SILENCE

Feral Tribune, Split, Croatia, November 8 1999

This statem,ent is, however, only partly correct: Croatia really doesn't have a writer (or it has only few of them) who would sharpen his pencil each time he notices some evil done to a member of another nation, other religion, or political persuasion. But the fact that Croatia maybe doesn't have its Broch doesn't mean that Tudjman's Croatia is devoid of the crimes resembling those which made the German writer reluctant not to forgive his fellow-countrymen their sin of indifference. On the contrary, almost absolute balance has been achieved between the many well known crimes; theft, murders, even rapes, and the complete, appalling indifference and silence of the public, which makes that public at least a moral accomplice to those crimes. Of course, it is always very dangerous to point a finger at that pretentious and mystical something that is called nation, as this amorphous mass is always treated as an innocent biological phenomenon. The harshest criticism of it hardly ever goes further than Gotovac's statement about "the neglected people". That is why every lonely statement, like the one made by the independent intellectual Boris Buden -"Croats have made ideology out of opportunism" - is always understood as a splash of a stone thrown into the swamp.

But, hasn't this government, precisely with the help of the intellectual autism and patriotic hypocrisy of the "masses", covered up all the evil done during the last nine years? And isn't this empty political talk about "a necessary return to the values" in politics and society only an unsuccessful attempt to distance from the traditional Croatian silence? Because, everything was known, but little was said.

The nation has chosen those who have spared it every effort greater than paddling in the common opportunism, blind pattering in false dreams, and ominous conviction that the mythical importance of a nation necessarily implies and legitimizes all crimes. But the sad history of the sovereign Croatia is still being written. Almost every day new chapters of crimes are being written. Crimes that, together with their stench, always bring the alleged political pragmatism of those that are supposed to lead Croatia after Tudjman, and hypocrisy of the so called intellectuals.

It is therefore quite understandable that the reaction to the discovery of another crime committed by a high state and judicial official, has been only numb shrugging of shoulders, and the tragic silence of parties' leaders and intellectuals who declare themselves "the voice of the people". Because, Racan certainly has more important business to do in this pre-election fever, than taking a stand on some war crime committed in Bosnia and Hercegovina! And, why do we expect from Budisa and the rest of the opposition to treat this obscure story as more than something repulsive, which well-educated, middle-class families never even talk about?

Can such an indifferent reaction to such a strong impulse, in this case a war crime, be justified by political pragmatism such as: this is the time for more serious problems, the elections, Tudjman's illness etc.? Or are we dealing here with a tragic, dangerous tolerance of crimes, and very high tolerance of everything, as long as it doesn't concern one's own stomach?

The French Minister of Finance, a great expert and beloved by the French, resigned recently because of the still unproved involvement in corruption. With this act of one of their high officials, the French proved to be a group sensitive to every immorality of their authorities. In Croatia, two independent newspapers publish the details of a political and criminal scandal par excelance, in which the main role is played by a high official of the ruling party. And what happens? The Croats don't even pretend to be French. They remain true to themselves: a lousy product of a power with dirty hands, whose long-term counterpart has been a major part of the opposition, and the narcissistic so-called intellectuals.

In such a social context, already distancing from a Croatian crime is shameful, while a demand for the resignation of a high official is all but unimaginable. But, doesn't this hypocrisy and political banality of all those who have access to the media and the parliamentary pulpit, push the Croatian people into the joint mud of crime and guilt?

After all, is there a difference between Tudjman's persistent refusal to individualise guilt (the Tuta case), and therefore an attempt to make us all guilty of all crimes, and the silence of the opposition in the latest scandal of their parliamentary "comrade" and a new judge of the Constitutional Court? Whose negligence are we talking about here? Is Tudjman's regime the only cause of the overwhelming erosion and moral misery of the Croatian people, or has it been greatly helped by those who will tomorrow take the place of Tudjman and his lot?

Maybe speaking in public about crimes and criminals really seems politically unproductive to the opposition's leaders. Maybe the so called Croatian intellectuals really consider the attitude "I shouldn't interfere" more comfortable, but in that case they should be warned that the Tudjman's nation of yesterday will tomorrow be identical to the one of Broch - equally "neglected", indifferent, and easy to manipulate. Or, maybe, this is exactly what the future rulers want?