Ibrahim Rugova, metaphysic rebel

Today it is marked the seventy-fiveth birthday of Ibrahim Rugova, president of Kosovo for a decade and a half. He remains loved by much, and hated by another large part of our society. What nobody can deny is the importance he had in the most difficult political periods, and also the features of his personality.

Today's opinion is dedicated to him.

Most of my circle consisting of friends, family, coworkers, and different relatives is designated for express anti-Rugovism. Some despise him, some hate him, and others harshly criticize him. But there are others who love him. Rarely are those who take a critical look at all his activity. Both sides.

I don't know if his pre-war activity could be called pacifist or peaceful. That's because in the 1990s, the brutality of the regime had increased and being peaceful in that situation meant using peaceful means, meaning ineffective, And not wanting peace so much. Rugova's Pacific I think was a tool, a method, that could not be translated and could not be translated into purpose. So pacifism was the method, not the purpose. Like many others, I don't believe that without armed resistance we would have achieved peace. Ironically, but with full confidence, I can say that the KLA was peaceful at that time. This is because she loved peace to the extent that she was able to fight for it. Rugova did not believe in vulgar warfare, believed in war as a permanent state, with more sophisticated tools, and feared classical warfare.

Rugova's characteristics, I think, were civic passive, a substantial approach. This is not a dead end. It's the way General Kutuzov acted during the Russian war with Napoleon, if correctly the description of Tolstoy of War and Peace. But being a Persian does not necessarily constitute an uncritical or inconsiderate attitude. Not at all. It's a kind of political philosophy that stems from Albert Camus' confrontation with Jean Paul Sartre and the support he gave to Marxist groups. Camus at the Revolution Metaphysics showed how meaningless a commitment to revolution and bloodshed in a world that has at its core evil, death, failure. This meant, according to him, ignoring basic existential conditions. It proposes instead of the historic revolution, a metaphysic revolt.

“Metaphysic rebeling,” says Camus. “is the movement through which man protests against his existential conditions and against all creation. It's metaphysics because it disputes the intentions of man and creation. The slave protests against the conditions in which he finds himself within his condition of slavery; the rebel metasics protest against the conditions in which he finds himself as a human. The rebellious slave claims that there is something in it that will not tolerate the way his master treats him; the metasic rebel claims that he is frustrated by the entire universe. It is not for both of them but a pure, simple disbelief. In both cases, in fact, we find a judgment of value on which the rebel refuses to approve the conditions in which he finds himself. ”

In the above passage, we find Rugova ourselves as a metasic rebel. Let's not forget Rugova was a literary critic who had studied in France, even one of the most popular literary critics of the 20th century, Roland Barthes. Since he was well aware, it is impossible to imagine that he did not know Camus and his famous book. Or that the Persian approach was the product of an ignorance.

Rugova believed that what would happen would happen. So things happened by necessity, as Spinoza taught us. His political attitudes toward political occupants changed just such beliefs.

Rugova's critics already include some totalitarian thinking, perhaps inherited from the canon or tribity still present. What was required was the unification, that we be together, inseparable, indiscriminately. This was a dangerous failure for a society that aspired to cultivate political pluralism and democracy. Rugova did not waver from his stance even in times of crisis, affecting the creation of some myth or taboo in the future for that time. He was against the war, and that should be said plainly. He opposed violent means of achieving peace as a purpose. And at some point, he was right. Even if the purpose was achieved, as it did, it would lead to reshaping of oppression and violence based on the merits of war.

But what is war? Von Clessewitzi, the famous Grecian general, meant that it is political by other means. Nietzsche and Foucacul on the other hand, overturning this postules would say that war is actually permanent, so it never breaks, except sometimes the means change. So, according to this score, politics is war by means of other means.

Rugova has certainly read the Faucault, since he also dealt with literary criticism. Politics like war by other means. Think about it for a moment. Rugova therefore believed in another kind of war through which great purpose, liberation from oppression, was achieved. The struggle of vicious means, weapons, murders, inevitable atrocities, destroyed the social structure. And it was inevitable that such a thing would happen, as it did. If the civil war could be avoided after the war, perhaps it was the cause of Rugova's election victory. Of the victory of his passive spirit. Even when major shifts took place in the social structure, where some people boarded and others came down, he did not make a sound or make a sound. Nor did he institutionally initiate any action that could increase the displeasure of those who fought and took what they could take. Many people of his party were killed, but it was an inevitable flow of epilogues from that war. More and more could be killed if the two largest parties in the country -- the PDK's LDK -- used a more frustrated discurs on each other.

Rugova was certainly a non-conformist because he was not concerned about how he was perceived by the public. He was interested in serving as a passive philosophy agent, from which Kosovo could gain much. Small, ordinary countries embrace such a policy, being aware of the small territorial extent, and the weak force in relation to others. One thing we're reluctant to admit right now.

Rugova's attempt to cultivate relations with Kosovo allies is also to be admired. This attitude too was not born from nothing. He was born of consciousness that Kosovo was not at the center of the world, and there was no possibility of becoming an influential factor in global political developments. A controversial attitude is found in Adem Demach, who, as taught, has not hesitated to release the phone to Mrs. Albright, while this was trying to convince the Kosovo side to sign the Ramboulet agreement. Controversial positions still run into us these days, ranging from prime minister to opposition parties.

Rugova was obviously a metasic rebel. And that is what we need today. Before we want to change history, we need to understand our existential limits. And furthermore, our real political opportunities. If Kosovo has earned something so far, I think it's only because of the will of our allies.

Some people may find it patriotic when our president or prime minister decides not to listen to the ambassador of the United States. Eliminate the Special Court or something. But this is blind patriotism. Patriotism that rejects the political situation of his nation. Patriotism that leads to continuous setbacks.

Kosovo society today needs doses of Rugovism. A critical passiveity. A little out of life. To read more, to cultivate artistic tastes, to produce some good writers, some good directors, all-out cultural and sports commitments. The ancient Greeks called them cidiotas, or cidiotes, those who were not involved in public affairs, that is, those who were not involved in politics. In the ancient Greeks, however, the world was a thousandfold smaller than today. And they were at the center of these developments. Today, I am convinced that the same ancient people would call them cidiotasʹ those who deal in a political stride with a sense of megalomania from a small, insignificant country in the world.

Rugova says he drank a lot and read sometimes. He was somewhat indifferent to political developments, despite being at the top of the institutional sphere. Meanwhile, today in Kosovo you see thousands of people with no political significance until they are engaged in daily policy talk all day. Culture is said to be entirely paralyzed while in internationally accepted sports we suffer terrible debals. Perhaps it is necessary to expand our meaningful horizons, not forget to live until we deal with what we understand as politics, which is nothing more than a weak comic drama.