Comrade Tito, it’s all your fault! Yugoslav Citizens’ Letters to Josip Broz Tito

Between 1945 and 1967, Josip Broz Tito, the Marshal and President of Yugoslavia, ‎received 411,769 letters written by citizens of his country. Until 1964 ‎he personally read most of the letters addressed to him and made decisions‎ on requests and comments expressed in them. In this article we argue that ‎Tito used the letters received to establish a direct link between himself and ‎citizens. This was one of the key instruments of his power, as he used letters ‎to conduct a permanent ‘anti-bureauratic revolution’ which would squeeze ‎lower-level officials into a sandwich between him and ‘the people’. We focus ‎on one particular letter, written by Dragomir Katić, a 27-year old unemployed ‎person from Kraljevo, Serbia. The letter arrived in February 1967, and Tito ‎used this occasion to personally meet Katić. Despite Tito’s promise, however, ‎Katić’s problem could not be solved for more than two years, due to a power‎ struggle between Tito and local officials in Serbia. This case sheds new light ‎on the nature of Tito’s alleged absolute power in Yugoslavia. It tells us much‎ about the attitude of dissatisfied individuals in Communist Yugoslavia, who ‎cared much more about solving their personal problems than about changing‎ the system, at least for as long as Tito was alive.

Foreign policy analysis: agency and structure in socialist Yugoslavia

Ova analiza vanjske politike socijalističke Jugoslavije, a posebno razdoblja vladavine Josipa Broza Tita, prvo je politološko razmatranje te teme nasuprot većini studija koja se njome bave iz historiografske perspektive. U prvom dijelu članka prikazani su glavni elementi analize vanjske politike, pri čemu se autor usredotočuje na odnos aktera i struktura kao jedan njezin element. U drugom dijelu prikazane su teorijske i metodološke postavke na kojima se zasniva analiza vanjske politike socijalističke Jugoslavije. Autor zaključuje da je proces odlučivanja o vanjskoj politici Jugoslavije evoluirao od 1945. do 1980. tako što je Tito, kao glavni donositelj odluka, sve više morao voditi računa o strukturi i raznim akterima unutar nje. Očita je bila sve veća pluralizacija procesa odlučivanja, kako na horizontalnoj razini, u interakciji Saveznog sekretarijata za inozemne poslove, partijskog vrha i Titova kabineta, tako i na vertikalnoj osi, kroz utjecaj republika i pokrajina na odlučivanje na saveznoj razini. Iako je ostao glavni donositelj odluka, Titovu su moć s vremenom znatno ograničili utjecaji drugih aktera, osobito otkako je sedamdesetih godina Predsjedništvo SFRJ dobilo mnoge ovlasti.Unlike the great majority of analyses that have taken the historiographic perspective, this study of socialist Yugoslavia\u27s foreign policy, focusing on the Josip Broz Tito era, is the first of its kind to provide a perspective of political science. The first section of this article provides an overview of the main elements of foreign policy analysis, whereby the author focuses on the relationship between the actors and the structures as one of its inherent elements. The second section offers insight into the theoretical and methodological tenets on which the analysis of socijalist Yugoslavia\u27s foreign policy resides. The author argues that the foreign-policy decision-making process in Yugoslavia evolved between 1945 and 1980 as Tito, the chief decision-maker, increasingly had to take into account the structure and the multiple actors within that structure. Evidently, the decision-making processes were becoming more and more pluralized both horizontally, in the interaction between the Federal Secretariat for Foreign Affairs, party leadership and Tito\u27s cabinet, and vertically – as seen from the influence the republics and provinces hadon federal decision-making. Though he remained the chief decision-maker, with time Tito\u27s power became limited by other actors\u27 influence, in particular after the Presidency of Yugoslavia was given extensive authority in the 1970s

Political Attitudes and Positions of Croatian Parliamentary Representatives in the 1990-1992 Mandate

U tekstu se objavljuju rezultati anketnog istraživanja obavljenog među 97 zastupnika u prvom sazivu (1990-1992) hrvatskog Sabora nakon kompetetivnih izbora provedenih u proljeće 1990. Zastupnici su odgovarali na 56 pitanja o statusu zastupnika, odnosu zastupnika prema Saboru, strankama, biračima, javnosti i interesnim grupama, definirali su vlastite pozicije i pozicije parlamentarnih stranaka u političkom prostoru (na skali lijevo-desno), određivali prioritete u hrvatskoj politici. analizirali proces odlučivanja u parlamentu i izvan njega, te vlastiti utjecaj u pojedinim fazama odlučivanja, kao i odnose između Sabora, vlade i predsjednika Republike. Na kraju teksta navode se rezultati ocjenjivanja uspješnosti vođene politike, te ocjena odnosa vladajuće stranke (HDZ) i države prema medijima i poduzećima. Radi se o prvom istraživanju provedenom među saborskim zastupnicima, čime je utemeljena mogućnost daljnjih longitudinalnih empirijskih istraživanja hrvatskog parlamentarizma.This text presents the results of polling research conducted amongst 97 representatives of the Croatian Parliament (1990-1992) after the competetive elections conducted in the spring of 1990. Representatives were asked 56 questions about the status of representatives, and their attitudes towards the parliament, parties, voters, the public and interest groups. They defined their own positions and the positions of parliamentary parties in the political arena (on a left-right scale), and designated priorities in Croatian policy, analyzed the decision-making process within and outside the parliament, their own influence in phases of decision-making, and the relationship between the government and the President. At the end of the text, the results of the judgements on the success of past policy, and a grading of the attitude of the party in power (HDZ) and the state towards the media and companies are presented. This is the first research conducted among representatives, and forms the basis for possible further longitudinal empirical reserach on Croatian parliamentarism

A Comparative Analysis of the Content of the Statutes of the Political Parties in Croatia (1991)

Premda se oblikovanje programa i statuta novih političkih stranaka u Hrvatskoj promatran kao manje važna normativna razina političkog djelovanja, komparativna analiza sadržaja statuta političkih stranaka u Hrvatskoj u vremenu njihova nastanka otkriva nam tendencije koje su prevladavale u političkoj praksi tog razdoblja kao i razinu iskustava u stranačkom organiziranju. Neki nalazi istraživanja su indicirali signifikantne razlike među nastajućim političkim strankama: u tretmanu prava i dužnosti članova odnosa prema unutrašnjem discipliniranju članova, u načinu učlanjivanja, u ovlastima predsjednika stranke, uključivanja mladih u stranačku politiku, modela odlučivanja, te odnosa prema prijašnjim strankama iz hrvatske političke povijesti. Naglašavajući da se ova analiza ne odnosi na aktualno stanje, već ono kakvo je bilo u samom začetku institucionalizacije stranačkom pluralizma, autor smatra da ona može pružiti osnovni uvid u jedan od neizostavnih segmenata neke buduće klasifikacije hrvatskog stranačkog sustava.The formulating of the new political parties\u27 programs and statutes in Croatia is considered to be a less important normative aspect of political activitiy. Yet a comparative analysis of the content of the statutes articulated by the political parties in Croatia at the time when they were formed reveals the prevailing tendencies in the political practice in that period as well as the level concomitant of experience in political organizing. Some of the findings point to significant differences among the emerging political parties in matters such as the treatment of the members\u27 rights and duties, attitudes towards internal party discipline, the procedure related to affiliation, the authority pertaining to the parties\u27 presidents, the inclusionof youth in the forming of party policy, models of decision-making, and attitudes towards earlier parties in Croatian political history. The author stresses that his analysis does not refer to the time of writing but to the situation at the very beggining of the institutionalizing of party pluralism. He believes that his results may offer important insights for some future classification of the Croatian party system