Violence in our country is everywhere and excessive. Although the initial association with it is murder, physical fights, and severe injuries, violence today is verbal, mental, and digital—especially among peers in schools. An entire spectrum of violence has developed, which is practically being “produced” in our society, stated Žarko Trebješanin during the panel discussion “Mental Health as a Human Right,” held last night at the “Industrial” Hotel in Kragujevac.
Professor Trebješanin highlighted that as a society, we address violence only after it has already occurred, typically following a highly dramatic event.
“And by then, it is already too late. It is far more productive and rational to deal with it seriously and systematically while it is not yet present to such a degree,” he warned.
Alongside Trebješanin, speakers at the panel—organized by the Foundation for Liberal Public Policy—included Prof. Dr. Čedomir Čupić, Dr. Dragan Lakićević, and Pavle Grbović, leader of the Free Citizens Movement (Pokret slobodnih građana).
According to Žarko Trebješanin, the topic of mental health as a fundamental human right is crucial and affects us all. He defined mental health as a state of good, harmonious psychological functioning of the individual, summarizing its simplest definition as “a mentally healthy person being one who is able to love and to work.”
Trebješanin listed factors that “undermine” and “destroy” mental health, primarily everyday frustrations—especially when frequent—as they lead to anger, hatred, and aggressiveness, or conversely, to complete apathy or depression.
“In our country, people often defend the situation by stating ‘it is like that in other countries too,’ which is true, but what matters is how society responds to that violence. If violence is practically produced and supported, it is clear that there will be more and more of it. Violence among youth is particularly dangerous because, as empirically and experimentally proven, young people learn through imitation and role models, copying not only violence itself but also its specific form,” he concluded.
The panel moderator, Danijel Pantić, reminded the audience that our Constitution, as the highest legal act on human rights and freedoms, guarantees everyone the right to a dignified life.
“The creation of a culture of violence over the years directly contradicts that constitutional provision. Everyone has the right to the free development of their personality, provided it does not interfere with or jeopardize the rights of others—of all other citizens,” he stated, noting that this enters the domain of liberal theory, an idea centered on freedom and responsibility (alongside solidarity).
Professor Dragan Lakićević elaborated on this domain of liberal values during the event in Kragujevac. He recalled that the foundation of liberalism was laid in the mid-17th century in England when John Locke took it as an axiom that man is free by nature and that freedom is a natural right. His ideas were first applied in the US, entering the Declaration of Rights and subsequently the US Constitution—and indirectly our Constitution as well, where the natural freedoms of every individual are sacred.
“Liberalism dismantled the ideological belief that citizens are immature and must blindly obey an absolutist ruler,” he concluded.
In response to a direct question from moderator Pantić on whether citizens in Serbia have achieved that level of maturity or regressed in recent decades, Professor Čupić offered a candid assessment: unfortunately, they have not reached civic maturity.
Čedomir Čupić recalled that the term citizen carries four meanings: first, a political subject above all other definitions (class, national, and religious); second, whether a citizen is a subject of a state or a submissive subject of a regime (a citizen in democracies, a submissive subject in authoritarian systems); third, socially as a member of a certain class (as when communists came to power and viewed citizens strictly as members of the bourgeoisie, depicting them as caricatures); and fourth, simply as a person living in a city—an urban individual.
“The first meaning is the most significant. The citizen has been a political subject since Ancient Greece. According to them, all people should and must engage in politics, while those who did not were called idiots. The greatest and unpardonable deception was that the term ‘idiot’ was transferred from philosophy into psychiatry,” Čupić stated passionately.
For Ancient Greeks, only free people could decide on important social matters.
“Dictatorial regimes and authoritarian systems prefer ‘idiots’—those who have surrendered their fates and lives into the hands of others. They are not to blame for this; rather, it is the societal condition that has pushed them into poverty and an even severe form: destitution. There is a huge difference between the two, because a poor person still possesses mental health and the opportunity to think, whereas a destitute person has lost everything. They are written off both physically and mentally,” he emphasized.
Freedom within constitutional parameters, Professor Čupić noted, encompasses nine universal values applicable across all places and times. The Ancient Greeks identified five: truth, justice, goodness, love, and beauty (freedom was not included as it did not belong to slaves, women, and children). During the Renaissance and the modern era, four more were added: freedom, solidarity, human dignity, and equality.
“Arrange these nine values and ask yourself where you stand in relation to them. If you stand in good relation to them, you are a human being. This is an ideal model for examining not only oneself but also one’s immediate and broader environment,” concluded Čupić, adding that the “substance of a citizen” consists of freedoms, rights, and duties (including responsibility).
Addressing the theme from the perspective of practical politics, Pavle Grbović, president of the PSG, noted that for years (and in the developed world, for decades), the fight for a healthy environment has largely been reduced to ecological movements and concerns for clean air, cleaner rivers, and better quality food.
“Yet, in its shadow lies the struggle for a healthy social environment—the behavioral patterns that shape us, surround us, and influence our social development, especially among the most vulnerable in any society: the young. Today, the dominant topic in our country is galloping violence, and we can no longer pretend not to notice the extent to which it has become brutalized and pervasive. Even the Sahara does not have enough sand for us to bury our heads from the violence taking place in Serbia. The pattern of violence—both verbal and physical—as a legitimate tool for resolving conflicts and disagreements has become absolute and dominant, most visibly where it is most dangerous: inside our schools,” Grbović stated frankly.
He emphasized that we have forgotten solutions we once possessed through three pillars—schools, health centers, and social work centers—which no longer function today because we allowed the system to become outdated and collapse due to natural staff turnover.
The current system is insensitive to violence. As a society, we have developed immunity to it. The May cases at the “Ribnikar” school and in Mladenovac triggered a spontaneous, unprecedented public reaction, bringing citizens out onto the streets. However, we quickly grew desensitized to other tragedies. Recently, a child in Niš brutally killed another child, and it became merely a daily news item that was glossed over far too easily, Grbović warned.
He also highlighted the alarming trend regarding femicide in the country today.
“The scale of this problem is immense, and a vast number of people have engaged in its resolution and prevention, yet the public treats it as a statistic, processing it merely as the 23rd, 24th, or 26th femicide—as if that were not a human being with their own life, name, surname, and social connections,” he noted.
If the political will to overcome such situations is absent, science, expertise, and ethics will remain completely powerless, as they have been so far. He explained the underlying nature of the political and social struggle in the current system.
“The fight for change in our country is not merely about a simple transfer of power or personal changes at managerial positions; it is a necessary requirement to change the models governing our society and release its trapped potential—not just economic, but literally all potential,” concluded Pavle Grbović, adding that in the current political system, “the sole criterion for advancement is compliance—not even to the party leadership, but to a single individual.”