After the congress in Mostar it remains unclear whether the election of the new HDZ president in Bosnia-Hercegovina was an act of disobedience with respect to Tudman, and if it was, whether it had been expected, or whether it was a calculated move that the dissident party led by Zubak should gather the votes of Croats in the Bosnian Sava river valley and central Bosnia and thus thwart Croatian alternative in Bosnia (Komsic, Simic, Brkic). The answer to the controversy from Mostar is not crucial for the analysis of the status of Tudman as a leader of a movement. The fact that the act of disobedience with respect to the leader has occurred, whether real or fake, is not decisive. Regardless of the form and credibility of the disobedience, that fact has brought into question the credibility of the leader. Maybe it is too early to say that Tudman is a leader in decline, but he cannot anymore count on having unquestionable authority, although his charisma still exists. The followers have begun to doubt, says Gotovac, and believe to have the right to say - no! Once obtained, the right to defiance can be extremely dangerous for charisma and absolutism. Later vows of loyalty to the leader which arrived from both camps (Both Jelavic's and Zubak's) haven't removed this danger.
The speed with which Tudman organized the meeting in Zagreb and postponement of some state obligations reveals the fear, maybe even panic in Zagreb. In the official statement the result of the meeting was described as compromise, therefore not as the reconciliation of two wings. Even that compromise was more a consequence of pressure from Tudman than a true compromise of two factions in Bosnian HDZ. It can be concluded from some later Zubak's actions that the idea about the founding of a new HDZ is still alive. A day after the Zagreb meeting, Zubak was present at the round table organized by "Napredak" in Kiseljak where it could be heard that this ethnic cultural organization ["Napredak"] must be fully depoliticized, and that it should primarily work on the survival of Croats in Bosnia-Hercegovina. The openness of "Napredak" to other nations is explicit "because, simply, we here live in a multi-ethnic society".
The power of the leader is a dominant principle and criterion which determines and organizes all levels and segments of the society, both horizontally and vertically. Totalitarian social models, because of lack of autonomy of their constituent parts must expand or perish. An illness of the death of one part threatens to bring about the collapse of the whole system. Consequently, in the model developed by the Tudman's regime in Croatia and a part of Bosnia-Hercegovina there is no place for integral and independent Bosnia-Hercegovina. The essence of that relationship and problem is revealed, unconsciously, by Zubak with the name for his new party: Bosnian-Hercegovinian HDZ as an alternative to HDZ of Bosnia-Hercegovina. These are not linguistic details but a significantly strategically different concept. Unfortunately, stool pigeon politicians like Zubak do not have a potential for a historical turnaround.
However, the fact that the split was welded in Zagreb and that it was published that there would be single HDZ in Bosnia doesn't also mean that HDZ will be united. The conflict in HDZ which manifested itself on the 5th congress as a clash of personalities has deeper roots. HDZ is based on a spent idea in significantly changed international situation and different balance of power (both in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina). In Zagreb, Tudman removed a consequence, but the causes are still there.
Translated on 7/20/98