Analysis of a Political Movement: Croatian Independence - Coursework Example

Student’s Name] [Instructor’s Name] [Course Title] [Date] AN ETHNOGRAPHICALLY BASED ANALYSIS OF A POLITICAL MOVEMENT INTRODUCTION The ascend of Croatian independence in the 90s, is distinct and directed by the Croatian state leader--Franjo Tudjman. Tudjman who was the then Croatian head, plays a critical role in determining general, internal and global policies; he makes all the vital decisions for the entire civilization. Furthermore, Tudjman is the chief ideologist of the Croatian separatist movement, the key constructor of the progression of the Croatian national re-formation and also state-building. AIM OF THE PAPER The aim of this document is to analyze the method Tudjman distincted the Croatian homeland, elucidated its past and present, devised countrywide goals and well-being. Furthermore, when the methods of state and state-building come about in the era of war, the position of the other nations and enemies also becomes significant. The paper has an ethnographically based case study of a political movement that is the Croatian nationalist movement. THE CROATIAN NATION Tudjman's design of the country is intensely rooted in history. Collective account, chronological events, battles and emperors, faith and customs serve as a base for the nation. It is account which gives the state shape and determines the prospect of the nation(Burton, 92-110) By declaring the Croatian nation as "one of the oldest nations in Europe" Tudjman's vision of the nation is determinedly couched in a historical background. Tudjman finds a foot for such a declaration in one more past "fact": "here the Croatian community had their statehood 1300 years previously, and...it lived and...it was a containment for additional non-Serb people to accomplish their national formation and their statehood". According to these declarations, it could be said that Tudjman sees the state as the base for the nation(Heraclides, 198-200). The state is a kind of guarantee for the survival and preservation of the nation: "all nations who did not achieve their own statehood, lost their fatherland". That is one of the reasons why the state is defined strictly as a national state: "Croatian state--the national state of the Croatian nation". Even though, Croatia from 1102 till 1941 was not an independent state, "[the Croatian nation] preserved the elements of both national and state self-essence". (Burton, 92-110) This is the reason why Tudjman concentrates his political program around the idea of the creation of the national state. In the articles analyzed in this content analysis, Tudjman describes the Croatian independent state as "the historical tendency of the Croatian nation" (2 times), as "the nine centuries long dream", and as "the thousand year long dream of the Croatian nation" . When the state is declared as the supreme value per se, the creation of that state is one of the greatest achievements of the whole nation, and of the leader particularly(Heraclides, 198-200). Moreover, in this concept the nation is highly determined by geo-political position. Talking about the Croatian nation, as the most important factor which determines the past and the future of Croats, Tudjman emphasizes the Croatian position between different civilizations. The first division is a "division between two civilizations: Eastern Orthodox Europe and Western Europe". New division is mentioned in relation to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Tudjman defines Croats, Serbs and Muslims in BH as "three nations--three civilizations". A criterion for the constitution of these three separate civilizations is, at least in origin, religion. The position of Croatia is clear: "Croatia--the country of the Western world” (Burton, 92-110). The centuries long common life of Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina undermined the role of the language, values and way of life that differentiated them. The only reliable marker for a national affiliation is, it could be said, religious affiliation. Boundaries between those nations, according to Tudjman, are "civilizational," i.e., unbreakable. As a result of its historical position the Croatian nation developed particular national interests. National interests, according to Tudjman, are the common essence of a nation: "Using the example of Croatia and Slovenia we can draw the conclusion that there is no long-term love, and that nations [narodi] are led only by interests. And very often, we can find selfish decisions in relations between nations". From this statement it follows that for Tudjman a defense of national interests is the most significant goal: (Young, 178)"But, when the national interests, the interests of the Croatian state, are in question then all considerations towards friends have to stop". These interests cannot be changed, as "the interests of the nation-state are eternal". Considering the starting premise that national interests are the moving force of a nation throughout its history, historical events are to be explained in a way that justifies present events. In this way continuity with the past is secured. A perfect example of this usage of history can be observed through Tudjman's explanation of the events in Croatia during the Second World War. During the Second World War the Croatian nation found itself divided between two conflicting ideologies: fascism and communism. (Heraclides, 198-200)In April 1941 the pro-fascist Ustasha movement proclaimed the Independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna Drzava Hrvatska - NDH) (Silverstein, 43-57)and became notorious for atrocities and mass killings of Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and Croats themselves. On the other hand, anti-fascists gathered around the Communist Party in the battle against fascism and, consequently, against the Ustasha movement. The victory against the fascists in 1945 was, at the same time, the defeat of the Independent State of Croatia. For Tudjman, himself a member of the anti-fascist movement, this episode presents a key problem for an explanation of the Croatian history. The fulfillment of the "nine centuries long dream," i.e., the independent state, had been an achievement of the pro-fascistic movement. Nevertheless, the ultimate national interest needs to be defended. The NDH in Tudjman's speeches is described as a "mortgage" for Croats (two times) and as a "quisling regime", but also as the "Croatian state". Tudjman explains: "...[it is] an historical truth that the NDH committed crimes" but "...the centuries long Croatian history cannot be compromised because of a period of four years, because of the same period which all European countries went through".(Silverstein, 43-57) After all, "the Croatian people are...partly on the side of the NDH, not because it was a pro-fascistic, quisling creation, but because they wanted their own state". Now the creation of the independent Croatian state is justified. Still the false image of Croats being fascists has to be erased. With that aim Tudjman sees the anti-fascist movement in Croatia as "...stronger than in other, not only ex-Yugoslav countries, but...we could even say proportionally the strongest in Europe" . (Burton, 92-110) "It is a lie of the Croatian and world public that the partisans and popular liberation struggle in Croatia was only Serbian....Yet, the leadership of the anti-fascist movement was in the hands of Croats". Frequent reminders of the anti-fascist movement serves also as an equilibrium between an undoubtedly pro-fascist episode and the demands of the modern world: "we are building Croatia on anti-fascism because anti-fascism is the base on which today's international system is built". Still, it is not clear whether this statement is an explanation or an excuse. (Young, 178) The nation, it is clear, needs to be unified in order to accomplish its aims and protect its interests. It is for this reason Tudjman attached great importance to reconciling the fifty years long ideological division of Croats. The ideal media for this reconciliation Tudjman finds in Jasenovac, the biggest and the most terrible of the Ustasha's concentration camps. He explains: Jasenovac was the consequence of an ideological division of Europe and the world between two major opposite ideas -- fascism and communism(Burton, 92-110). Those two ideas were fighting for the lives and spirit of the people and they caused terrible evils.... When we already have the monument on that place, lets find out the historical truth and let's mark the victims separately -- Jews, Serbs, Croats -- let everybody have their place, their museum, their chapel as evidence of one historical time. A place like that can be a place of reconciliation, of bringing together, an appeal to overcome similar evils in the future(Heraclides, 198-200). Again, Tudjman continues to attempt to strike a balance between Ustasha crimes and those crimes of the Partisans. The episode in Bleiburg in 1945 serves that purpose perfectly: "On Bleiburg there were one hundred thousand Croatian people killed, and not only Ustashas, rather Ustashas were a minority, but there were people from different parts of Croatia whose families were aligned to the NDH as the Croatian state, and not to fascism, or to nazism”. It is clear that both of the ideologies committed crimes, and therefore, neither deserves any credit(Burton, 92-110). The fact remains however that the only tragic victim of these events were the Croatian people. On this premise Tudjman attempts to built a new unity around the reconciled nation. The anti-fascist movement has been praised by Tudjman in his speeches for one more reason--the return of lost territory. Tudjman sees all areas in which Croats have been living and still live as the historic Croatian homeland. In the speeches analyzed, Tudjman mentions Istria(Silverstein, 43-57) (2 times), Herzegovina, some parts or the whole of Bosnia, and Sveta Gera as the historic Croatian territories. With the exception of Istria all are not parts of the Republic of Croatia. On the other hand, all of those who have declared themselves as Croats, around the world, have the right to assume Croatian citizenship and can actively participate in Croatian political life through the right to vote at Croatian elections. Therefore, the population of territories which Tudjman considers as historically Croatian, becomes a part of the Croatian state. Citizenship and national affiliation are equated, at least for Croats. Members of national minorities who live in Croatia, in one period, had to prove their right to Croatian citizenship. According to some opposition leaders in Croatia, the active involvement of Croatia in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, had for the aim to bring together all "Croatian historical territories" in one state. (Young, 178) This statement is not merely an attempt to discredit political opponents in a political struggle. As has already been mentioned, one of the most important characteristics of Tudjman's rhetoric is emphasizing his own role in the process of the creation of the national state. For describing the present position of Croatia, Tudjman uses terms such as a "political miracle", "a surprise for the other nations", "triumphant victory", (Burton, 92-110)or "the most democratic country". It is a "triumph that Croatian politics has not had in its entire history" , "the highest achievement of Croatian politics yet". Such qualifications are not surprising. It is interesting that it is a particular policy that is attributed to a "creator" of the present "miracles," not the Croatian people nor Croatian nation. THE INTERNAL ENEMIES From Tudjman's speeches it can be observed that merely a glorification of his own role is not sufficient. When talking about his political opponents Tudjman tries to underestimate the role of the opposition parties. There are two major obstacles which could endanger his rule: disunity of the nation and public criticism of his government's actions. For those reasons, Tudjman names regionalism and oppositional political parties as the major enemies of the Croatian nation and state. If the nation is understood as an organic body, a supreme collective over all other particularities, then it would be feasible to assume that any emphasis on particularism could be understood as a direct attack on the unity of Croatia. Throughout Croatia's history some regions went through different experiences, belonged to different states and developed their own specificities. The most extreme example is Istria. (Heraclides, 198-200) Even though the peninsula of Istria had been settled by those who declared themselves as being Croats a long time ago, it became a part of Croatia only after the Second World War. It is characterized by a significant Italian minority and is economically one of the most developed regions of Croatia. The inhabitants are also well aware of this fact. During the war Istria was spared direct destruction. It preserved its economy and with its great touristic potentials it quickly became the economic foundation for the rest of Croatia. With the collapse of Yugoslavia and with the first multi-party elections in Istria, the Istrian Democratic Union (Istarski demokratski savez - IDS) won the elections and assumed regional power. Since then, the IDS also won all general and local elections. With such support from Istrians, the IDS directly threatens the absolute rule of Tudjman and the HDZ. Tudjman could not overlook the resounding victories of the IDS, but he felt he could not openly attack their leaders as people who are endangering his rule. As a result the IDS and its leaders started to be named as those who are endangering the unity of the nation and, therefore, they became direct opponents of the "democratic and independent state of Croatia." (Heraclides, 198-200)Consequently, the idea of regionalism is attacked as false, invented just against Croatia: "Some bought an idea that the people, the nation, are not so important as the region. That idea is directed against Croatian independence and sovereignty". Moreover, "the essence of those occurrences cannot be reconciled with so-called democratic and contemporary ideas about the building of Europe as a community of 'regions,' and not of 'nation-states'". THE EXTERNAL ENEMIES Defining external enemies in a war is not a difficult job. Nevertheless, how the enemy is defined could also shape the war on the ground. The war in Croatia started as an attempt of the communist remnants and those who strongly believed in the preservation of Yugoslavia, to keep Croatia inside the Yugoslavian borders by pure force(Silverstein, 43-57). This war ended as a pure ethnic war. One of the reasons is the way that enemies were defined. When a whole nation is labeled an enemy, then genocide, ethnic cleansing, human resettlement, and all kinds of other atrocities can be expected. On the other hand, observing Tudjman's image and definition of enemies, an image and definition of his own nation can be more clear. CONCLUSION For Tudjman, the nation is an organic body with its own collective identity. This identity is shaped through, and by history. It is expressed through a national culture. Yet geo-political circumstances shape national interests. National interests are seen as eternal and unchangeable goals of the nation. The most important national interest, according to Tudiman, is the formation of the national state, because only through ones own state can the nation secure its existence and thus prosper. In Tudjman's speeches the Croatian nation is shaped in opposition to other nations. Even though Croats are presented as one of the oldest nations in Europe, other nations are seen as major obstacles in the fulfillment of the "nine centuries long dream"--an independent Croatian state. (Heraclides, 198-200) Throughout history, Tudjman sees Croats as humiliated, oppressed and exploited without real friends. That is the reason why today's Croats can be proud of themselves: throughout the time of oppression Croats preserved their "self-essence," their right to statehood, their culture, and finally, they created their own sovereign state all by themselves. WORKS CITED Burton, "The Relevance of Behavioral Theories of the International System," in Moore, ed., pp. 92-110 Heraclides "Janus or Sisyphus? The Southern Problem of the Sudan," The Journal of Modern African Studies, 25 (June 2000) pp. 213-31. Heraclides, "Conflict Resolution, Ethnonationalism and the Middle East Impasse," Journal of Peace Research, 26 (May 2001) pp. 198-200. Silverstein, "Politics in the Shan State: The Question of Secession from the Union of Burma," Journal of Asian Studies, 18 (1999) pp. 43-57. Young, "Intervention and International Systems," Journal of International Affairs, 22, no. 2 (Summer 1998) p. 178. Read More