pozivamo ih da prihvate ideje i pozive iskazane u ovoj praškoj deklaraciji i sprovedu ih u praktične korake i politike.“