| 
The Liberalization of Slovene
Society in the Late Sixties
by Božo Repe
After World War II Yugoslavia formally reinstated a multiparty
system. This system was legalized by the Law on associations,
commitees and public assembly prior to the first elections of
August 25, 1945.2 Article 27 of the federal constitution of
January 1946 included the right to political assembly. This
regulation remained valid until the second constitution was
ratified in 1963. The new constitution defined the leading role
of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.3 In 1965 also the legislation
changed and indirectly introduced a one-party system.4 The leading
role of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia was even more accentuated
in the constitution of the year 1974.5
The classical multiparty system was replaced by the system of
people's democracy. The central role in this system was played
by the People's Front. While the Front did include political
parties and mass organizations, the decisive role was in the
hands of the Communist Party. The supposed purpose of such a
system was to enable a peaceful transition into a socialist
social order. The new government first did away with the opposition,
which refused to join the People's Front, and later also with
the individual parties in the Front itself. In 1949, the People's
Front adopted the program of the Communist Party as its own
program.6 Its constituent parties effectively lost their power
and dissolved. After 1949 any organized opposition ceased to
exist. Institutionally, opposition to the communist government
was represented primarily by the Church (especially the Catholic
Church).
In Slovenia, the Liberation Front had already lost its coalition
character during the war (the Dolomiti declaration of March
1, 1943). The only opposition movement worth mentioning was
the so called Nagode group, which was active immediately after
the war. It joined the Liberation Front at the beginning of
the war, but later withdrew from it because of the conflict
between its own liberal orientation and the dominant role of
the Communist Party of Slovenia in the Front. During the election
campaign after the war, its members tried to establish special
organizational networks, but the authorities resorted to legal
proceedings to frustrate the group's intention.
Despite the absence of an opposition, and despite the drastic
stifling of individuals and groups with alternative ideas, a
critical attitude towards politics persisted throughout the
post war period. This was particularly strong in the 1950's,
especially among intelligentsia and cultural circles, which
was a consequence of the partially liberalized situation. The
strongest opponent of the Communist Party politics in the Liberation
Front itself was Edvard Kocbek, who in 1940's acted on behalf
of Christians. After the 1950's the opposition's views were
mostly manifested through cultural disputes in certain journals
(among the Slovene ones were Beseda in the beginning of the
1950's, Revija 57 at the end of 1950's and Perspektive in the
first half of the 1960's).7 When, after a shorter or longer
time periods, the authorities judged that these journals had
overstepped the boundaries set by them, they banned them.
From the end of the 1940's until the mid - eighties there was
thus no organized opposition in Yugoslavia. Despite that, the
authorities - especially after the 1950's-quietly supported
pluralism in culture, arts, and partially in jurnalism and philosophy
(with various interpretations of Marxism and other philosophical
schools). This so called "quiet pluralism" was of course limited
by the prohibition of political assembly and the "tolerance
boundary," which was set at various times as the Party saw fit,
and was not to be crossed. For this reason, the attitude towards
the authorities - especially among the intelligentisa - depended
on the circumstances in various parts of the country at various
time periods, and vacillated between being less and more critical.
Criticism remained limited to publishing articles in certain
journals, however, and was supressed (by administrative and
judicial measures) whenever it showed a tendency to escalate
into a political movement. A group that met with a very wide
response in the 1960's was the so called Praxis group. Its members
supported various options, but did not deviate from the socialist
vision.
Owing to specific circumstances, an opposition or an "alternative"
with any real potential in terms of power struggle, thus existed
within the only and dominant party. The first ideological differences
showed soon after Stalin's death, when Tito used his influence
to slow down the democratization process. This was the period
when there were fears of major anti-Stalinist movements in East
European countries, which could potentially endanger socialism
as a system. It was also the period when it seemed possible
that Yugoslavia, after Stalin's death, might move closer to
the Soviet Union again. It therefore took the Party only a couple
of months to deviate from the guidelines adopted at its 6th
congress in November 1952 in Zagreb. (At the congress, the Party
explicitly renounced its direct operative ruling status in state
organs, the economy and society in general, and changed its
name to the Union of Communists of Yugoslavia).8 Deviation from
the mentioned guidelines were at the same time expressed in
the conflict with Milovan Djilas, the main author of the congress
resolutions, who at the end of 1953 wrote a series of articles
supporting the idea that Yugoslavia was gradually moving toward
polarization into a new "bureaucratic" class on the one hand,
and a new socialist left on the other. According to him, the
possibility of forming two socialist parties should not be excluded.
Djilas' influence was felt in Slovenia a few years later, especially
in Revija 57.9
A partial liberalization of the Communist Union of Yugoslavia
occured at the 7th congress, which took place in April 1958
in Ljubljana. This incurred severe criticism by the Communist
Parties from the Soviet Union and other East European countries.
The structural crisis in the economy, substantial differences
within Yugoslavia which could be no longer controlled by the
centralized system, and a more pronounced social differentiation,
which was the consequence of the rising standard of living at
the end of the 1950's and in the beginning of the 1960's, resulted
in, among other things, worker's demonstrations, the first example
of which was the strike in Trbovlje, Hrastnik and Zagorje in
January 1958.10
The beginning of the 1960's saw the first public conflicts between
the republics and the federation. These occured first in the
economy (in 1962 the Slovene delegation walked out of the session
about the Yugoslav economic plan held in the Federal Assembly).11
This was followed by cultural polemics with political implications
(the polemics between the Slovene writer Dušan Pirjevec and
the Serb writer Dobrica Cosic on the nature of Yugoslavness).12
The unity of the Yugoslav political leadership weakened, which
resulted in two movements with different developmental visions:
one, already tested, was centralized, with a strong party, and
a controlling, repressive apparatus; the other was more democratic,
with tendencies to introduce self - managment, decentralization
and to take into account the reality and the laws of economic
development. The second option was supported by Slovene politicians,
who were, for the most part, also its initiators. Both movements
counted on Tito's support. Formally, however, he did not take
sides with either, thus effectivelly supporting the centralized
one. Yugoslavia moved closer to the Soviet Union again. The
political crisis was not addressed until mid 1960's, when Tito,
for as yet unexplained reasons, allowed the federalization of
the country and the formation of the Communist Union as proposed
by the Slovene politician Edvard Kardelj (Yugoslavia as a union
of states and not as a federal state, yet with control mechanisms
which guaranteed the power of the center: a united party controlling
all leading positions, a strong centralized and politically
influential army, and Tito as an institution with the highest
authority, combining the three most powerful functions in the
country - that of the party, of the state and of the army).13
The new direction was first formulated at the 8th congress of
the Communist Union of Yugoslavia in 1964, where it was admitted
that the national problems had not been solved once and for
all by socialism, then in the early stages of economic reform
(1965), and also in the political conflict with Rankovic (the
Brioni plenary session in 1966). Normativelly, these changes
were enacted by constitutinal amendments between 1968 and 1971,
and finally by the 1974 constitution.14
The changes were accompanied by strong nationalist pressures
and also by outbreaks of nationalism, such as that in 1968 in
Kosovo and that in 1971 in Croatia. 15 They were also expressed
trough the protest meetings of the intelligentsia in the 1960's
and the student demonstrations in 1968. The changes were partially
the consequence of political events abroad as well (the "Prague
Spring" and the occupation of Czechoslovakia).16
The above mentioned processes strengthened the liberal forces
in some republics (especially in Slovenia, Serbia and Croatia,
and partly also in Macedonia). As for the Slovene "liberalism"
17 of the late 1960's, this meant more political pluralism between
and within the existing political organizations - the Socialist
Union of the Working People, the youth organization, and the
trade unions. This "liberalism" also appealed for the continuation
of economic reforms and was in favor of a combination of market
economy concepts and the state's social corrective. It insisted
on more independence for Slovenia within the federation, which
should include the possibility of establishing direct international
contacts with other countries, obtaining international loans,
and the principle of fees for the maintenance of the federation.
It wanted more independence in the defence policy (republican
territorial defence, a right to serve military service in one's
own republic or, where this was not possible, in nationally
homogenous units, and the right to use one;s national language
in the army). The economic concept of "liberalism" began to
take its shape with the election of Stane Kavcic as the president
of the Slovene government in 1967. He was the leading figure
of Slovene "liberalism." Contrary to the previous policy of
orientation toward heavy industry (influenced by ideological
reasons), he foresaw the development of more dynamic branches
(trade, banking, transport, tourism, services, consulting, engineering,
and in the long run, also of information and computer sciences).
Slovenia was to become a bridge between eastern and western
countries and should follow primarily the example of the West
(in its specific way by combinig the socially - owned property
and market laws). It should encourage the development of "natural"
resources (petrolium, gas nuclear energy). In terms of administration
it should be policentric, but should have a uniform system of
education, health care, research and scientific activities,
and fiscal policy, directed from the center. The more conservative
part of the leadership, which supported Edvard Kardelj, and
operative core which included France Popit, chair of the Central
Commitee of the Communist Union of Slovenia, and Sergej Kraigher,
president of the Assembly, had already tried to get rid of Stane
Kavcic and with the "liberals" in the time of the so - called
"road affair" in the summer of 1969. That was the period of
conflicts concerning the distribution of international loans
for the construction of roads. The federal government (which
was then headed by the Slovene Mitja Ribicic) left out two sections
of Slovene roads, while considering the proposal for the distribution
of the loans. The Slovene government's reaction was very sharp.
Tito himself intervented in the "road affair" and Kavcic's adversaries
managed to limit his influence considerably (he neverthless
remained the most popular Slovene politician). The "road affair"
was followed by some others. Among the most important is the
so - called "affair of 25 deputies." In the summer of 1971 a
group of republican deputies proposed, in addition to the official
candidates, their own candidate for a member of the federal
presidency (dr. Ernest Petric). This was done in accordance
with Assembly regulations, but without the consent of the Socialist
Union of the Working People and the Communist Union. The deputies
thus infringed on the Communist Party's monopoly in appointing
high positions.18 The reaction was harsh: some deputies were
stripped of their term of office, while others felt the consequences
for years to come.
The conservative group used its newly gained dominance to attack
newspaper editors, intellectuals, liberal politicians at lower
levels, pedagogues advocating an ideologically neutral school
system, some university professors and others. In 1972 they
attacked Stane Kavcic himself and his supporters in the Slovene
political leadership. Kavcic was forced to resign and, until
his death in 1987, never returned to politics.19 This attack
was part of the Yugoslav attack on "liberalism," initiated and
led by Tito. On September 18, 1972 Tito sent a letter to the
members of the Communist Union in which he spoke about the Communist
Union's resumption of indirect control and management of the
society. In some cases (Croatia, Serbia) Tito also interfered
directly in the conflict with the liberal movements. The constitution
of 1974 guaranteed a direct leading role to the Communist Union
of Yugoslavia as the only political power. It introduced a delegate
system as a specific form of the self - management socialist
democracy. "Classical" deputies were replaced by delegations,
which hindered the system and eliminated the direct responsibility
of individuals. The economy became regulated by the Associated
Labor Law (1976), and the so-called agreement economy became
the dominant form (a closed, uncompetitive system in which only
export companies, which faced Western market conditions, could
do well). The gap between Slovenia and its western neighbors,
which had begun to diminish during the liberalization period,
thus began to widen again.20
The period of "liberalism" in the second half of the 1960's
and in the beginning of the 1970's was complex and contradictory,
with a violent interruption of new economic and political processes.
From the national point of view, Slovene "liberalism" was completley
limited by Yugoslavia. Even the most radical ideas of this time
(with the exception of part of the political emigration) could
not exceed the Yugoslav boundaries. Both the circumstances at
home and abroad worked against it and there were no real chanches
of its development. The "liberalist" movement started and developed
in a socialist country and within a single party, which is why
it was very specific. From today's viewpoint this "liberalism"
was necessarily incomplete, inconsistent, marked by the ideology
from which it originated and by the politics defining its space.
It neverthless represented a significant beginning of pluralism
in recent Slovene political history, which was marked by the
rule of a single party. It was also an important experience
which contributed to Slovenia's peaceful transition from a one
- party system into a multiparty system at the end of the 1980's.21
It contained concepts of strategic economic directions, which
Slovenia still largely wishes to implement today. Finally, the
"liberalism" of the late 1960's significantly contributed to
the strenghtening of Slovene self-confidence and to its ambition
to create an independent state.
Endnotes
1 Repe, Božo. The liberalization of Slovene society in the late
1960s. Slov. stud., 1994, 16, št. 2, p. 49-58.
2 Law on associations, committees and public assembly, Official
Bulletin of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia no. 65 - a special
supplement to the Official Bulletin no. 36 issued by the Slovene
National Liberation Council and the National Govrnement of Slovenia
(Ljubljana september 1945).
3 Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
basic principles, article VI (Ljubljana, September 1945).
4 Basic Law on associations, Official Bulletin of the SFRY no.
16/65 The law speaks about associations and no longer about
political parties but on the other hand, parties are not explicitly
prohibited.
5 Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
basic principles, article VIII (Ljubljana, 1974).
6 Vojislav Simovic, Branko Petranovic: Istorija narodne vlasti
u Jugoslaviji (Savremena administracija, Beograd 1979); Božo
Repe: Politicna alternativa v Sloveniji n Jugoslaviji po 2.
svetovni vojni, partijska in izvenpartijska opozicija (Povojna
zgodovina na Slovenskem, Koro{ki pokrajinski muzek Slovenj Gradec,
1992).
7 Aleš Gabric: Socialisticna kulturna revolucija (Cankarjeva
založba, Ljubljana 1995).
8 Zgodovina zveze komunistov Jugoslavije (Komunist, Državna
založba Slovenije, Ljubljana 1986).
9 Božo Repe: Vpliv "djilasovšcine" na Revijo 57 in Perspektive
(Borec 535-537, Ljubljana 1995).
10 Martin Ivanic: Stavka v rudnikih Trbovlje, Hrastnik in Zagorje
(Delavska enotnost, Ljubljana 1986).
11 Božo Repe: Utrinki iz bližnjega leta 1962 (Teorija in praksa
11 - 12 1989 and 1 - 2 1990, Ljubljana).
12 Božo Repe: Obracun s Perspektivami (Znanstveno in publicisticno
središce, Ljubljana 1990)
13 Dušan Bilandžic: 1971 godina u Hrvatskoj, ljudi iz 1971.
Prekinuta šutnja (Vjesnik, Zagreb, 1990).
14 Božo Repe: Slovenians and the federal Yugoslavia (Balkan
Forum Vol 3 No 1, Skopje 1995.
15 Božo Repe: Das Besondere am "Titoismus" (Aufrisse No 2, Wien,
1992).
16 Božo Repe: Študentske demonstracije leta 1968 v zahodni in
vzhodni Evropi in v Jugoslaviji (Zgodovina v šoli 3, Ljubljana
1995).
17 In post-war Slovene and Yugoslav history the term "liberalism"
is used to denote the period between the mid-sixties and mid-seventies.
It was the time when important democratic changes occured within
the only and leading party, the CPY, which was also reflected
in society. Party "liberalism" is in no way related to classic
liberalism, except in a few fundamental democratic principles.
The term is historical, it was used in sixties and seventies.
Historiography accepted it, but usually it is used in quotation
marks to make difference to classic liberalism.
18 Akcija 25 poslancev, Casopis za kritiko znanosti 101- 102
(Ljubljana 1987).
19 Stane Kavcic: Dnevnik in spomini (Casopis za kritiko znanosti,
Ljubljana, 1988).
20 Božo Repe:""Liberalizem" v Sloveniji (Borec, Ljubljana 1992).
21 Altough "liberalism" was defeated, economists continued to
believe that the market economy was inevitable, this opinion
was shared also by a part of the political top. The part of
industry which exported its products to the West was used to
competition; and a great deal of the Slovene managerial staff
was spared in spite of political purges. Slovenia continued
to develop economics contacts with Austria, Italy, Germany and
some other countries; through its open borders it had steady
contacts and a possibility of comparing with western systems.
Aspirations for political pluralism arose from economic pluralism
which was considered to be indispensable. Altough rejected by
the political top, such ideas were expressed by some political
scientists and sociologists even in the "leaden" seventies.
Their considerations were (regarding the circumstances) above
all oriented towards a pluralist scheme of Socialisticna zveza
delovnega ljudstva (The Socialist Alliance of the Working People)
which was to comprise political groups of different world views.
Such alliance was meant to be a sort of political opponent to
the League of Communists. Edvard Kardelj first agreed with the
concept, but then refused it in the seventies, although he acknowledged
the necessity of political pluralism - a very special one, of
course - he named it "pluralism of the self-managed socialist
interests." Study on West Universities was not expect wit a
pleasure by authorities, but mostly they tolerated it. Some
intellectuals (Dimitrij Rupel, Peter Jambrek etc.) who studied
in seventies in USA and in other countries became leaders of
oposition in eighties. "Liberalism" was therefore - tough defeated
- not without consequences. The conditions before the period
of "liberalism" could not be completely restored. Different
views were also preserved in The league of Communists. A part
of "liberally" oriented politicians managed to keep their positions;
some of them went to industry or business and tried to influence
political circumstances from there. One of the politicians who
stayed on this "march through institutions" was Milan Kucan.
In the mid-eighties he became the president of the league of
Communists of Slovenia. He reformed it, and included along with
younger, unburdened politicians also a part of the "liberal"
crew from the sixties to its executive bodies. Such political
leadership was much more suceptible for political pluralism
than the former on and it is well deserved for the evolutionary
transition to the multiparty system.
|
