Anarcho-tyranny, the Balkans

Written for Kosovo Online by Srdjan Garcevic, founder of The Nutshell Times

In July 1994, the American conservative commentator Samuel T. Francis coined the term "anarcho-tyranny" in his essay in the Chronicles magazine. He used it to name the situation in which the state punishes the (relatively) innocent while allowing the criminal and powerful to prey on them, occasionally even deputizing them.

While the term gained popularity in the past few decades due to the many failures of global liberalism, it struck me as particularly precise for the situation in Kosovo and Metohija under the Priština authorities and their enablers.

Although in the past few months, Priština is without a "parliament" and a proper "government", Albin Kurti's enthonlationalists are pursuing ever more aggressive attacks on the Serbs, including even the attempts to construct bridges in Kosovska Mitrovica without the agreement of the local Serbs, arresting Serbian officials and even random citizens. One would expect the usual sticklers for the "rule of law" - the EU, the UK, Germany, France - to object to such major moves, especially against a minority population, being made without a legitimate government; however, they seem to be happy with the situation, both its anarchic and tyrannical nature.

Despite the PR from various foreign "experts" and sham ranking, as well as the cargo cult of the US institutions, Priština's political elite never really built robust political system, as we can see with their inability to constitute a parliament. The only real policy, apart from serving foreign interests, is that they seem to agree on is ethnic-based anarcho-tyranny. Since 1999 they engage in (even by their standards) illegal persecution of Serbs and other minorities- hundreds of thousands of whom are still not allowed to move back nor claim property, as well as mob-dominated anarchy which makes the rest of the residents of Kosovo and Metohija want to leave.

The only real political institutions are foreign embassies and various representatives and networks of foreign-funded and linked NGOs, which are, by nature, undemocratic and have no incentive to develop anything in the country. "Kosovo" is a basket case economically and only really exports crime and instability, tyranny, and criminality, which is helpful in its backers in supporting the pressure on Serbia and Northern Macedonia. The anarchy means that it is easy to control: if there were any real institutions, the backers of the Priština government would face some resistance; this way, they can work through the vast networks of NGOs, liberal intellectuals, as well as brute enforcers such as Kurti to get what they want.

Unfortunately, this approach to implementing de facto anarcho-tyranny seems to be a popular strategy. It goes beyond the persistent attempts to undermine institutions created by the Dayton peace agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where Republika Srpska is targeted by an unelected and illegal "Foreign representative" as well as lawfare from its very captured judiciary.

Anarcho-tyranny is perversely "sold" as "rule of law" in many "stabilitocracies" where the idea is to create institutions, especially within the judiciary, whose only goal would be to wage ideological lawfare. In contrast, the institutions of the state - from management of the economy to steering of culture and media, would be deputized to unelected, and often unpopular, informal "civic leaders" whose, whole portfolios would be de facto ideological, but would have to formal accountability to their state nor even an explicit policy. Unfortunately, in Serbia, we can see the glimpses of such approaches in the increased political violence against elected officials, such as vile slurs targeting the Foreign Minister Đurić, and even physical attacks against Minister of Culture Selaković which are de facto condoned by the "civil society", normally obsessed whether the most innocuous words are incitement to violence. 

While it is clear that anarcho-tyranny cannot foster any economic or social development, despite the utopian promises of its promoters (ending corruption!, direct democracy!), it is preferable to those promoting it. They would rather have barren chaos-ridden territories (think about all the "humanitarian" job opportunities and tearful art projects) than stable societies, which, albeit cooperative, can still consider their national interest. It also makes sense for those promoting it on the ground: as Francis noted, "when anarcho-tyranny flourishes, it protects no one except the elites who fatten on it, and it encourages only the withering of self-government and responsibility".

In a world where much larger countries than Serbia are experimenting in anarcho-tyranny on their soil - by, for example, penalizing wrong-think more than sexual assault, and creating a tiered justice system set against the most productive parts of the society - who needs other states as partners, when they can have them as places to project own dwindling power. However, the tide seems to be turning in the US, where the term was first coined, and there is a realization that in the end, anarchy-tyranny destroys even those who wield it.