interview by Svetlana VASOVIC-MEKINA
After more than a decade and a half since the last interview he gave for media from Serbia, Taras Kermauner welcomed the opportunity to give an interview for the special issue of NIN. He has decided to interrupt his long silence.
NIN: More than a decade has passed since you started a critical exchange with Serbian intellectuals with your series of "Letters to a Serb friend". The dialog was interrupted by tragic events in the former Yugoslavia. What is your view today of the Letters to the "Serb friends"? Would you have written your Letters if you had known what would happen?
KERMAUNER: Not a single quotation from my "Letters to a Serb friend", which I published in Slovenia in 1957 and reprinted in the 1980s as a book, was correctly cited in the Serbian press. Much fun was made, in particular, of my Euro-Slavism, i.e. my proposal that together we should leave behind Stalinism-Kardeljism and archaic nationalism and go forward toward Europe. Someone even labeled that Euro-cream. The self-imposed blindness of the Serb intellectuals, whether Milosevic's supporters in the Communist Party or the dissidents, was such that they saw only what they wished to see in order to realize their model of a nation state. This direction could not but lead to inter-national holy wars typical of Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. I warned both Slovenes and Serbs that they have chosen the path of evil, until after the rise of Milosevic I realized that it was too late. Milosevic fused an archaic-gentilism [sic, secularism?] and nationalism with pseudo-socialism, with the dictatorship of a ruling nation. The Slovenes resisted this for civilisational and national reasons. They were lucky and avoided a war. It proved subsequently that nationalism for the Slovenes was above all a matter of self-respect, a slogan rather than reality. Then their civility turned out to be of secondary importance. They did well by promoting small-scale capitalism, a choice that reflected their caution, and found their purpose in life in market competition. The Serbs found theirs in a renewal of tribal medieval heroism, the Slovenes in the revival and development of a rational economy of the kind promoted by Janez Bleiweiss and the neutral state of Joseph II.
You disagree with those who claim that Slovenia rose from the break-up of the former Yugoslavia "rejuvenated and cleansed", as Ivan Cankar would say?
The difference between myself and my friends from the Nova Revija, actually almost all other Slovenes, is that they allowed to be seduced by the babble that the independent nation state would provide a solution and meaning, while from the start I realized that perhaps the nation state may be unavoidable (after all in Western Europe it was closely linked with civility and civic duty), although there is a huge difference between a glorified nation state and the nation state as the means of self-defense against Milosevic's general regression, i.e. an instrument of civil society and universal human values that prevailed in Western Europe at the end of World War II. After 1991 Slovenia did not veer off to excessive nationalism as Serbia or Croatia, let alone Kosovo Albanians, or to humane civilism [sic], but jumped into small-scale but relatively efficient market capitalism and mass society saturated by trendy values, which implies denial of soul and conscience, general inner human life. As far as spiritual life is concerned we are left with sex and psychological injury caused by consciousness of failure in the market. I realized that all strivings for civil society and free market, communication, were too short lived, insufficient. Consequently, I kept turning towards seeking the image of a man who would be based on other values, instead of life that seeks vitality in over-consumption, domination, destruction of others.
My path now does not interest anyone. Slovenes are full, for the first time in their history, of some mostly mean, base self-awareness, which I detest. I can't bear to watch them anymore. I fully understand that the current Serb option is even worse - sooner or later it will follow in footsteps of the Slovene option, just as the Slovene option follows in the footsteps of the Italian. Epigones, to the last. Small nations are the laughing stock of history.
You said in 1991 that "Serbia will not succeed with its irredenta" in Croatia, although "the Croats are not innocent". How come that the Slovene and Croat political leaders succeeded in realizing their aims and the Serb leaders did not?
During the 1990s the Serbs were evidently convinced in the mission of Serbdom, in the magic pseudo-values of Orthodoxy, in the holy cause of war and sacrifice; they were, in other words, closer to a tribal understanding of man. The Croatian Communist party reacted in a similar way to the Slovene: it rediscovered and returned to its Social-democratic tradition. In contrast to Kucan's reformism in Slovenia, there was no sign in Serbia of Tucovic's Social-democracy of before World War I. Civil Croatia gathered around Racan, as well as further to the right around Gotovac. This blocked the Tudman option, which was very close to Milosevic's. In Slovenia there was no such figure as Milosevic or Tudman - no one there wished to accept the role of a charismatic leader. Although some conservative forces, led by Jansa at the time, wanted to push towards stronger nationalism, they were too weak to succeed.
Today Jansa is apparently quite different from the way he was at the time. He won the elections because he knew how to portray himself as a liberal, centrist politician. I cannot guess what kind of Prime Minister he will be. We need to wait. However, I am convinced that voters will reject him if he attempts to behave like Tudman. All Slovenes want is to succeed in the capitalist market - each if them holds a mobile telephone in one hand and a calculator in the other. They all want to become shareholders, half of them wish to play the market - real comedy, but not as bad as affirmation of the national Holy Grail based on territorial conquests.
Do you see a hidden trap in the Slovene triumph - given that in the last ten or so years Slovenia was on the "winning side" while Serbia daily faces mistakes from the recent past? Can that surplus of uncritical self-confidence of the sort "we were right" turn into something different, even dangerous?
I deal with the trap of the sort you mention quite a lot. If we compare the situation in Serbia and Slovenia, Slovenes can fell like victors. However, if we compare Slovenia to Western Europe, then we are a second rate nation. In contrast to what I plan seeking otherness, differences, to copy us would be a mistake, a dead end. We do not create free, autonomous individuals, true personalities but market vultures, totally without personality, greedy and aggressive. Consequently the current Slovene self-confidence is nothing but pompous brutal self-confidence of craftsmen and burghers; it is loosing the traditional culture linked to the ethical principles of old bourgeoisie and is replacing it by pop pseudo-culture of postmodern liberal society, which it quickly sucked in and is now efficiently imitating. That direction is dangerous but only for Slovenes, because they will remain empty inside, if they are not that already.
Is post-Milosevic Serbia capable of self-reflection?
I doubt it. There is too much self-criticism that becomes translated into self-destruction, self-pity, masochism - an enjoyment in despair and victimization that may be good as literary inspiration but is certainly bad for society. The Serbian artists and politicians would do better by beginning a general overhaul of the interpretation of their history. In my "Letters to a Serbian friend", the first of which was addressed to Dobrica Cosic, I tried to redirect the Serbian dissident intellectuals towards auto-reflection, away from any attempt at military rectification of alleged historical wrongs committed against Serbia by the world, and by the West in particular. I experienced a real shock when I read the attacks on my letters in the Serbian press, especially since those attacks were so passionate, so blinded by fury, organized as a straightforward military exercise, without any sense of auto-reflection. I unfortunately failed to stimulate auto-reflection among the Slovenes either, though their blindness was less passionate, but hence more sly, which is typical of Slovenes, since we are true hypocrites.
Do you still have contacts with the intended recipients of your "Letters to a Serb friend"?
I've sporadically exchanged views with some of the dissidents, and they completely forgot their views from, for example, 1987 or 1990, since in such a face-off they would have to be merciless towards themselves. Politicians, naturally, always show mercy towards themselves, they must hide their weaknesses and always behave as if they are right. Auto-reflection, self-reflection of a society depends on a special type of intelligence, a type that has no utilitarian political goals, nor only or primarily aesthetic goals. There is no doubt that newly established ethical and philosophical goals would be crucial in this case; these goals must in no way be in the spirit of tribal or mediaeval catholic-orthodox tradition.
In the early nineties you were among the earliest critics of the mythomania that unavoidably led towards wars. What is your assessment of the fate of the other republics of the former Yugoslavia and especially Serbia given the key unsolved problem - Kosovo? What now when Serbs in Kosovo are a prosecuted minority that is daily fighting for its very survival?
In 1985, when I discussed that issue with Dobrica Cosic, he agreed with me that Kosovo should be divided. And then he added: "Taras, If I publicly take that stand, they will lynch me!" Was he honest with me? Did he really believe that? You never know with politicians. They always believe in what they say even if they make totally contradictory statements. I do not believe in peaceful coexistence of Albanians and Serbs, Albanians and Macedonians. Western Europe is now transferring its rules to the Balkans even though they obviously do not fit. After all, in the past Europe did something totally different of what it now wants to do in Kosovo. In 1945 Poles and Czechs moved Germans; the English tried in starve out Irish - the solution was found only in separation of Ireland from England. Where they are still together, in Northern Ireland, a war still simmers. The same is true in the Basque provinces of Spain. And why is there no war between Greece and Turkey? Because they exchanged their respective populations 80 years ago.
After all, why make such a big deal out of an exchange of population? In the USA people continuously move looking for work, profit. Only Europe insists of living in one spot one's whole life as a foundation of security. Despite the fact that there is no and there can not be basic security for an individual! A man cannot escape illness, or death, even less disappointments or the realization that he was building a tower in the clouds. As a sick and elderly man, I am acutely aware of that! And we should respond to that by saying that some piece of land is sacred?! Every nation stole the land it today lives on from another nation at some point in the past, even though it today claims that that land is not only "our" but also sacred. It never ceases to amuse me to hear how ancient Romans lived on "our, Slovene" soil! That is the origin of my critical distance with respect to politicians in power. Romantics from the nineteenth century offered peaceful tribes from Papua New Guinea as an example of true coexistence. Something like that is possible with small groups of humans spread over a big territory, without shortages of resources and awareness of possible shortages. However, even in that case romantics led by Levi-Strauss picked only those examples that backed up their dreams. Big societies are murderous gangs. In Yugoslavia lesser, but equally murderous murderers came to the top under the guise of romantic heroism. Achilles slaughtering Hectors, to the last. I myself tried to be Aeneas, to "escape" from burning Troy and establish Rome, which prompted Tine Hribar to accuse me of cowardice, only because I refused to fearlessly fight for the Slovene nation state!
Slovenia and Serbia-Montenegro enjoy quite friendly relations today. But things will never be the same, will they?
No, things will never be the same. Today they are two equal and independent states, which can work well together. This pleases me greatly, though eighty-five years ago the situation was quite different. Serb disappointment with the Slovenes derives primarily from the fact that the Serbs expected an unconditional Slovene support against the Croats, just like in 1918-1941. The Serbs basically thought of Slovenes as a second-rate nation. Cosic's group, which in 1986-7 declared itself as "anti-Milosevic", informed me at the time of their new concept of Yugoslavia. The Slovenes were supposed to give up their language, which would be used only in everyday speech and for lower levels of cultural life. The Serbs would further assume political leadership, while the Slovenes would look after the economy. This excessive aggressiveness, a real blindness, was derived from the assumption that we Slovenes were completely - i.e. spiritually, materially and politically - dependent on the Serbs, as if we were their servants. We know from history how servants behave: sooner or later they have enough, whereupon they rise as one and burn down the lord's mansion. The Slovenes "burned down" Yugoslavia as a common state, and proposed to the Serbs to make a new state in which they would be equal partners. The Serbs did not agree to this, and neither did the Croats.
Can Serb intellectuals learn anything from Slovene intellectuals and the other way round?
Serbs can learn a lot from Slovenes on the road to modern Europe of the mass market capitalism. The dilemma is - is that a good road? Perhaps there is no other choice. For me the goal is somewhere else - not in Europe of leisure and advertising. Look, there is still something of a Marxist in me. Therefore, if Serbs and their intellectuals want higher standard, more material goods, more security, although the last one is questionable given the inevitable increase in poverty and violence in two thirds of the society, then they will follow the Slovene example, just like we Slovenes followed Austrians and Germans followed the English.
During the last fifteen years Slovenia went through different phases - from total rejection of everything linked to Yugoslavia, through disgust at everything related to Serbia and Serbs, to some sort of "Yugonostalgia". Do you still hold that Slovenia and its culture benefited from seventy years of coexistence with other similar nations in the same country?
How did Slovene culture benefit from shared existence with Serbs in the same country? Relaxed nature, nonchalance, charm, rhetoric (we Slovenes still stammer a lot), support against the then greatest enemies of Slovenes - Italians and Germans... All of that can loosely be classified as culture, building of a national character. Unfortunately, after 1990 Serbs to a great extent lost their charm and nonchalance.
Some decades ago, however, together with Dusan Pirjavec you found shelter in Belgrade escaping from Communist repression and provincialism?
Serbs literally saved me from terror I experienced in Slovenia from traditionally humane artists and Communist party state apparatus. I am referring to Serb dissidents, intellectuals, who were fabulous at the time. Consequently, I went to Belgrade a lot, and later I took Prijavec with me. They always received me very well; I was very close to my Serb friends, naturally also emotionally, and I admired them as very smart and trailblazers of the civic tradition that we Slovenes did not have. Now you can understand the origin of my disappointment after 1985. I explained that to myself like this: a thin layer of Serb intellectuals was very refined, almost "French" in their ideas, but they did not have the support of the Serb nation. But even they, Tadic, Mihajlo Markovic, and others were overcome by Serb archaism. As if their European layer had sunk, as if it had never existed. As far as the Slovene elite is concerned, it was far less European, but the difference between top intellectuals and ordinary folk in Slovenia was very small.
Since then, a lot has changed in Belgrade and Serbia?
For me personally until the 80s Belgrade represented an oasis of freedom, creativity, friendship, while Ljubljana was a den of envy, narrow mindedness, pettiness, a world of small people to the last. However, I had to decide between petty people who secured a path to Europe or heroes-butchers who had gone mad like ancient Ajax. I was very unhappy that fate forced me to face such, for me an impossible dilemma.
What is your view of political activities of your colleagues, writers, from Cosic to Rupel? Did they do anything good in their political roles?
I broke off with Rupel when he became a politician, although in the past we were very close friends and collaborators. Although, I must admit that, unlike Cosic, Rupel is a successful politician. Not only has he survived in the post of the foreign minister for almost fifteen years, but is today the president of the OSCE. No doubt, that is a big success for a politician, as well as Slovenia as a country. Personally, however, I am not impressed by such honors; I am not interested in power. After 1990, The DEMOS (united Slovene opposition that won in the first post-Communist elections in Slovenia - author's remark) offered me some important posts - for example that of the director general of the Slovene national TV station, but I rejected the official written offer with an official written answer. I am happy in my margins, because I have more freedom.
You have always fought against integralism, gentilism [sic]... Despite that in Slovenia, despite the political development of the country, we can notice numerous attempts of erasure and suppression of various minorities to the margins of the society. True, a part of public protested against denial of rights to new "foreigners" and other minorities, but on the other hand populists have been winning elections and referenda?
Today the right center rules in Slovenia. To what extent they are extremists we'll judge based on their attitude with respect to the erased, the Ljubljana mosque, Gypsies... Populism is not only strong in Slovenia - it is strong everywhere in the West, it was powerful in the ancient Rome, everywhere and always. The question is how far that populism will go. Every "native" nation in a country needs the second rate nation so that it can "train" its self-confidence using that second-rate nation. The way pre-war Poles viewed Jews and Ukrainians, English viewed Irish, Russians viewed Byelorussians, Spaniards viewed Basques, it all continues. And will go on in the future. That is disgusting but the new left rhetoric cannot help there. To treat human rights as the paramount concern can turn into corruption - rights without duties; those are only pipe dreams. There is no doubt that Slovenes are fearful of excessive power of the Serb, Croat or Bosniak minorities, all of which have links with their motherlands. Austrians are bothered by the Slovene minority in Carinthia although only a handful of them remain. Italians cannot stand Slovenes in Primorje, although they are a negligible minority in comparison with Italians. Those tensions will continue to exist, just like in every family. The important thing is that they do not cross a line. Where is that line? Through history that line keeps moving. 150 years ago Slovenes were happy if they managed to give a street in Ljubljana a Slovene name. From that point of view the accession of Serbia to the EU, although that will not happen in the near future, would be very good as it would reduce tension between small nations. Naturally that tension would be replaced by other tensions, at some different level.
According to you the nation state becomes a civic state only when it treats all of its citizens equally. Does the same apply to those who in Slovenia overnight became foreigners or were even erased?
Tolerance is always relative. It is important that there are no excessive incidents or violence. Those who believe they are denied some right should fight for them. In Slovenia such individuals have formal opportunities to fight for their rights; also the erased enjoy sympathy and quite a lot of support. In reality all of that is going very slowly. For example, consider democratic America and her attitude towards blacks in the mid 1950s! Then it could not even be contemplated that a black man or woman could one day be a state secretary, as happened in Bush's center right administration! The Communist Party taught me that I must always fight if I want to survive. Consequently, after the 90s free market was not a shock for me; I had prepared for it for decades, as well as for political obstacles. For example, at one time I was able to print in Belgrade articles that I could not publish in Slovenia under any circumstances. Finally, Slovene ombudsman for human rights Matjaz Hanzek, my son, has been working very hard on the issue of the erased and all the marginalized groups. Between 1966 and 1996 we collaborated very closely and I raised him with awareness of tolerance.
Is there a chance of renewal of cultural links between Serb, Slovene and other intellectuals from the former Yugoslavia? Is such a dialog, after everything that has passed, possible, needed and would it be fruitful?
I cannot speak on behalf of others, because I have increasingly less and less contacts with Slovene intellectuals - I have resigned from the Association of Slovene Writers and the Slovene Matica. I only remain a member of the Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts, where I represent anti-nationalist views. My colleagues have already branded me a traitor of the nation. However, in Slovenia allegedly such a label carries no concrete consequences.
Do you maintain contacts with Nebojsa Popov, Ljuba Tadic, Dobrica Cosic, Stevo Zigon?
With the above mentioned, my former great friends and collaborators, I have no contacts whatsoever. At one point the current president of Serbia, Boris Tadic showed a lot of respect to me and then, probably like his father, rejected me. Today, now that he is a politician, I do not exist for him. But on the other hand, Rupel, given that he is a powerful politician, is in Tadic's good graces. In the mid 90s Cosic stated on one occasion about me: "We raised a snake in our bosom". Only then I understood what he expected from me - servile support of Serb views and actions. With Nebojsa I clashed after one of my interviews in which I mentioned Nebojsa's, Dobrica's (as well as other members of their group) demands regarding Slovenes. I heard that later Nebojsa angrily denied everything in Politika. I follow his magazine Republika, which is great given its Serbian environment, although I find it boring because I am not politically active. Unfortunately, I haven't noticed that Nebojsa has criticized his views from 1986, when they were nationalist and supported Greater Serbia. As long as he and his magazine keep attacking, justifiably, supporters of Milosevic and other backward scum, his attitude will be and will remain political. That is insufficient for an intellectual rebirth of the nation and the society. First auto-reflection is needed, even if it is exploited by your political opponents. The important question is - do you want to defeat your opponent or find the truth. These two goals are mutually exclusive in many ways. True masters know how to bring them together, although that does not interest me as I am not limited by political thought. As far as Stevo Zigon is concerned, a few years ago he acknowledged a son he had in Slovenia, a great poet. He visited his son and his son's family, but I fear he still blindly and zealously supports the same views he had twenty years ago. Naturally, I cannot say the same about Nebojsa.
After 1990 I actually had only sporadic, occasional contacts with my Serb friends. It did not work out even with very close friends such as Marija and Milutin Mitrovic. Marija to this day hasn't forgiven me for my "Letters to a Serb friend". When I asked her to read them one more time, she reluctantly replied that she could not - she was disgusted by them. As far as she is concerned, there is no difference between me and Rupel - we both destroyed Marija's idyllic Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, for me Yugoslavia was far from idyllic. Marija helped me immensely, translated my writing, she was a great friend. I am grateful to her. The same is true for Nebojsa. What happened before 1985 is one thing, what came after that something totally different. I personally do not blame anyone, although Dobrica's ideas about ethical and Christian nature of just Serb wars I cannot support. On the other hand, I am prepared for any conversation that could help in the quest for the truth.