On Opposition

Neuspjeh ustavne demokracije, nepostojanje suglasnosti, nedostatak građanskih sloboda i nepovredivost vlasništva konstante su hrvatske povijesti. Danas pak živimo u vremenu formalne demokracije i višestranačja. Ovaj režim trpi oporbu ali je delegitimira i čini neodgovornom. (On ne vlada po zakonu i nema sustavne ideologije). Stoga su mu imanentna tri tipa opozicije: ona koja ga vuče u totalitarizam, zatim ona koja dugoročno teži demokraciji i napokona ona koja je sklona unutarnjim reformama. Ključni uvjet uspjeha demokratskog pokreta u Hrvatskoj je u suprostavljanju nacionalizmu i za suživot, u raznolikom društvu s funkcionalnom elitom i međuovisnošću kao načelom.The author claims that we are living in the time of formal democracy and multipartyism. He advocates a thesis that the Croatian government tolerates the opposition but at the same time delegitimizes it and renders it untrustworth. The government does not rule by the book and has no systematic ideology. Thus three types of opposition are immanent to it: the one that leads into totalitarianism, the one that strives towards democracy and finally the one that is given to internal reforms. The key condition for the success of the move towards democracy in Croatia is in countering nationalism and in coexistence within a heterogeneous society with a functional elite and interdependence as a principle

»EMPEROR KARL HAS BECOME A COMITADJI«: THE CROATIAN DISTURBANCES OF AUTUMN 1918.

Članak prvi put u literaturi raščlanjuje veliki val nemira u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj u tijeku prijelaznog razdoblja između rasula Austro-Ugarske i uspostave Kraljevine SHS u jesen 1918. Niz dramatičnih događaja predočen je iz perspektive pokreta seljačkih slojeva, uz nazočnost »zelenog kadra«, za društvenu jednakost i obračun sa svim nosiocima starog režima, te iz perspektive Narodnog vijeća i njegovih potreba za stabiliziranje stanja, makar uz uporabu krajnjih mjera. Autor razglaba o mjestu nemira u kasnijim tumačenjima i zaključuje da su oni odraz pravog raspoloženja hrvatskih masa prema Austro-Ugarskoj, Državi SHS i jugoslavenskom ujedinjenju.The article is the first attempt in literature to dissect the great wave of peasant disturbances that rocked Croatia-Slavonia in October and November of 1918 during the period of transition from moribund Austria-Hungary to the emerging Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. The author examines all segments of the popular movement, from the »Green Cadre« military deserters to the peasants of the manorial estates. The »pillagers«, as the official reports referred to the marauding peasants, often blended plain banditry with more self-consciously rebellious aims, a development which was indicative of a belief in a new world, free of bureaucrats, landlords, extortionist merchants, and usurers, in which land and goods would be redistributed. In the process, they destabilized Croatia-Slavonia precisely at the moment when the leadership of the Nacional Council of the Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs - the center of political power in Zagreb - wished to present a more promising index of South Slavic unity. Instead of reassuring the Allies about the eagerness of the broad strata to follow the intelligentsia\u27s lead into Yugoslav unification, the National Council opted for harsh repressive measures in order to put down the popular movement. The Croatian disturbances of the autumn of 1918 have ingendered considerable controversy over the years. On the Croat Left, the disturbances were assessed quite accurately, at least in regard to their gravity, though with excessive emphasis on the influence of Leninist ideas. The Croat political Right always sought to downplay the importance of the disturbances. Most important, the events of October and November 1918 shed light on the political consequences of the deep gulf between the educated elite and the peasant masses that is often typical of agrarian countries

Silencing the archival voice: the destruction of archives and other obstacles to archival research in post-communist Eastern Europe

Sve zbirke arhivskoga gradiva imaju svoje zaštitnike - vlastite glasove, koji prenose suhoparne statistike, birokratsku opreznost, ali isto tako ljutnju i strast povijesnih sudionika te težnje za plemenitim i manje plemenitim ciljevima. Povjesničari i drugi istraživači imaju popise nedoličnih i smiješnih priča o "dostupnosti" i nedostatku iste. Do sloma sustava 1989/1990. to je bila obvezatna značajka komunističkih režima u istočnoj Evropi. Danas, naročito kao posljedica ratova usmjerenih na brisanje pamćenja, arhivski glasovi su utišani daleko težim zaprekama - najgorom od svih, ogromnim uništavanjem arhivskoga gradiva. U nekim slučajevima, kao u Bosni i Hercegovini, uništenje arhivskoga gradiva bilo je dio ratne strategije. Uništite povijest "drugoga" i na putu ste da vašeg proglašenog "neprijatelja" lišite vertikalnog kontinuiteta. Ova strategija je kako pogrešna, tako i štetna. Uništenje napuljskog Arhiva u vrijeme Drugoga svjetskog rata, uništilo je povijest Napulja isto tako malo, kao što razaranje Orijentalnog instituta u Sarajevu može ukinuti povijest Bosne i Hercegovine. Ali to je unatoč tomu velika nesreća. A kako povijest nije sasvim nezavisna, to nisu nikada niti izvori. Razaranje jedne arhivske zbirke šteti svima - ne samo određenoj grupi ili grupaciji. Ovo izvješće ukazuje na načine te nudi nekoliko prijedloga zaštite arhivskih izvora.All archival collections have their familiars - their personal voices, which convey matter-of-fact statistics, bureaucratic reserve, but also the anquish and passion of historical actors and the aspirations for noble and ignoble goals. Historians and other researchers all have their lists of embarrassing and silly stories about "access" and lack thereof. Until the systemic collapse of 1989/90, these were an obligatory aspect of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe. Nowadays, especially as a consequence of wars that aim at obliterating memory, the archival voices are being silenced by far more challenging obstacles - worst of all; with the wholesale destruction of archival collections. In some cases, as in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the destruction of archives is a strategy of war. Destroy the history of the "other" and you are on the way to having your proclaimed "enemy" deprived of a vertical continuity. This strategy is as flawed as it is dangerous. The destruction of Naepolitan archives in the Second World War abolished the history of Naples as little as the destruction of the Oriental Institute in Sarajevo can abolish the history of Bosnia-Hercegovina. But it is a disaster nevertheless. And since history is not particularist, the sources never are. The destruction of an archival collection harms all - not just one group or constituency. This paper points out how and offers several proposals for the protection of archival sources

»EMPEROR KARL HAS BECOME A COMITADJI«: THE CROATIAN DISTURBANCES OF AUTUMN 1918.

Članak prvi put u literaturi raščlanjuje veliki val nemira u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj u tijeku prijelaznog razdoblja između rasula Austro-Ugarske i uspostave Kraljevine SHS u jesen 1918. Niz dramatičnih događaja predočen je iz perspektive pokreta seljačkih slojeva, uz nazočnost »zelenog kadra«, za društvenu jednakost i obračun sa svim nosiocima starog režima, te iz perspektive Narodnog vijeća i njegovih potreba za stabiliziranje stanja, makar uz uporabu krajnjih mjera. Autor razglaba o mjestu nemira u kasnijim tumačenjima i zaključuje da su oni odraz pravog raspoloženja hrvatskih masa prema Austro-Ugarskoj, Državi SHS i jugoslavenskom ujedinjenju.The article is the first attempt in literature to dissect the great wave of peasant disturbances that rocked Croatia-Slavonia in October and November of 1918 during the period of transition from moribund Austria-Hungary to the emerging Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. The author examines all segments of the popular movement, from the »Green Cadre« military deserters to the peasants of the manorial estates. The »pillagers«, as the official reports referred to the marauding peasants, often blended plain banditry with more self-consciously rebellious aims, a development which was indicative of a belief in a new world, free of bureaucrats, landlords, extortionist merchants, and usurers, in which land and goods would be redistributed. In the process, they destabilized Croatia-Slavonia precisely at the moment when the leadership of the Nacional Council of the Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs - the center of political power in Zagreb - wished to present a more promising index of South Slavic unity. Instead of reassuring the Allies about the eagerness of the broad strata to follow the intelligentsia\u27s lead into Yugoslav unification, the National Council opted for harsh repressive measures in order to put down the popular movement. The Croatian disturbances of the autumn of 1918 have ingendered considerable controversy over the years. On the Croat Left, the disturbances were assessed quite accurately, at least in regard to their gravity, though with excessive emphasis on the influence of Leninist ideas. The Croat political Right always sought to downplay the importance of the disturbances. Most important, the events of October and November 1918 shed light on the political consequences of the deep gulf between the educated elite and the peasant masses that is often typical of agrarian countries

On Opposition

Neuspjeh ustavne demokracije, nepostojanje suglasnosti, nedostatak građanskih sloboda i nepovredivost vlasništva konstante su hrvatske povijesti. Danas pak živimo u vremenu formalne demokracije i višestranačja. Ovaj režim trpi oporbu ali je delegitimira i čini neodgovornom. (On ne vlada po zakonu i nema sustavne ideologije). Stoga su mu imanentna tri tipa opozicije: ona koja ga vuče u totalitarizam, zatim ona koja dugoročno teži demokraciji i napokona ona koja je sklona unutarnjim reformama. Ključni uvjet uspjeha demokratskog pokreta u Hrvatskoj je u suprostavljanju nacionalizmu i za suživot, u raznolikom društvu s funkcionalnom elitom i međuovisnošću kao načelom.The author claims that we are living in the time of formal democracy and multipartyism. He advocates a thesis that the Croatian government tolerates the opposition but at the same time delegitimizes it and renders it untrustworth. The government does not rule by the book and has no systematic ideology. Thus three types of opposition are immanent to it: the one that leads into totalitarianism, the one that strives towards democracy and finally the one that is given to internal reforms. The key condition for the success of the move towards democracy in Croatia is in countering nationalism and in coexistence within a heterogeneous society with a functional elite and interdependence as a principle