Such a demand for detudmanization is in Mostar and not only in Mostar, immediately recognizable as a call for decroatization of Mostar. Namely, there is no doubt that the Croatian people in Mostar, and exactly during the rule of the late Croatian president Franjo Tudman, has experienced a rebirth in the national sense. Aggressive demands for detudmanization at this time are identical to, and even more serious than similar demands for detitoization immediately after Tito's death. At that time no one even thought about doing something like that, including the courageous individuals who were not afraid of the secret police and communist party's iron broom. If on the other hand, someone did find courage to take that daring step, "the true Mostarans" would have thrown him in the Neretva River, of course with a stone tied around the neck. The current insistent demands for the detudmanization of Mostar are interpreted by Croats mainly as a demand to turn our backs not to Tudman's legacy, but to established links, assistance coming from Zagreb to Croats in Bosnia-Hercegovina, and other. Therefore, talk about detudmanization strengthens the existing division in the city and prompts new mistrust regarding the justified efforts on the establishment of a common city. On the other hand, it is realistic to after such statements expect to hear calls for the deizetbegovicizaton, demlacizaton, desilajdzicization and so on. The division would, of course only be deepened. Orucevic, who has at least publicly cut his links with the SDA, would never agree to say the word deizetbegovicization, let alone many who are still emotionally and politically tied with Alija Izetbegovic. A possible complaint regarding the parallel Izetbegovic-Tudman, along the lines that Tudman was the president of a neighboring state, is without any doubt totally baseless. The nations in Mostar, Hercegovina and elsewhere, opted in accordance with their preference for national leaders, and therefore, let us emphasize, more in national[ist] than in statehood sense. That should in no case be neglected.
The biggest advocate of detudmanization is the Croatian president Stipe Mesic. That was his main trump card in the election campaign, as well as during his April visit to Sarajevo. Repeating stubbornly detudmanization, detudmanization... he gathered a lot of points among Sarajevo Muslims. Among those who hurriedly flew out to Zagreb, straight to see Tudman in order to get a Croatian passport for themselves, or their mistress, or an uncle. Those and such individuals overnight became the biggest advocates of detudmanization. Some Croats from Sarajevo with a lot of exposure in the media have of course joined them. A new time, but old habits. It is necessary to please the new ruler! Just as in the past there was no rational and critical approach to the overall reality in Bosnia-Hercegovina and the former Yugoslavia, today it is impossible to notice critical, and high quality attitude with respect to Stipe Mesic, with whose name we have to connect the already several times mentioned detudmanization. Many think that they would live better if Mostar, Herceg-Bosna etc. were detudmanized, and some politicians and journalists are mostly responsible for such a state of mind. They are responsible because they consciously projected the theory that Tudman is to be blamed for all troubles of Bosniaks, and more recently Croats as well. Late Tudman, according to them, is to be blamed for the war, unemployment, because Hungary does not have access to sea... The new authorities are sitting in Croatia for more than a year and every day implementing detudmanization, but let us ask ourselves whether they really live better than in Sarajevo or Mostar? Are their salaries higher, do they get pensions more regularly? How come there are holes in the budget? Are Bosniaks returning faster to Srebrenica and Visegrad? Perhaps dead Tudman has organized, together with Milosevic, the attack on the returnees in Janja?
Therefore, Orucevic and all of them would be much better off, if they really care about united Mostar and united Bosnia-Hercegovina, if they spoke about true causes and solved problems gradually, instead of insisting on political stereotypes and games with words which prompt new mistrust among nations. The nations in Bosnia-Hercegovina are a reality and will be for a long time to come, and Mostarianism, and Bosnianism are after all, only abstract terms.