Sretenjski ustav - 175 godina posle

Abstract

U radu se ukazuje na neke dileme i stereotipe vezane za Sretenjski ustav iz 1835. godine, koji su se duboko usadili u srpskoj literaturi i svesti. Autor smatra da ih je potrebno preispitati i nudi jedan broj argumenata kao osnov i podstrek za dalja istraživanja. On iznosi neke elemente u korist shvatanja da sretenjski akt treba tretirati kao prvi srpski ustav, da Sretenjski ustav nije nametnut knezu Milošu Miletinom bunom, već da ga je on iskreno želeo i znatno ranije započeo njegovo pripremanje, kao i da je želeo da Ustav spase a ne da je jedva dočekao negativnu reakciju velikih sila, zbog čega je morao da ga suspenduje posle samo šest nedelja. Potom procenjuje da se Miloš pri odluci o donošenju Ustava nije rukovodio isključivo ličnim motivima, već da ga je smatrao važnim instrumentom za ustanovljavanje srpske državne samostalnosti. Nadalje, preispituje stereotip o Dimitriju Davidoviću kao odlučujućem tvorcu Sretenjskog ustava, kao i o francuskom uticaju na njegovo donošenje. Konačno, kritikuje mišljenje o beznačajnosti prava za formiranje nacionalne svesti kod Srba i ukazuje na veliki zakonodavni zamah tridesetih godina XIX veka nošen upravo tom svešću, koji je pored Sretenjskog ustava iznedrio i Srpski građanski zakonik 1844. godine. Na osnovu svega zaključuje da pred mladim istraživačima još uvek postoje široki neistraženi prostori pogotovo u pogledu uticaja stranih pravnih sistema na donošenje Sretenjskog ustava.

The author points to a few strongly rooted stereotypes regarding the first Serbian Constitution of Sretenje adopted in 1835. He calls for their re-evaluation and offers new arguments as a starting point to encourage further research.105 There are scholars who raise the question whether the 1835 act was the first Serbian constitution. Some claim that there were previous historical documents, which were of constitutional character, while others contest the constitutional nature of the 1835 act, due to the lack of formal sovereignty of Serbia in that time. In the authors view the Constitution of Sretenje had sufficient formal and substantial elements comparable to other contemporary European constitutions. The author is of opinion that the Constitution was not imposed to then Serbian prince Milosh as an aftermath of the rebellion of the influential leader, Mileta, in 1835. Prince Milosh sincerely wanted to provide a constitution for the country and had ordered its drafting five years before the rebellion took place. The author offers evidence that prince Milosh vigorously tried to save the Constitution after the strong negative reactions to its adoption, which came from Russia, Turkey and Austria. The three powers considered the Constitution to be revolutionary, modern and dangerous for their countries which was particularly the case of its Chapter XI, providing on civil rights and liberties. The Serbian prince was therefore pressed to suspend the Constitution unwillingly only six weeks after its adoption. The author tries to prove that prince Milosh was in favour of adopting the Constitution not only for his own personal advantage. He perceived it as an important instrument of creating national identity and independence. Two more stereotypes are re-examined. One concerns the scope of contribution of Dimitrije Davidović to the Constitutional drafting, for he is traditionally believed to be the author of the Constitutional text. The other is the cliche about the influences of the French constitutional documents upon the provisions of the first Serbian constitution. In conclusion the author disagrees with the prejudice that law was irrelevant factor in the process of creation of the national conscience among Serbs. On the contrary, rather strong legislative efforts of the mid 30s of the 19th century have brought about not only the first Serbian Constitution, but also the emergence of the first code. It was the Serbian Civil Code, adopted in 1844, which was among the first in Europe. He concludes that all stereotypes existing in respect of the Constitution of Sretenje must be thoroughly researched, which is particularly the case of the one concerning sources of foreign influences upon the Constitution.