Croatian Political Confusion
AIM Zagreb, 22 February, 1999
Great confusion reigns the Croatian politial scene. Its source is in the ruling party. The Croat Democratic Community (HDZ) has lately emitted such contradictory signals that it seems that the situation at Pantovcak (seat of the administration) is utterly chaotic. For example, the ruling party had announced reconstruction of the government, the time had already been set when the composition of the new cabinet would be made public when suddenly everything was cancelled. The new date has not been set and nobody is making forecasts any more. The prime minister claims that the postponement is connected with the illness, as he said, the cold caught by the head of the state. According to his words, it was simply impossible for him to have a meeting with president Tudjman who had returned from the visit to Turkey in poor health.
Calling off of the session of one of the central bodies of the ruling party is even more curious, because it was pretentiously announced as the "mini convention of HDZ". Although a detailed plan of the session had already been published down to the detail how long speeches of delegates would be, suddenly everything was cancelled, that is postponed for a few months. This meant that the composition of the election staff of the HDZ would not ne announced either. Almost no explanation was given for this postponement. It is generally linked to Tudjman's illness, which was supoosed to mean that Croatian president suffered from something more serious than a cold or influenza.
Explanations of the new election law were also confused. First the double vice president - of the ruling party and of the Croatian Assembly - Vladimir Seks made it public that most probably a purely proportional system would be introduced and that whole Croatia would be a single electoral district. He explained this with the wish to evade the possibility of creating bipolarity - in the parliament and in political life in general. Although arguments stated by Seks were unfounded, choice of the proportional system seemed logical for HDZ. Decline of popularity, discreditation of numerous individuals from the authorities led to catastrophic defeat of the ruling party in all the recent partial local elections. The proportional system is not stimulating for coalitions, which is of vital significance for HDZ at this moment, because joint appearance of six opposition parties is the major election threat to HDZ.
But, a denial arrived soon after that - news arrived from the ruling party that this was just one of the proposals, and then it was stated that the proportional system with a single electoral district was not a proposal of the HDZ at all, but of the extremist right Croat Party of Right (HSP). This shillyshallying about the election model shows two things: first, that HDZ has a big problem, because as one of the opposition leaders said, not a single election system is suitable for it. Its rating has dangerously dropped, so much that it is hard to find a way which would ensure its election victory. And second, disputes about election rules are an expression of general confrontation inside the ruling ranks.
Elections are rapidly approaching (regularly they should take place in the end of the year, but earlier surprises are possible), although under what conditions it is still completely in the dark, especially according to what election system they will be organised. Accumulation of unresolved problems is the result of evident blockade of authorities. Tudjman is not capable to solve problems any more, partly because his power has worn off and decayed, and partly because of his illness. Rumours say that the Croatian president, who was twice already treated for cancer, is suffering of a relapse of the malignant disease. Certain outer signs indicate this. According to the old custom, Croatian public is not officially informed about the state of health of the head of the state, so it is forced to make guesses about his illness, for example, by the quantity of his hair. The worn out president is unable to control his own party any more, so a bitter battle for succession is fought in its ranks. After practically nobody is left in its moderate faction, the conflict moved to the right, so we are nowadays witnesses of an open struggle between two right factions of the HDZ.
Six opposition parties which are preparing for some form of joint appearance in the elections assess that in the past few weeks political operation of the ruling party has become extremely radical. In a special statemnt they established that in the ranks of the ruling party "the extremist faction has gained full prevalence, which is especially confirmed by their acting in the parliament, developments in the judiciary, in intelligence services, on Croatian Television". Refusing to accept the state of, what they called, "increasing insecurity and hopelessness", the six have announced that they would intensify their pre- and post-election cooperation. They addressed the citizens for the first time with an appeal to "initiate changes together which will ensure freedom, safety and dignity for all the people". They announced organizatiojn of gatherings of solidarity of all the citizens, first on the local level, and then of a central gathering in Zagreb. Gatherings will probably be organized in spring, and forms of these demonstrations are just being discussed.
Official and informal spokesmen of HDZ immediately recognised an imitation of Che Guevara in the opposition six, who will echo Milosevic's "meetings of truth", and the Chinese four-member gang. The announcement that the opposition might resort to non-parliamentary instruments of political struggle, that it might even call the citizens to protest gatherings against radicalism of HDZ and in favour of political and social changes - was hastily proclaimed a call to revolution. Media close to the authorities immediately found the model for it in the Chinese cultural and Milosevic's "anti-bureaucratic revolution". Leaders of HDZ interpreted protest gatherings as a call to creation of "pre-revolutionary atmosphere" and announced they would organize counter-metings. Claiming that the opposition was calling to disturbances and chaos, they proclaimed themselves promoters of order and dialogue.
As in the past few months, instead of the former "Franjo, Franjo!", the Croats started shouting "Thieves, thieves!" at meetings, the HDZ changed its attitude towards mass gatherings. Nowadays they are trying to disqualify them as an imitation of notorious "happenings of the people" (organised in Serbia in support to Slobodan Milosevic). However, mass forms of expression of political stands - either in protest or support are quite customary in the democratic world. Political organizations, ruling and opposition ones, in Croatia have always manifested the same disapproval of every public manifestation. HDZ is afraid of the developments in the "street" since it cannot control them. The opposition has never known how to use them. Big news is that opposition parties are now announcing that they will turn over a new leaf.
Nowadays in Croatia, there are reasons pro et contra mass gatherings. Josip Zupanov, sociologist, warns that the current tensions on the Croatian political scene are not just the ordinary pre-election folklore, but serious and profound conflicts. Once the "spiral of conflict" starts to roll, it is difficult to forecast what the denouement will be like. Should things move in that direction, Zupanov claims that "some kind of a revolution or a coup is possible". The call to the citizens to come out in the streets always involves certain uncertainty; in electrified situations such as the current one in Croatia, things can easily get out of hand, and chaos would suit the ruling party best.
On the other hand, the opposition cannot continue sitting on its hands for ever. A few days ago the very patient Liberal Budisa said: "We cannot sit back and watch crawling of dictatorship in Croatia". The fact that the ruling party can be forced to make democratic concessions only by strong pressure speaks in favour of mass gatherings. Quibbling with boycott of the opposition in the assembly has yielded no results. Mass protests would undoubtedly be a much stronger and much more convincing argument. Second, the opposition must attract the voters or a very high percentage of voters might abstain from voting, which would also be convenient for the ruling party. Third, public discontent has increased so much that the opposition seems to have realised that the people must be led by somewone or else their uncontrolled eruption might shake up the opposition too.
JELENA LOVRIC