The countries which have grown wealthier but failed to promote the well-being of all its citizens prove that dynamic economic growth does not necessarily lead to a greater satisfaction with life, concluded the participants of the debate “Hand in hand, development, freedom, equality and solidarity” adding that it is necessary to create a balance between the economic policy and social justice.
The participants of the debate, organised by the European Movement in Serbia and the EU Info Centre, concluded that social cohesion became increasingly often mentioned as a precondition to sustainable social and economic development.
“Social cohesion must be seen as something fundamental, and not only in times of crisis,” said a representative of the EU Delegation to Serbia, Nicolas Bizel, adding that the whole of society, and not only select groups, should enjoy the benefits of economic growth.
Social cohesion can be expressed through a triangle, said Zarko Sundaric of the Centre for Social Politics, according to whom the notion of social cohesion is likely to occur first in times of crisis.
According to him, the three sides of the triangle are: the prospect of individual advancement in the society; having a minimum livelihood; and trust in the system and institutions.
“There is a very high level of mistrust in institutions and the system among Serbian public,” Sundaric said, adding that a survey showed that both the rich and the poor felt the same.
Speaking about law enactment during the process of European integration, he stressed that the enforcement of laws was equally essential.
“We are living in a wonderland where citizens have no faith in political parties but join them anyway,” said Zoran Stojikovic, a professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences.
“The bonus question is: What is the main institution of social protection in Serbia? Well, let’s say it’s the ruling parties because people join them largely because they believe they will provide them with jobs,” Stojiljkovic said.
He reminded that the government took the money away from pensioners and some of the public sector employees in order to make budget cuts, and added that the ratio between the losses incurred by corruption in public procurement and employing fellow party members on the one hand, and the money taken away to make budget cuts on the other, was as high as 1:9.
