Miodrag Vlahovic, former head of Montenegro’s foreign ministry, has voiced strong concerns over the political tactics employed by the ruling party, the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS). He criticizes their recent shift away from the name “Church of Serbia,” which he argues is a misrepresentation of reality. Vlahovic claims that this change reflects a deeper political strategy that undermines genuine opposition efforts in Montenegro.
In a post on social media platform X, Vlahovic stated that the repositioning of the Church’s name serves as a tactical maneuver by the DPS leadership. He noted that this tactic is designed to distract citizens, urging them to remember and wait for the elections scheduled for 2027. According to Vlahovic, such strategies diminish the effectiveness of the opposition, effectively pushing potential political allies to the fringes and branding them as “extremists.”
Vlahovic emphasizes that the current political landscape in Montenegro is deeply affected by the DPS’s fixation on regaining lost support from the Party of Europe (PES). He argues that this fixation creates an illusion of a united front while promoting a narrative that distances the DPS from any association with so-called extremists. The former diplomat points out that this political behavior lacks awareness of both internal dynamics and the broader regional and international context.
The former minister further critiques the lack of serious political dialogue in Montenegro, which he believes is replaced by a culture of hostility towards dissenting opinions. He notes that the opposition continues to act as if they are still in power, utilizing media outlets to propagate a monotonous message of “oppositional unity.” Vlahovic likens this to the political environment of May 2006, suggesting that Serbian political and security centers view such tactics as ineffective and trivial.
As he continues, Vlahovic questions the effectiveness of the current DPS ideology, asking whether the belief that opposition unity can be achieved through enforced consensus is misguided. He challenges the notion that avoiding the name “Church of Serbia” will somehow foster closer ties to its constituents, labeling this approach as overly simplistic and naive.
Vlahovic warns that unless there is a significant change in political strategy, Montenegro risks repeating past mistakes. He believes that the current opposition, which he describes as being more focused on maintaining a façade of power, could face dire consequences in future elections. He raises the possibility that if the DPS remains the dominant opposition party after 2027, they may struggle to form coalitions with other parties, including PES or any groups aligned with Serbian nationalism.
In closing, Vlahovic insists that those who criticize the opposition are not to blame for its shortcomings. He argues that the real responsibility lies with the political leaders who fail to engage in meaningful discourse and perpetuate the cycle of ineffective governance. His comments raise important questions about the future of Montenegro’s political landscape and the need for a more genuine approach to governance and opposition.
