Caprice in Power

Feral Tribune, Split, Croatia, December 29 1997

by Viktor Ivancic

I repeat my earlier assertions but would at the same time would like to address the part of the state prosecutor's appeal to the earlier judgment which claims that certain facts from my and Marinko Culic's article were false because they had been "denied by the life and deeds of the President of the Republic", since he "as a soldier in W.W.II fought against fascism and confirmed his antifascist orientation as the writer of books 'Great ideas small nations' (first published in 1969) and 'Historical fate of Nations' (first published in 1966)".

The prosecutor claims that "everyone in Croatia knows that [Tudman] is an antifascist, because these facts were events in Croatia [sic]" and thus "do not need to be proved, because they constitute common knowledge". Thus, continues the prosecutor in the appeal "these fact can not be subject to personal interpretation to such an extent to present a judgment about the value and personality of the President of the Republic Dr. Franjo Tudman".

Hence, "the life and actions" of the president of the Republic can not be subject to "personal interpretation", because "it is common knowledge" that president Tudman is an antifascist, supporter of freedom and democracy, and whoever disagrees with this will be prosecuted. This is truly monstrous! According to that definition Tudman will be forever defended by his "life and actions" while the rest of us must be defended by attorneys! More than interesting division of roles...

Project Jasenovac

Having in mind that this dispute concerns [the Ustashe concentration camp in] Jasenovac, let us consider how the "well known [Tudman's] antifascism" appears in light of that subject.

Tudman was the first and so far the only individual to claim that only about 20 thousands of people were killed in the Jasenovac camp; all serious investigators characterized this claim as a drastic reduction of the [true] number of victims; Tudman is the only individual to claim that there was a Partisan run concentration camp in Jasenovac after W.W.II, although all serious historians qualified that as a lie; finally Tudman was the first individual to propose the conversion of the memorial center in Jasenovac into a common memorial to the murderers and their victims.

Therefore, president Tudman has done everything possible to minimize the fascist crimes committed in Jasenovac. Those who minimize fascist crimes, minimize the criminal character of the fascist regime, which is essentially an attempt at the rehabilitation of fascism. But, why would the Croatian president, as a "well known antifascist" want to rehabilitate fascism? Probably because pro-fascist atmosphere is better suited to his totalitarian ambitions then a democracy or nurturing of western values.

President Tudman, therefore, does not support reconciliation. If he did, he would recommend that a memorial to partisans be erected at Bleilburg field [where a large number of Croatian fascists and civilians were executed by Partisans after W.W.II]. Let us be honest: we can't even imagine something like that.

Therefore, as far as Jasenovac is concerned, he is above all a revisionist of the history of fascist crimes. That is his "life and actions". But, that is not antifascism, as the prosecutor claims. Too bad.

Another question I would like to put to the prosecutor is: which domain of the "life and actions" of citizen Tudman is represented by the prosecutor? Redesign of the memorial park in Jasenovac is certainly not among the constitutional duties of a president, but Tudman's caprice, hobby, off duty activity. Why does the prosecutor represent Tudman's caprices? Why is in Croatia, in spite of the constitution, caprice in power!

Judgment Design

Because, if the president of the state decides about the name of a soccer team, that is not exercise of his constitutional powers, but misuse of power; if the president of the state decides to rename Victims of Fascism square, that is not exercise of his constitutional powers, but misuse of power; if the president of the state decides about the redesign of the monument in Jasenovac, that is not exercise of power, but simply misuse of power. The misuse of power is a step towards totalitarianism, and in Tudman's case is a classic example of totalitarian practice.

If the function of the law, the prosecutor and this court is to protect misuse of power, and thereby protect obviously totalitarian practice, then it can be concluded that they are a totalitarian law, totalitarian prosecutor and totalitarian court. Then, all three elements are simply aids in president's misuse of power.

Namely, the essence of this ingenious idea is the following: if the president can pick a name for a soccer team, change a name of a square, or redesign a monument, he can also pick a sentence for journalists who criticize his "life and actions".

Political Testiness

Because of that, this trial is senseless and hopeless. We are here tried according to the essentially unfair law, because it puts five public officials above other citizens; we are prosecuted by the prosecutor who is absolutely dependent and works according to the orders of the president of the state; we are tried by the court whose judgment is absolutely irrelevant, because - if the result is an acquittal, it will because of political will be reversed, and we can meet here for another thirty times.

Thus, this is a typical political trial, and political trials are resolved according to political will or, in this case - political ill will.

To tell the truth, I do not care what this court thinks about my articles, nor do I care about the final judgment. The fact that in our society there is still an opportunity to take part in this procedural farce of a trial does not diminish tragic complicity of Croatian judiciary, from enactment of laws, the prosecutor's office, to this court, in blatant misuse of presidential power.

Translated on 3/27/98