interview by Neven SANTIC
JOVIC: First, it is definitely a paradox that in the former Yugoslavia, especially in Croatia, there has been no serious discussion of the reasons for the break up of Yugoslavia, while in the Western Europe and the USA more than a hundred books and almost a thousand articles have been written on that topic. The book was originally written in English, but I decided to first publish it in Croatian, and at the same time in Serbian in Belgrade, precisely because it seems abnormal to me that the discussion of the reasons for the break up of Yugoslavia is centered outside this region. The second reason is that I am convinced that the break up of the former Yugoslavia was a defining event, not only for the collective political identities, therefore nations in the former Yugoslavia and the new states and their political future in Europe and elsewhere, but also for the individuals who live abroad. Almost everybody was affected. Everyone was touched by and changed by that event. For example, if you were to ask someone to define himself or herself, for example as an ethnic and/or political Croat, and check his or her political affiliation, and if you consider what the same person would have said fifteen years ago, while Yugoslavia still existed, the differences are huge. For many, the break up of Yugoslavia was a dividing point, which splits the personal history into the events before and after. It frequently happens (I personally find it very unhealthy) that people totally deny themselves or try to forget who and how they were while Yugoslavia still existed. I think that there is no reason for that and that, on the contrary, it would be beneficial if we started a discussion about the reasons for the break up of the former Yugoslavia. And not in the propagandist-political manner, but in the scientific manner. The Croatian society must be sufficiently mature, and it probably is, to grapple with the reasons for the break up of Yugoslavia.
I think that we need to abandon a sort of, as Dubravka Ugresic says, culture of lies in which we keep denying something that we may have been in the past, or deliberately try to forget or suppress some of our memories, or are convinced that they are only appropriate for the private and inappropriate for the public sphere. Regarding the public sphere, I am surprised that we don't have a serious discussion of the events preceding year 1990. For example, modern Croatian historiography deals with the events up to 1971 and then fast-forwards to 1990. As if nothing happened between 1972 and 1990. As if whatever happened between 1972 and 1990 was shameful. I think that we need to leave behind that feeling that some topics are not politically appropriate or politically suitable and must be suppressed from memory. That is in general our problem. For example, even WWII was not sorted out both in Croatia and Serbia. WWII was addressed and presented in a very one-sided manner. Until we are capable of looking squarely at our own past, accepting and admitting what we were, we shall have a hard time establishing continuity and we shall always feel as if life starts anew with every political change and forcing us to modify our own identity. That is simply unhealthy.
First, the theory about ancient hatreds ignores the fact that between 1945 and 1990 Yugoslavs lived in peace and good-neighborly, if not friendly relations. That happened at the time when some Western European and North American countries had serious ethnic problems, for example, Great Britain, USA, Belgium, or Canada. Those authors claim that ancient hatreds were suppressed by repression in Yugoslavia. However, I am unconvinced by their arguments. As we saw during the break up of Yugoslavia, repression can hardly stop a slide to a civil war. There has to be some narrative, some story that is convincing and explains why we live together in one state. Secondly, the ancient hatred theory confuses the timeline, cause and consequence. Of course, hatred was created in the nineties. We saw horrendous crimes in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere, which were results of private hatreds, desire for revenge, which is not necessarily always ethnically motivated. However, that is a consequence. The central issue is how that hatred was created. I don't think that that hatred always existed and that that's why Yugoslavia fell apart. Hatred created after the break up of Yugoslavia is a consequence of that break up. Therefore, we first must consider why the country fell apart in order to explain the events that followed. I think that the reasons for the break up and the war that followed must be sought in the weakness of the state. Inability of the state to prevent a conflict, inability of the state to regulate relations within the community and to timely punish those who wanted to start a war and initiate violence. The state impotently observed and allowed such developments for far too long. All of that was a consequence of its weakness, based on ideology. In a way, that is a paradox. On the one hand, Kardelj's ideology brought the political elite together, united and maintained Yugoslavia as a community, while on the other hand it contributed to its demise.
Exactly! This is totally contrary to most of Western European interpretations, which are also guided by ideology. According to the prevailing view, socialist states were too strong, while the society was too weak. That may have been true in the USSR and other Eastern European countries, but in Yugoslavia, a country based on anti-Soviet concept of socialization of the state, the society was pretty strong, while the state was weak. And not only was that state weak because of ideology, because the essence of socialism was socialization of the state, but the civil society did not play a positive role with which Western authors often endow it. If you consider three big and important institutions of the civil society, such as churches, media and associations of soccer fans, they did not play a positive role in the prevention of the conflict. On the contrary, they often played a negative role. What happened in the late eighties was a demand, not only in Croatia, but also in Serbia, Slovenia and elsewhere, for more state authority, for more order, for prevention of chaos and anarchy. That "statism" was a response to almost extremist anti-state attitude of the Socialist Yugoslavia. Tudman, Milosevic and Kucan were a "law and order" response to self management, to anarchy that developed in the late eighties. People in the eighties did not want less Tito but more Tito and new Tito. In that sense, naturally, Milosevic, Kucan and Tudman surfaced as people who promised state and that's why that was so exceptionally popular.
I define nationalism as a doctrine, political action and ideology that is nothing but a demand for the establishment, strengthening and preservation of a nation state. In that sense, naturally, the demand for the establishment of nation states, i.e. nationalism, became a logical response to Kardelj's self management concept that opposed the nation state. However, there are different sorts of nation states, so that in the eighties we also witnessed an increase in Yugoslav nationalism, as well as separate, ethnic nationalisms. In that sense nationalism was a logical response because it was totally different from socialism, whose advocates sincerely believed that socialism was the only way to prevent nationalism.
In that case, would it be fair to conclude that conflicts and clashes started simply because the territories claimed by different nationalisms overlapped?
The war started because of different definitions of nationhood; disagreement whether a nation includes all citizens on a particular territory regardless of their ethnicity, or whether it is based on ethnicity. Consequently, territories overlapped. On the other hand, the war started because private armies were established. Those private armies did whatever they wanted, while there was no state apparatus that would have been able to prevent illegal acquisition of arms and punish those who instigate national, racial or religious hatred and call for violence. In that sense huge responsibility for everything that happened probably lies on the security forces, above all the Yugoslav People's Army, because they did not obey the law, did not remain ethnically neutral and did not refuse to tolerate breaking of the law.
Criticism, especially coming from the former Yugoslavia, but also from abroad, would not surprise me. There is a habit to observe everything in black-and-white terms. Then, someone is either good or bad. I am not interested in that. Every citizen should be allowed to decide, based on his or her political beliefs, whether they do or do not like someone, including characters who are regarded by a majority as positive of negative factors. In that sense I believe that scientists do not have the right to monopoly in interpretation of politics or history. As a historian and political scientist, my goal is to explain what happened and why. It is not my job to provide political interpretation and impose my political views on someone else. That is the role of political parties and political activists.