Categories

Sergej Flere, PhD
Department of Sociology, University of Maribor
Maribor, Republic of Slovenia

 

Rudi Klanjšek, PhD
Department of Sociology, University of Maribor
Maribor, Republic of Slovenia

 

WHAT TYPOLOGICAL APPELLATION IS SUITABLE FOR TITO’S YUGOSLAVIA: RESPONSE TO MIHALJEVIĆ AND MILJAN

Vol. XXXVIII, 2/2020, pp. 231–244
https://doi.org/10.29362/ist20veka.2020.2.fle.231-244

 

ABSTRACT/RESUME:

This paper discusses the counterfactual, scientifically unfounded and unscholarly statements by Mihaljević and Miljan in their paper “Was Tito’s Yugoslavia not Totalitarian?” We needed to consider the issues of: Totalitarianism as a scholarly concept and a social construct, which could at best fit Yugoslavia’s political life in the period 1945-1962 (1966). The typological characterization of Tito’s Yugoslavia, where there is substantial agreement among scholars that consociation fits it best (at least for the period beginning in the mid-sixties). Along with numerous authors noted, we find that all elements of a predetermined consociation were present, including the grand coalition at the federal level, decision making at the federal level, the autonomy of units in cultural matters, and other; the organization of security services in Yugoslavia of the period (where we found multiplicity of organizations that did not always operate in harmony), the role of the republics in conducting foreign policy, which kept increasing, contrary to what Mihaljević and Miljan explicitly maintained with respect to Croatia; The monetary policy and seigniorage which came about (particularly explaining inflation of the 1980s). In its endeavor to achieve “settled accounts,” the federal government was stripped of any money issuing, but the money “leaked” into federal and republic national banks, which our critics were completely unaware of, not only making use of a wrong characterization, but also spelling it incorrectly; the issue of the political system’s dynamics (there were very substantial changes in the period 1945-1991). It was primarily a case of increasing decentralization in an attempt to do away with any “apples of discord” in mutual relationships (particularly in the distribution of economic goods), which proved impossible; the issue of the political system’s legitimacy, which is a slippery scientific notion, although its presence in certain forms could well be corroborated. We also noted a number of minor mistakes, errors, and omissions by the authors at issue. We found a general failure by the authors to achieve scientific objectivity and master the notions necessary for analysis.

 

KEYWORDS: Authoritarianism, Josip Broz Tito, Communism, Consociation, Federation, Political System, Totalitarianism, Unitarianism, Yugoslavia

 

REFERENCES:

  • Bertsch Gary, and George Zaninovich. “A Factor-Analytic Method of Identifying Different Political Cultures: The Multinational Yugoslav Case”. Comparative Politics, 6, (1974), 219-244. https://doi.org/10.2307/421462
  • Bieber, Florian. “Power Sharing and Democracy in Southeast Europe.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy, Special Issue, (2013), 129-148.
  • Bogaards, Matthijs. “Consociational parties and political accommodation in ethno-plural societies”. ECPR Joint, Sessions Turin, 1992.
  • Bogaards, Matthijs. Democracy and Social Peace in Divided Societies: Exploring Consociational Parties. London: Palgrave, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137433176
  • Borak, Neven. Ekonomski vidiki delovanja in razpada Jugoslavije. Ljubljana: Znanstveno in publicistično središče, 2002.
  • Brubaker, Rogers. Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511558764
  • Bunce, Valerie. Subversive Institutions: The Design and the Destruction of Socialism and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  • Čavoški, Kosta. Tito – tehnologija vlasti. Beograd: Dosije, 1991.
  • Choudhury, Sujit. Constitutional Design for Divided Societies: Integration or Accommodation? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Ćulibrk Svetozar, and Zlata Grebo. Želje i strahovi naroda Jugoslavije. Beograd: Institut društvenih nauka, 1965.
  • Đukić, Slavoljub. Političko groblje. Beograd: Službeni glasnik, 2009.
  • Flere Sergej, and Rudi Klanjšek. “Was Tito’s Yugoslavia totalitarian?“ Communist and Post-communist Studies, 47, (2014), 237-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2014.04.009
  • Flere Sergej, and Rudi Klanjšek. Analiza razpada Jugoslavije v luči nacionalizma: kako sta kontinuiteta nacionalističnih prerekanj etničnih političnih elit in etnično podjetništvo uničila večnacionalno Jugoslavijo. Maribor: Univerzitetna založba univerze, 2019a. https://doi.org/10.18690/978-961-286-295-4
  • Flere Sergej, and Rudi Klanjšek. The Rise and Fall of Socialist Yugoslavia: Elite Nationalism and the Collapse of a Federation. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2019b.
  • Goldman, Joseph Richard. “Consociational Authoritarian Politics and the Yugoslav 1974 Constitution: A Preliminary Note.“ East European Quarterly, 19, (1985), 241-249.
  • Goldstein Ivo, and Slavko Goldstein. Tito. Zagreb: Profil, 2015.
  • Kuljić, Todor. Tito – sociološkoistorijska studija. Zrenjanin: Kulturni centar Zrenjanina, 2012.
  • Laihiri, Ashok. “Yugoslav Inflation and Money,“ IMF Working Paper (1991) 91/50, 1-46. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451971064.001
  • Lijphart, Arent. “Consociational Democracy”. World Politics, (21), 1969, 217-225. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009820
  • Lijphart, Arent. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New York NY: Yale University Press, 1977.
  • Lijphart Arent, and Marcus Crepaz. “Corporatism and Consensus Democracy in Eighteen Countries: Conceptual and Empirical Linkages”. British Journal of Political Science, 21, (1991), 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400006128
  • Malešević, Siniša. Identity as Ideology. Understanding Ethnicity and Nationalism. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
  • McCrudden Chistopher, and Brendan O’Leary. Courts and Consociations: Human Rights Versus Power-Sharing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199676842.001.0001
  • Mihaljević Josip, and Goran Miljan. “Was Tito’s Yugoslavia Not Totalitarian?“. Istorija 20. veka, 38, br. 1 (2020), 223-238. https://doi.org/10.29362/ist20veka.2020.1.mih.223-248
  • Palairet, Michael. “The Inter-regional Struggle for Resources and the Fall of Yugoslavia“. In: State Collapse in South-Eastern Europe. New Perspectives on Yugoslavia’s Disintegration. Eds.: Lenard Cohen and Jasna Dragović-Soso, 228-232. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2007.
  • Sekulić Duško, Gerth Massey, and Randy Hodson. “Ethnic Tolerance and Ethnic Conflict: The Case of War in Croatia”. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29, (2006), 118-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870600814247
  • Shoup, Paul. “Titoism and Nationality”. In: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia. European Studies 5. Eds.: Martin Van den Heudel and Jan G. Siccama, 47-67. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1992.
  • Woodward, Joan. Socialist Unemployment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995.
  • „Zakon o republičkom komitetu za odnose s inozemstvom“, Narodne novine, no. 31, 1977, 1-2.
  • Zečević, Miodrag (prir.). Početak kraja SFRJ: stenogram i drugi prateći dokumenti proširene sednice Izvršnog komiteta CK SKJ održane 14–16. marta 1962. Beograd: Arhiv Jugoslavije, 1998.
  • Županov, Josip. Samoupravljanje i društvena moć. Zagreb: Naše teme, 1970.