by Boris RASETA
KAJIN: Even in February 1995 the Constitutional Court did not question the right to promote Istrianism as a specific regional identity. The well-known 21 points of the Council of Europe recommended to Croatia to introduce bilingualism as a possibility on the local assemblies. In mid-May last year the Croatian Parliament adopted a set of minority regulations that specify the way in which that should be implemented. It should be emphasized that the circumstances in the country have totally changed since 1995. Not only has Croatia changed its legislation dealing with ethnic minorities, but she has also accepted a series of international conventions and ratified numerous bilateral treaties with the neighboring Italy that also deal with similar problems. Therefore, we are not concerned because of a possibility that the Constitutional Court may question the legality of our decisions.
Bilingualism on the territory of the Istria County has been implemented in those parts of the county where this has been regulated in the municipal and town statutes. That is in the spirit of the treaty signed by the former Yugoslavia and the USA, Great Britain, France and the USSR, regarding Istria. From now on our decisions will also be applied in the work of the county institutions, such as the assembly, government and certain departments, and there is no need to implement bilingualism in those environments where it hasn't been regulated in the municipal and town statutes, for example in Pazin and Buzet.
You claim that there can be no doubt that the amendments to the county statute are constitutional?
Let us be direct. The whole affair about the statute has actually been transformed into a campaign against the IDS. I would really be happy if that was really the only problem of this state. That would mean that Croatia does not have social problems. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Only ten percent of families in Croatia can cover a minimum of existential needs with their salaries. Thus, it seems that the unemployment is not a problem anymore, and the rate of unemployment has already crossed 23 percent and, if we ignore seasonal oscillation, this rate of unemployment will remain at least until 2002. Furthermore, that would mean that Croatia does not have problems with the lack of financial solvency, and 100,000 workers are employed by the companies whose current accounts have been blocked for more than a year [due to unpaid debts]. Moreover, that would mean that retirees are satisfied with their pensions, and we know that they have initiated a petition for the holding of a referendum regarding the government's refusal to obey the decision of the Constitutional Court about retirement payments. If all of that will be resolved easier and faster without the IDS, we will gladly leave the government. However, I'm afraid that all this noise has been raised only because many from the upper ranks of the government are afraid of the Istrian example. No government is perfect. Moreover, I keep emphasizing that we should be wary of the government that does not makes mistakes, but today life in Istria is better than anywhere else in Croatia. It is enough to mention that the rate of unemployment in Istria is 15 percent, while in the rest of Croatia it is 23 percent. We have welcomed every new year with 3 to 4 percent increase in the number of jobs, while in the rest of Croatia there is the opposite trend, so that last year ended with a loss of 70,000 jobs. Consequently, we can only state that the IDS has no other choice but to give up the places in the government, as it cannot abandon the statute. The Istria County Statute was not annulled in 1995. Then the Constitutional Court suspended 18 of its articles, even though the government at the time saw violations of the constitution in as many as 36 articles of the statute. Therefore, there is no chance that the present Constitutional Court will annul our statute. Moreover, the statute is simply a reflection of the style of life in Istria, rather than something that can be an object of trade. We shall not barter with the statute and that is our firm stand.
We have so far had an obvious paradox. According to the Constitutional Law About the Rights of Minorities, the minority languages could be used in courts, if a minority member requests that, but not in the local government institutions in counties. That paradox was included in laws probably because the lawmakers wanted to make sure that members of the Serb minority are denied such rights. After the suspension of some articles of our statute, the Council of Europe explicitly requested from the Croatian authorities to modify the minority laws in the way that would allow counties to introduce the principle of bilingualism in their statutes.
If the statute is based on the law, how come the four most powerful parties in the coalition were so forceful in their rejection of it?
Everyone is free to state his or her opinion about the statute, but the Constitutional Court keeps the right to issue a binding judgment in this case. We have even considered a referendum in which the citizens of Istria would express their opinion regarding our decisions. However, none of the parties was ready to accept that solution even though it would have cost practically nothing. Namely, the referendum could have been held in parallel with the local elections. I am convinced that two thirds of citizens in Istria would have supported the statute, given a chance. Those who question that probably do not understand the life style in this region. Two statements in that context were especially worrisome for me. First, when Prime Minister Racan made a distinction between Istrans and Istrians, stating that the changes in the statute are favorable to the Istrians and against the interests of Istrans. Obviously the Istrans are supposed to be good, well-behaved, true Croats, while the others are their negative counterpart. No one has the right to institute such divisions. The other worrisome claim is that all of this should have first been agreed between the six coalition partners in the government. That is a clear indication of how decentralization in Croatia is supposed to proceed. Our statute should be defined by the local county institutions, not by some newly formed committee of the six. Obviously the desire is to make all decisions in the capital, but that has nothing in common with either local self-rule or democracy.
Compromise is possible, but all sides must make an effort to find one. The IDS is too weak in the national parliament to be able to set conditions. We can only rely on the will of citizens that will be tested in the local elections on May 30. It is undeniable that something must happen in that coalition, not for the sake of the coalition, but for the sake of the country as a whole. Actually, for the sake of our citizens. This way it seems that everyone is more concerned about their political party interests than about the national interests, that everyone cares more about the political competition than the situation in the state, which can only lead to the total lack of hope and apathy. Such a state would not be promising at all. Messages directed at the voters before the January 3 elections were absolutely clear. If some members of the coalition are to be excluded from the government, than the most honest approach would be to call a new election, although it most likely would not change much apart from giving a clear assessment of the individual standing of different political parties. Even a new coalition would be burdened by unrealistic promises from the most recent election campaign and inability to quickly turn around the economy. Citizens can be offered hope and confidence that changes will happen. However, it should be openly stated that no one will give us anything on a platter and that we shall have to work hard for everything on our own. That will be hard, many will suffer in the process, but that is why the state should be sensitive to social problems and people who lead it must have a vision. All those promises, starting with the reduction of the VAT, through creation of 200,000 new jobs, all the way to the return of confiscated property etc. were given too easily, although we warned even then that they were unrealistic. Almost none of these promises were fulfilled. Another 70,000 jobs have been lost since January 3, 2000, pensions haven't been paid, and the big sale of 2,300 state owned companies is about to start. In the end even the biggest state-run companies, such as the INA and HEP, Croatian Posts and Railroads will not avoid that fate. Those companies will be privatized through special laws, after downsizing of the workforce.
I agree. For more than a year we've mostly argued about Norac, about the dignity of the Homeland War, about letters written by generals, about the verdict in the Kordic case, about the Croat Assembly in Bosnia-Hercegovina, about dismissal of Jelavic, about cantonization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, about Dayton, about the statute of the Istria County... No one has discussed the hundreds of companies that have gone bankrupt in the first few months of this year, the increase in unemployment, problems with pensions... I think that the goal of this heated political debate is to indirectly buy time, as that is a way to draw attention away from the essential existential problems. I agree that today people have somewhat more secure lives, that the state terror that we had under the HDZ, when the former authorities on their own ordered destruction of anti-fascist monuments and aggression against Bosnia-Hercegovina, is today impossible. However, whether someone wants to admit that or not, from the existential point of view the life is far more insecure today than a year ago. Evidence for that can be found not only in the doubling of the price of gasoline within that year, or a 30% increase in the price of electricity, but also in the general increase in living expenses. However, the worst is yet to come when the time comes to implement the provisions of the stand by agreement with the IMF. This will affect compulsory co-payments in the national health care service system, taxation of pensions [social-security payments for the elderly], compulsory retirement at the age of 65, both for men and women. Even Minister Vidovic himself announced that on December 31 2002 the government will abolish the pension supplement, which today amounts to 100 kunas plus six percent. That measure will affect more than a million of retirees. I believe that it could bring about an early election, about a year from now. Until then the authorities need to buy political peace. I do not try to deny that the tourist season in 2000 was pretty good, that the GNP grew somewhat, that the production has somewhat increased, budgetary spending decreased, and that inflation was under control. However, one must wonder to what extent all of that was a consequence of actual political measures rather than general political changes in this region. However, the truly essential problems, such as unemployment and attraction of investment from abroad, haven't been resolved.
Some analysts claim that the departure of the IDS from the coalition would be a positive development, as the government would get a strong opposition on the left in the parliament?
Whatever fate the IDS follows, we shall openly criticize those actions that do not seem sensible to us, and support those that we consider to be justified, even if they are currently unpopular, but are directed towards improving the lot of all of us and the country in the future. For example, I do not see why we should vote for the Privatization Law, which can hardly be worse than the old one but is almost equally bad. Also I would not support a decrease in the mandatory sick pay. Therefore, my impression is that the principle in question, in this case, is "I'll give up anything but power", or, "could someone else deal with this?" The budget deficit must be kept low and everything else is subject to that, and that should never be so.
We insist that this country must be decentralized radically. Croatia needs a reduction in bureaucracy, depolitization and departization of the society. From our point of view, Istria grew the fastest when the former Yugoslavia was decentralized the most, after the 1974 Constitution. Municipalities at the time had control of 60 percent of state income collected on their territory. Dalmatia, Slavonia and Medimurje also had a very fast growth of economy during that period. The same is needed today, naturally while keeping in mind the need for solidarity with those that cannot achieve progress on their own. We would do well if we could get a team of young people who would be able to pull this country forward.