Constructing a representative

In this section, I examine how MPs from minority backgrounds construct themselves as descriptive and substantive representatives of minorities. All the MPs invited the audience to recognise their claims based on their ethnic credentials and their sharing in the experience of the ethnic group they claimed to represent. In addition, they portrayed themselves as substantive representatives, whose primary representative function was to provide either service or policy benefits to their communities. Regardless of power sharing guarantees, their efforts were not necessarily successful: success seems to be more dependent on the international community’s backing than on MPs’ veto powers. Hence, alongside constituencies themselves, the international community ranks amongst the MPs’ most important audiences. The analysis offered below shows that MPs construct themselves differently depending on their relationship to constituents and audience. This supports my earlier argument about the complexity and dynamics of representation – how its form shifts according to its audience and function.

5.2.1. Descriptive representation

Claims by minority MPs in Kosovo confirm my argument that just as identity is not simply a “thing”, descriptive representation is not simply a given. Both are rather the result of complex and ongoing processes of social identification to which politics, and, in particular, the politics of minority claim-making is integral. In Kosovo, perhaps more clearly than in Serbia, we see how the internal project of constructing a sense of commonality, or similarity, work in tandem

115

with the construction of a sense of difference from external Others. MPs invite the audience to recognise the represented as internally ethnically and culturally homogenous based on MPs’ construal of themselves as embodiments of these groups and their “naturalised” distinctive traits.

As I argued in the introduction, ethnic identity remains central to discourses about the war and what is presented as its on-going continuation by other means. In countries where, in spite of being institutionalised, ethnicity remains so closely associated with conflict and violence, it tends to shape emphatically the positioning and role of political representatives. Claims made by the minority MPs in the Kosovo parliament show that Kosovo is not an exception:

Since the war, it has always been: I am a Serb and I look after my interests; he is Albanian and he cares about his interests. I am sure and have seen in a number of cases that Albanians are not interested to improve the living conditions for the Serb community because they would be criticised by their community. At the beginning when we came here, when we started working, some [Albanian] MPs talked to us when we went abroad to Brussels, Germany, or somewhere else, but when we came back to Kosovo, they behave as if we did not know each other (Bontić, Interview, 2014).

This claim suggests that identities are, as the late cultural theorist Stuart Hall (1996) argued, strategic and positional, rather than essential. Identity is constructed as exclusionary: a true representative of an ethnic group is expected to create internal boundaries of collective authenticity and to define these against external boundaries towards other groups and their representatives. These boundaries are meant to exclude audiences beyond the constituency and limit representation to a unidirectional and inviolable relationship between representatives and their constituents. A representative typically speaks about the interests and identities of her ethnic group as if they were natural and inevitable and as if her legitimacy depended solely on recognition by the constituency. Any claims to speak beyond one’s own ethnic group or across constituencies would therefore risk making representatives illegitimate. This is not to deny however that the performance of identity varies strategically before different audiences (e.g., in front of international actors or the local constituency). On the contrary, as we shall see, MPs redefine their role as representative differently as the context of action shifts.

Similar to Serbia, MPs in Kosovo make a claim to authenticity in constructing themselves as descriptive representatives. Descriptive representation is depicted as a true personification of one’s ethnic group and its naturally defining characteristics. It does not depend on electoral authorisation or affiliation with minority parties; it is about who a representative really is. Being one of them and being one with them are taken as synonymous

116

and as a guarantee that the representative cannot harm the community’s interests. She shares in their experience and will always act in the knowledge of it: “I do not need any or anyone’s glasses to understand the reality in which Serb community has been living all these years” (Vesna Mikić, PT, 19.03.2012). This MP suggests that her relationship to the constituency is direct: she does not need anyone’s mediation or interpretation to know her constituency and what is of worth to it. As one of them, she could not possibly think or do anything differently than the constituents themselves.

For minority MPs, furthermore, being authentic refers to being rooted in the territory, with territory and identity being equally fixed, and unmoveable by external influences:

I was born in Kosovo, I went to school in Kosovo, I was here during the war, I married in Kosovo, have a child in Kosovo and actually I can say that I have not left Kosovo for a single day (Živković, Interview, 2014).

The representative’s undisputed rootedness in the territory makes her a true representative of the Kosovo Serb community. In the context of Kosovo, this is a particularly important claim to make: many people have left or plan to leave the economically poor post-conflict society, in which minorities feel unwelcome. Yet, the representatives speak for those who have decided to stay and aim to convince them that Kosovo is also their home. In not sending their families to Serbia and in not planning to leave themselves, they are affirming their commitment to community.

This understanding of authenticity differs from the one developed in the claims of minority MPs in Serbia. As I argued in the previous chapter, minority MPs in Serbia framed authenticity as emerging from a direct electoral link with minority voters (that is, as emerging primarily from authorisation). Minority MPs in Kosovo do not connect authenticity with authorisation, but to an independent, untainted and direct connection with the group, a “personification” (ethnicity internalised in absolute personal self-identification) which then implies no need for accountability (cf. Saward, 2009).

Group unity and an unmediated relationship between the representatives and the represented were also evoked in other claims about the capacity to identify material interests:

Our contribution, as legitimate representatives of our communities in the Kosovo institutions, comes from the fact that we are every day in touch with all the problems and challenges faced by our community and we feel them completely (Petar Miletić, PT, 18.10.2012).

A representative shares the same living experience as his constituency, which enables him to not only know but also to see from their perspective, feel their worries and share in their interests. According to this claim, a representative is one with the community: he does not only give it voice, but rather enables its full presence on the political stage.

117

This close and direct relationship between representatives and the represented is constructed as an even stronger bond in the following claim by an Ashkali MP:

No one can defend a minority interest if he is not a member of that group. I say it as a politician and a lawyer. Until you have your man, no one can defend you. That is the same as having a small child. A neighbour cannot breastfeed your child. And this works for all parties (Ademi, Interview, 2014).

Politics is here constructed as war-like and the relationship between minority constituencies and their representatives compared to that between a baby and a mother, in which dependency is total. One of the main roles of a mother is to look after and protect her child. Like mothers, representatives are expected to be unselfish and fully committed to their children. Moreover, a mother gives birth to a child; not only does she breastfeed the child, but its very existence and developing personality also depend on her. Read in this way, and perhaps against the representative’s original intention, this claim reveals the truth about the act of representing. For it speaks not only about the constitution of a representative, but also about the power of representatives to shape ethnic identities and bring interests into being: to give them form. A representative does not merely repeat what is already there, representation also constitutes minorities as what they are (Thomassen, 2007, p. 116). Therefore, while the above-mentioned claims aim to portray representation as mere presentation, in effect they invoke the constitutive and performative dimensions of representation.

Claims to authenticity were particularly emphasised by the Serb MPs because their identity and ethnic loyalty are under fire by the kin-state:

It hurts me that they call us Thaçi’s15 Serbs because I am not, I am Serb and I protect Serb interests…. We recognise that the only way out for survival and to stay in this region is to enter the institutions of Kosovo and fight for Serb interests, for our rights. This is the only way, by boycotting you do not get anything (Bontić, Interview, 2014). Serb MPs in the Kosovo parliament are often portrayed as traitors in Serbia because of their cooperation with the Kosovo institutions. The metaphor ’Thaçi’s Serbs’ alludes to their betrayal of Serbian interests by their participation in what are considered illegitimate institutions and their resulting legitimisation. This external pressure imposes a huge constraint on the performance of representation: to make their claims culturally resonant, MPs would be expected to demonstrate their loyalty to Serbia by being uncooperative and resisting ethnic Albanian state-building efforts. In interviews, however, MPs claimed that instead of giving in to such pressures, their strategy was to redescribe the meaning of betrayal and loyalty.

15

Hashim Thaçi was the Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo from 2007-2014. In 2016 he was elected the President of Kosovo.

118

First, they claim that substantive representation or the advancement of the interests of their community can be delivered only through participation and compromise; it is not a betrayal of interests if one is doing what is necessary to pursue these effectively. Second, they argue that “good representatives” of the Kosovo Serbs are not those loyal to Serbia but those loyal to the Kosovo Serbs. The stress is therefore on local identification and loyalty as the pursuit of local symbolic and material interests. Hence, Serbia’s position is not to be followed blindly. Instead the representatives of Kosovo Serbs must think independently about ways of strengthening local identity and pursuing what is locally valued:

There are these good representatives of their communities who are real Serbs, who are from Kosovo, who think independently and who understand this process in time … They understood it in the way that integration in Kosovo institutions and Kosovo society is their only salvation, the only solution for survival and existence. It is easy from a comfortable chair to dictate the tempo of living 350km away; that is very nice and comfortable, but the situation here and our living conditions are different (Kostić, Interview, 2014).

According to this claim, a good representative is more loyal to Kosovo Serbs than Serbia. Since the territory of Kosovo is currently under Albanian rule, if Serbs want to stay in Kosovo they have to integrate in Kosovo society. On the other hand, those who follow directions from Belgrade are constructed as giving up on Kosovo and thereby the Kosovo Serbs. Interestingly, while authenticity is usually defined as the politics of intransigence, for Serb representatives authentic politics is a politics of compromise and cooperation:

Our biggest problem is our lack of unity in Kosovo, our divisions and our self- promotion of someone else’s politics. We do not have a politics that is the politics of Kosovo Serbs, an authentic politics of Kosovo Serbs. This is necessary for us (Marinković, Interview, 2014).

Because of the lack of adequate support from Belgrade, Serb MPs claim that they ”feel like orphans in a military school, who are left alone in a graduation ceremony and everyone else’s parents came to support” (Milosavljević, Interview, 2014). The metaphors used in this claim portray beautifully an image of representatives as inexperienced children who need the care and support of their parents – in this case the kin-state – but have been abandoned by them. MPs portray themselves as left to their own devices in parliament. But the long arm of Serbia makes itself felt in other ways: the play of loyalty to Serbia creates disunion; it divides them against themselves. This is strengthened by the portrayal of the Kosovo parliament as a military school. Being in a war zone requires joining forces and acting as one before the enemy. But what one witnesses is rather internal division, which undermines the development of a true politics of Kosovo Serbs, the only one that can serve their interests.

119

Being abandoned by Serbia should, however, encourage them to do the contrary: that is, to develop their own, independent, politics of Kosovo Serbs. Amongst other things, this politics includes integration into the Kosovo institutions and cooperation with the majority. In making such claims, MPs challenge the culturally accepted norms that no cooperation is possible with the enemy. In order to make such claims legitimate they argue that an orientation towards cooperation and compromise does not exclude resistance. On the contrary, their mere presence in Kosovo institutions disrupts Albanian goals of creating an Albanian ethnic state:

They are bothered by our presence. The Vetevendosje16 party cannot stand to even watch us and they would prefer that we were not around anywhere, and especially in the Kosovo Assembly. They would like to rule everything. Maybe that is hidden somewhere deep in other political parties, but definitely, it would have been easier for them if Serb representatives were not here (Bontić, Interview, 2014).

The presence of Serb MPs in the Kosovo parliament suggests that the institutions of Kosovo do not belong to Albanians only, and that Serbs have the right to participate in them and shape them.

By being present in parliament, MPs send a message that minority groups are an integral part of Kosovo. After the proclamation of Kosovo independence, those minorities, which were on the side of Serbia during the war, did not feel welcome in the new Albanian state. The presence of Serb representatives in parliament is in itself a claim to ownership over Kosovo and perceived as such. It also reduces their fear of the Albanian majority and encourages their constituents to act in the same way:

Until I started working here in Prishtina in the assembly, I was afraid to leave the borders of the enclaves. There was always fear. That is not the case now. I believe that my example also shows others that they could also venture outside the areas of enclaves and that that is the only way to check what is permitted and what is not and that this is the only way to try, literally, to build a life. This process is not finished and we will need a lot of time, but it is worth trying (Živković, Interview, 2014).

These claims indicate how mere presence can do things: it shapes a state identity and makes a claim to its ownership. Hence, presence is never passive, as suggested in the previous literature (Htun, 2016). Presence itself performs representation by speaking to the audience about the group and its rightful belonging.

Institutional incentives such as reserved seats and a cultural background of deep ethnic divisions position minority MPs in the Kosovo parliament as descriptive representatives

16 _{An Albanian radical nationalist political party that opposes any negotiations with Serbia and any}

international involvement in Kosovo’s state building. Their ideology is based on ethnic nationalism which excludes the recognition of minority groups: they could only be recognised as individual citizens of Kosovo.

120

even before they make any claim based on their ethnicity. This allows them to make convincing claims about minorities more easily. Hence, the rootedness of their claims in their descriptive similarity to the constituency is self-understood; it does not have to be made explicitly. This explains why most of their claims to authenticity analysed in this section were made in interviews rather than plenary speeches. In interviews, MPs constructed themselves more explicitly as being one with the group, a genuine expression of the pre-constituted minority identity and interests. At the same time, institutional design and a recent history of ethnic conflict foreground the representation of ethnicity, they also act as a constraint: minority MPs feel prevented from making any claims beyond minority groups and their interests:

We are not given space to discuss issues or topics related to life in general, that is, economy, law, any other area. Instead, we are always invited there where we have to discuss minority communities and defend our communities. I do not like this political discrimination (Redžepi, Interview, 2014).

Descriptive similarity is used as a resource in performing substantive representation, but it also imposes a limit on how far the “substance” of that representation might extend – not economy or law in general, but “minority matters” (or economy and law only insofar as it intersects with these). To legitimise themselves in advancing these, MPs construct themselves as having an unmediated relationship with the constituency. Their claims are not tainted by any mediation including mediation by the kin state; they are authentic embodiments of the true minority identity, which enables them to know and advance true minority interests. Here again descriptive and substantive representation do not work as separate and independent representative forms, but rather as dynamic and intertwined positions representatives strategically take and seek to mutually reinforce.

Finally, my findings show that it is not possible to separate the components of a representative claim except analytically. In constructing themselves as legitimate, representatives necessarily evoke their relationship with the constituency offering thereby a particular portrayal of it. In the above claims, we saw representatives constructing the constituency as an inward-oriented, unitary group, bearing natural interests and a fixed identity. MPs further claimed that it is in the minority interest to integrate with the wider society and be allowed to think independently, unconstrained by any external pressure, be it