This paper aims to analyse the societies in Serbia and Croatia. After Yugoslavia fell apart in the 1990s, its two republics, Croatia and Serbia, continued their paths through the transition process as independent countries. Croatia is already a member state of the European Union, by evaluating the condition of Croatian society it derives that Croatia cannot be considered as a completely consolidated state. On the other hand, Serbia is currently struggling to adopt the societal and state system which would meet the requirements of a fully transformed country. The current position of both countries has largely been defined by Serbian-Croatian mutual relations over the past 25 years.
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia) was, after a few constitutional changes that were conducted in its political history, the last known name of a country which consisted of six republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia) and two autonomous provinces (Vojvodina and Kosovo) as the constitutional parts of its one republic (Serbia). As regards the constitutional framework, Yugoslavia, after the end of World War II, was constituted as a federation of republics, politically arranged as a one party system (autocratic regime) governed by the Yugoslavian Communist Party. In 1991, at the time when huge changes occurred in Europe and when all the communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe fell down, the first multiparty elections were held in Yugoslavia after which its two republics Croatia and Slovenia declared their independence from Yugoslavia.
Also, at the time two leading political figures in Yugoslavia, Milošević and Tuđman, the president of the Republic of Serbia and the president of the Republic of Croatia respectively, met each other in the place in Northern Serbia named Karađorđevo and shaked hands for the first time. The second time they shaked hands was in 1995 in Dayton (USA) when the Dayton Peace Agreement was signed which ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to the genesis of transition processes in Serbia and Croatia
2 The state of Serbia's and Croatia's institutional and social capacity in 1990s
2.1 The pillars of the Serbian regime in 1990s
2.2 The caracteristics of the Croatian transition during the 90s
3 The transitional processes in Croatia and Serbia after 2000th
4 The transitional in(justice) as a root of the newly established mutual relations of misunderstanding between Serbia and Croatia
4.1 The burden of the past never overcome
4.2 The unconsolidated bad legacy leads to a bad future
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper examines the transition processes of Serbia and Croatia following the collapse of Yugoslavia, focusing on why these states have remained unconsolidated despite post-2000 political changes. It investigates how historical legacies, war crimes, and persistent nationalist ideologies continue to hinder democratic transformation and full European integration.
- Institutional and social capacity during the 1990s
- Authoritarian legacies and political power structures
- The impact of transitional (in)justice on mutual relations
- Obstacles to democratic consolidation in the post-2000 era
- The role of nationalism and war-time ideologies in contemporary politics
Excerpt from the Book
4.2 The unconsolidated bad legacy leads to a bad future
During the war for the independence of Croatia where the warring parties were the newly established Croatian Army and the Militia mainly consisted of Serbs from Croatia and greatly supported by the Yugoslavian army at that time under control of Serbia, the strong national ethnic movements with the Ustasha and Chetnik's ideology were reborn and embraced by Tuđman's and Milošević's regime as the greatest allies on the path towards the establishment of new greater Serbia and Croatia. Although these movements did not officially have the same names, their characteristics could be found in many symbols of the newly founded states. For example, the current Croatian currency's name is kuna as was during the Nazi state ISC.28 Bering in mind the stated it could be expected that a great number of war crimes would be committed on both sides during the war in Croatia (1991-1995). When the war ended and even before that, the international community concluded that only an international tribunal will be capable to deal with these war crimes. Consequently, UN has established the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Hag.29 Namely, after 25 years of existence of the Tribunal; it seems that it has not accomplished its main tasks of production of catharsis among Serbs and Croats yet. It is evident that the accused and convicted for the war crimes still have a huge influence within the Serbian and Croatian society. This statement is supported by the fact that Slobodan Vasić, a Serb from Croatia, convicted before the Croatian courts to 20 years of imprisonment currently holds several public offices in the Serbian's city named Sombor.30 Another example proving the fact that accused for war crimes still have a great influence in the decision making processes is the case of Branimir Glavaš, who is a unoficial president of the Croatian party named Croatian Democratic Union of Slavonija and Bačka. All these examples prove that the crimes committed by both warring parties were not just the side effects; it was the part of the states' policies of making of greater Serbia and greater Crotia by ethnic cleansing of other non-Croats and non-Serbs and establishing of the ethnical pure territories.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction to the genesis of transition processes in Serbia and Croatia: This chapter outlines the historical breakdown of the Yugoslav federation and the divergent paths taken by Serbia and Croatia towards independence in the early 1990s.
2 The state of Serbia's and Croatia's institutional and social capacity in 1990s: The chapter explores the personalized power structures under Milošević and Tuđman, highlighting the institutional abuse and the rise of nationalism as core pillars of both regimes.
2.1 The pillars of the Serbian regime in 1990s: Focuses on the authoritarian pluralism in Serbia, where state-owned media, police forces, and the economy were manipulated to maintain control.
2.2 The caracteristics of the Croatian transition during the 90s: Examines how the Croatian Democratic Union (CDU) institutionalized its power through a semi-presidential system and ethnic exclusivity.
3 The transitional processes in Croatia and Serbia after 2000th: Discusses the slow progression toward democracy after the fall of Milošević and the death of Tuđman, hindered by lingering retrograde forces and informal networks.
4 The transitional in(justice) as a root of the newly established mutual relations of misunderstanding between Serbia and Croatia: Analyzes how historical unresolved traumas and ongoing political misuse of the past perpetuate conflict.
4.1 The burden of the past never overcome: Investigates how the failure to address World War II crimes and the roles of Chetniks and Ustasha impacts modern societal mistrust.
4.2 The unconsolidated bad legacy leads to a bad future: Argues that the continued influence of war criminals in current politics prevents true societal reconciliation and democratic progress.
Keywords
Transition, Yugoslavia, Serbia, Croatia, Nationalism, Authoritarianism, Transitional Justice, Reconciliation, Democracy, Institutional Capacity, War Crimes, Misunderstanding, Political Elite, European Union, Ideology
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this assignment?
The work examines the transition processes of Serbia and Croatia post-1990, focusing on the systemic reasons why both countries remain unconsolidated despite formal political changes.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The main themes include institutional and social capacity, the legacy of authoritarian regimes, transitional justice, the impact of nationalism on mutual relations, and the role of informal loyalty networks.
What is the research goal of this paper?
The goal is to determine why both nations have failed to fully achieve consolidated democratic states and to identify the persistent legacies that hinder their progress toward European integration.
Which methodology does the author apply?
The author utilizes a comparative historical analysis of the political and institutional developments in Serbia and Croatia, referencing constitutional changes, historical events, and contemporary political data.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section covers the institutional abuse under the rule of Milošević and Tuđman, the characteristics of transition in the 90s, the challenges faced after 2000, and the continuing burden of transitional (in)justice.
Which keywords define this study?
Key terms include transition, authoritarianism, nationalism, transitional justice, reconciliation, and democratic consolidation.
How did the 1990s regime in Serbia maintain its power?
The regime relied on three pillars: control over the internal police forces, manipulation of state-owned media to shape public opinion, and the use of state-owned enterprises to force political loyalty.
What impact did the International Criminal Tribunal (ICTY) have on the two nations?
According to the author, the Tribunal has not yet fully accomplished its task of fostering societal catharsis, as individuals convicted of war crimes continue to influence politics in both countries.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Peđa Đurasović (Autor:in), 2017, The Roots of the Unconsolidated State of Society in Serbia and Croatia, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/505442
