Fear and Hope in Yugoslavia

...AFTER TITO Fear and Hope in yugoslavia by mihajlo mihajlov The announcement last month that Yugoslavia's President Jo-sip Broz Tito had to have part of his left leg amputated, following unsuccessful surgery to correct a circulatory problem, did not attempt to hide the seriousness of his condition And it quickly made headlines around the world, as have subsequent bulletins from the Lubjana clinic reporting the progress of his recovery One reason for the display of concern, of course, is Tito's age In May of this year Yugoslavia's "Leader and Father" is to complete his 88th year and the whole country will be expected to celebrate his birthday, long ago officially designated as the "Day of Youth " But it is not so much Tito's chances of having to see his next "Day of Youth" that is causing anxiety in the world press, it is having to confront the inevitability of his mortality Among the citizens of Yugoslavia, though, this arouses mixed feelings of fear and hope about the future The apprehension of the international press is understandable In 1948, Tito's dispute with Stalan resulted in Yugoslavia becoming the first Communist country independent of the Kremlin Since then, the Comintern representative and General Secretary of the Communist Party—who had emerged as the victor in a bloody civil war and succeeded in bringing a multinational country out of total obscurity—has become a legend He has been pictured as symbolizing, if not freedom, at least the idea of freedom Interestingly, the legend's survival after Tito's departure will depend on whether pro-Soviet or liberal elements are in control during the certain process of "de-Titoization" in the country Should Moscow's minions ultimately prevail, the Western press and Western public opinion in general will keep alive the legend they in fact created Should the liberals manage to come to the fore, respectable magazines and newspapers in the democratic world will find themselves forced to write about the crimes committed by the Yugoslav Lenin-Stalin-Khrushchev in the course of the struggle to build Communism—about the terrible concentration camps on the islands of the Adriatic, about Yugoslav prisons, about interrogations by the secret police that differ little from Soviet methods But all that, let me stress, is a matter of the relatively distant future when whichever group is in power finally turns to criticism of the "personality cult " The anxiety being expressed now relates to the immediate "destabilization" Tito's exit might cause, particularly since it is part of the myth built up around him that he has a great stabilizing influence in this unstable world Even if one rejects the myth, however, one has to acknowledge that the worry is well-founded There has never been a case in history where everything continued unchanged after the death of a dictator and long-time leader of a Mihajlo Mihajlov, the Yugoslav dissident writer now visiting the United States, is a frequent NL contributor ruling party Without a doubt, what we call "Tito's Yugoslavia" will undergo an unstable period The question is, rather, whether stability is always good and change always undesirable The good health of a prison warden guarantees stable conditions in a prison, yet should the prisoners fear a change in those conditions...

...Perhaps it was only because he was afraid of losing his personal power (and his head, I might add) that he parted ways with Stalin Consider, too, that alter Tito Yugoslavia will find itself in economic chaos (debts, inflation and unemployment are the highest in Europe) Thanks to the lack ot democratic Freedom, there will also be a highly sensitive problem of coexistence among different ethnic groups that will certainly undermine national unity The country will find itself in an unenviable position in foreign affairs as well, for the Movement of Nonaligned Nations, on which Tito bet so heavily, is falling more and more under Soviet influence Even the major achievement of the old Marshal, the independence of Yugoslavia, is under the gravest threat Not so much because of the danger of invasion by Warsaw Pact troops (that is unlikely, particularly in the light of the world's reaction to the events in Afghanistan) The real danger stems from the many years of Tito's dictatorship They have produced a large parasitic class of political functionaries who, to keep their power, have no choice but to turn to the Soviet Union tor help Indeed, it is ironic that the Yugoslav Communist Party is promoting the idea in the West that fear of military intervention is its reason for suppressing internal dissent In the final analysis, it is the Party that threatens to bring about the loss of independence—without any military intervention from the outside After Tiki is gone, the country will be formally governed by a "collects c presidium' that he has already put in place, with the chairmanship totaling every year The present chairman, Stevan Doronj-ski, is an insignificant figure But in a one-party system a "collective" leadership cannot exist in any case There is no doubt that a backstage struggle for power will begin the moment Tito leaves the scene And the struggle for power inside the Party (destabilization) is the only grounds for hoping that Yugoslavia may move toward a Dubcek-type of democracy According to political logic, one can expect the least conservative group of leaders to seek a solution for itself and for the nation in liberal reforms, and to look for support among the non-Party liberals and united (in an ethnic sense) Yugoslav dissident movement This would be the strongest guarantee against the disintegration of the nation at a time of unavoidable crisis That is why we have to welcome the destabilization of the situation in Jugoslavia, not fear it A continuation ot the present "stability" will lead the country to a catastrophic end to a loss ot independence and a return to the Soviet sphere of influence It is critical that the democratic world begin to understand this For an appropriate Western policy, which could become the most important factor in the events that are sure to follow Tito's retirement, depends on a correct evaluation ol the situation in Jugoslavia...

...To put it another way, the views and expectations of the majority of Yugoslavs are diametrically opposed to those of the majority of Western observers What has earned Tito respect and praise in the West, in the eyes of the inhabitants of Yugoslavia has been nothing more than a necessary retreat from the goals of the Communist leadership an attempt to cure a disease perpetrated by Tito himself The positive aspects of Tito's rule-—such as an almost free economy (although "socialist" and not private), freedom of movement for practically all citizens, relative liberalism in some spheres of cultural life—all were present to a greater degree in Yugoslavia before World War II, before the installment of a Communist dictatorship Yet merely for yielding somewhat to public pressure, Tito has been credited with rejecting a complete totalitarianism, the very totalitarianism that he introduced and that flourished during the first decade after the end of the civil war As for the negative aspects of his rule—a monopoly on politics, ideology and information, the oppression of everything that is today called "human rights"—they never existed so totally in Yugoslavia until the Communists came to power The number of political prisoners amounted to a tiny fraction of those now being held in Yugoslav penal institutions Why proclaim Tito a hero of Liberty...