Suchergebnisse

The author has tried to prove that interethnic relations in democracy cannot be handled solely by means of legal, economic and institutional means; political culture, i.e. civic democratic political culture can have a significant role. The analysis has shown that there is room for the build-up of a trans-national democratic citizenry, free from all ascriptive criteria and identities such as religion, ethnicity, etc. It has also revealed how classic liberalism neglects various identities (ethnic, national etc.) while communitarian liberalism overlooks the excluding force of various identities. It has also demonstrated that there are several concepts of civic identities (liberal, communitarian and social/group) and that each of these concepts can exert profound influence on the relationship between citizens and their political community. And finally, the relation between patriotism and inter-ethnic relations in democracy are reviewed. Patriotism, in the circumstances of growing social pluralisation, and despite a plethora of political integrations, can play a prominent role in bridging the political and cultural atomisations and conflicts in society. It can undertake this role only if constituted in th civic and not the crude (fixed) ethnic sense - though the national defines the limits and the meaning of this constitution - provided it evolves into the loyalty to one's homeland and going hand in hand with the development of democracy and human rights. In short, the purpose of this paper is to provide evidence that it is necessary to expand democratic political culture which might aid in resolving intricate and sensitive relations among various ethnic and cultural communities. Patriotism can assume a decisive role in this. It lays down the limits and legitimacy to each meaningful political discourse and to each genuine political subject. (SOI : PM: S. 49)

The SANU-Memorandum of 1986 is the ultimate manifesto of the Greater Serbian idea; in the economic department, it is manifested in the form of vying for investments into Serbia, of the elimination of the "political and economic domination of Slovenia and Croatia", and of "disencumbering Serbia from contributing to the Federation fund". Its authors put the blame for the alleged lagging of Serbia exclusively on Slovenia and Croatia, and thus consequently make them responsible for all unsound economic policies in the former Yugoslavia. Particularly venomous charges are reserved for the Constitution of 1974, which makes for the independence ("secession") of Slovenia and Croatia, viewed as a precursor of a possible catastrophe. These two republics, they believe, are "morally obliged" to aid the development of the underdeveloped republics, since Serbia has sacrificed most, and the price of that has been its own thwarted development. + Two issues are central to Serbian economists: the 1961-1965 five-year plan and the system of financing a faster development of the underdeveloped regions (the Federation Fund). They demand that Serbia should be completely exempted from aiding the underdeveloped and, at the same time, extra measures for a faster development of Serbia proper should be decreed. The impossibility of solving these problems in this dictated manner brought about the economic disintegration of Yugoslavia, followed by the strategy of violence which ended in the aggression. Nevertheless, the Serbian political elite thinks that their political and economic standing has been enhanced and thus, in the negotiations about the succession, they flaunt the Memorandum propositions, and continue to live under the illusion that the Greater Serbia is a viable option, both economically and politically. (SOI : PM: S. 27)