Suchergebnisse

The article deals with the issue of economic federalism in socialist Yugoslavia. First, the level of economic growth of distinct federal units during this period is discussed, as well as the level of economic discrepancies within the complex Yugoslavian community. The focus then shifts to the process of change of the degree of authorization of distinct levels of power in economic deliberation, with an emphasis on authorization levels of the federation and federal units. The discussion of changes in authorization levels is followed by a discussion of the level of integration of the Yugoslavian market and the trends in its functioning. The final section of the article is dedicated to a discussion of the influence of the system of "polycentric polyarchy" on the processes of development of economic federalism in Yugoslavia in the 1980s. Adapted from the source document.

Regardless of the earlier assumptions about the obsolescence of the classic federal theory, the paper emphasizes the contemporary significance and relevance of federalism. Europe is the epicentre of modern federalization processes, not only when it comes to the European Union, but also a number of European countries such as Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom. The paper points out the fundamental distinction between the classic and modern federalism, which has its origin in the fact that federal systems 'arise' differently as a result of opposite processes of federalization and that in this sense we can distinguish between classic "integrative" and modern "devolutive" federalism. The basic assumptions of the paper are that 1) these two federalism patterns originally differ in the character of the basic constitutive act of the federal union with regard to the subject of creating a federation, and 2) because contemporary federations are "federal states without a federal foundation" this difference is not noticeable today. On the contrary, it has largely disappeared, and in this way, the difference between classic and modern federalism is actually bridged. ; Bez obzira na ranije postavke o zastarjelosti klasične federalne teorije u radu se naglašava suvremeni značaj i aktualnost federalizma. Upravo je Europa epicentar suvremenih procesa federalizacije, ne samo kada je riječ o Europskoj uniji, već i nizu europskih država poput Belgije, Španjolske i Ujedinjene Kraljevine. U radu se ukazuje na temeljno razlikovanje klasičnog i suvremenog federalizma, koje ima ishodište upravo u činjenici da federalni sustavi različito "nastaju" kao rezultat suprotnih procesa federalizacije i da u tom smislu možemo razlikovati klasični "integrativni" i suvremeni "devolutivni" federalizam. Temeljne su postavke rada da 1) između ta dva obrasca federalizma izvorno postoji suštinska razlika u karakteru temeljnog konstitutivnog akta federalnog saveza s obzirom na subjekta stvaranja federacije, i 2) s obzirom na to da su suvremene federacije "savezne države bez federalnog temelja" ta razlika danas više nije zamjetna, već je ona, naprotiv, u velikoj mjeri nestala i na taj način zapravo se premošćuje razlika između klasičnog i suvremenog federalizma.

Bez obzira na ranije postavke o zastarjelosti klasične federalne teorije u radu se naglašava suvremeni značaj i aktualnost federalizma. Upravo je Europa epicentar suvremenih procesa federalizacije, ne samo kada je riječ o Europskoj uniji, već i nizu europskih država poput Belgije, Španjolske i Ujedinjene Kraljevine. U radu se ukazuje na temeljno razlikovanje klasičnog i suvremenog federalizma, koje ima ishodište upravo u činjenici da federalni sustavi različito "nastaju" kao rezultat suprotnih procesa federalizacije i da u tom smislu možemo razlikovati klasični "integrativni" i suvremeni "devolutivni" federalizam. Temeljne su postavke rada da 1) između ta dva obrasca federalizma izvorno postoji suštinska razlika u karakteru temeljnog konstitutivnog akta federalnog saveza s obzirom na subjekta stvaranja federacije, i 2) s obzirom na to da su suvremene federacije "savezne države bez federalnog temelja" ta razlika danas više nije zamjetna, već je ona, naprotiv, u velikoj mjeri nestala i na taj način zapravo se premošćuje razlika između klasičnog i suvremenog federalizma. ; Regardless of the earlier assumptions about the obsolescence of the classic federal theory, the paper emphasizes the contemporary significance and relevance of federalism. Europe is the epicentre of modern federalization processes, not only when it comes to the European Union, but also a number of European countries such as Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom. The paper points out the fundamental distinction between the classic and modern federalism, which has its origin in the fact that federal systems 'arise' differently as a result of opposite processes of federalization and that in this sense we can distinguish between classic "integrative" and modern "devolutive" federalism. The basic assumptions of the paper are that 1) these two federalism patterns originally differ in the character of the basic constitutive act of the federal union with regard to the subject of creating a federation, and 2) because contemporary federations are "federal states without a federal foundation" this difference is not noticeable today. On the contrary, it has largely disappeared, and in this way, the difference between classic and modern federalism is actually bridged.

Considers the application of formalized models in the study of public administration in the federally structured American administration. The theory of American federalism has taught us that the expenses of the implementation of political decisions are inversely proportionate to the administrative level of their application: the expenses are bigger if the implementation is done at lower administrative levels, ie, state or local, instead of by federal authorities. On the other hand, this theory claims that decision-making expenses are proportionate to the level of decision making: the lower the decision-making level, the smaller the expenses. The American experience in the arena of energy policy -- oil & gas -- confirms the model's rationale, & it is applicable to other fields: the optimal effect & the minimal expenses have been achieved in the situation in which political regulations are decided on at the state level, while their implementation lies in the domain of federal government. 1 Table, 3 Figures, 10 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the direction that the European Union has taken after the Nice conference. In order to create an appropriate & transparent competency system for the European Union, the priority on today's agenda are the models borrowed from the constitutions of different federal states. The first model is the so-called dual federalism that evolved in the US. This model aspires to strictly separate the European competency & the member countries' competency. The second option has been provided by the German Fundamental Law (Constitution). According to this model, the European Union would be accorded competences in line with the systematics of the exclusive, competitive & comprehensive legislation. The author is of the opinion that this would lead to a sort of formal transparency but would not completely prevent the overlapping of the competences of the Union, its member countries & other territorial units. A special focus is given to the transparency & efficacy of the reform process. Also, it is emphasized that a coherent coordination of the horizontal & vertical reform of the competency system is called for. Regarding democracy, the author thinks there is no need for a new model of democracy, but a systematic revision of the existing system of decision making in the European Union. Besides, a genuine democratization would not set its sights solely on reforming institutional regulation, but also on strengthening the mediation bodies. This would improve the relations between the public & the parliaments of the nation-states & the federal units concerning European issues. This would go hand in hand with an expansion of European party organizations & a more efficient "Europeanization" of central associations & institutions for interest-promotion. And finally, the author looks into the traditional boundaries between the private & the public. The public sector would take over from private economy some established procedures or would completely hand over certain tasks. This would require well-defined criteria. Also, an efficient control by parliaments & government bodies is necessary as a guarantee of innovation & cost-effectiveness & as a protection against abuse. This might help to turn Europe into a place of unity & cooperative behavior. Adapted from the source document.

The author's starting point is the claim that, despite integrative tendencies, the number of national states in the world is on the increase. The opposing national interests & conflicts may be mitigated or avoided if the central concepts & issues, the ways of the accommodation of interests, & the features of the postcommunist transitions are known. The author explains the concepts & issues such as nation, ethnic group, national state, nationalism, protection of minorities, right to self-determination, decentralization, autonomy, federalism, consociational democracy, & nonterritorial autonomy. He focuses on the issues that reflect the current controversies of both global & national policies. He concludes that, among other things, the national issues are central to the process of transition & they cannot be ignored (since nations are a reality, which must be coped with); there are principles & mechanisms of the regulation of the conflicting national interests; democracy & nation-building are not incompatible but contradictory notions; democratic societies are nationally tolerant; & resolution of the national question is a prerequisite for democratic transition. Adapted from the source document.

Između dva svjetska rata u Sisku i okolici djelovalo je više političkih stranaka. Zastupale su različite programe, a njihove organizacije bile su sastavni dijelovi stranaka čija su vodstva bila u Zagrebu i Beogradu. Njihov utjecaj i politička snaga pouzdano se mogu ustanoviti tek po rezultatima koje su postizavale na izborima za Narodnu skupštinu. U ovom prilogu upravao je obrađeno sudjelovanje političkih stranaka u skupštinskim izborima u sisačkoj izbornoj jedinici, a oni su se u jugoslavenskoj državi između dva rata održali sedam puta. Po izbornim rezultatima može se zaključiti da se velika većina birača Siska i okolice izjašnjavala za federalizam, a protiv unitarizma i velikosrpske hegemonije. ; In the period between the two world wars there were several political parties active in Sisak and its surroundings. They all were fractions of larger parties with leaderships in Zagreb or Belgrade. They represented various programs, and their force and influence can be reliably established only through the results they had achieved during parliamentary elections. In this paper the author deals with the participation of political parties in the elections for the Parliament in Sisak region, and there were seven elections in Yugoslavia between the two wars. According to the results of the elections, conclusions can be made about orientation of the electors in Sisak region, and thus also about their political preferences and backing of particular political programs. Only in the first elections (in 1920) difference of opinion between cities and country was manifested. The electors in Sisak region were oriented to several political parties the programs of which met their vital interests. But in most of them the Croatian national feelings predominated. Until the dictatorship of the 6th January they mostly supported Stjepan Radić and his Croatian (republican) Peasant Party. It was the orientation to federalism, and against unitarianism and great Serbian hegemony. The electors followed Radić even when he made his well known political turn and recognized the Monarchy and Vidovdan Constitution. After Radić's death, most of the electors in Sisak region supported Dr. Vladko Maček. At the elections in 1931, during the dictatorship of the 6th January, the only list of candidates in Sisak was that of the government. The electors' attitude towards this list was best shown by their abstinence. At the elections in 1935 and 1938 most of them voted for the oppositional list with Dr. Maček at its head. That meant that they continued to support the program of equality of peoples in Yugoslavia and looked for resolution of the Croatian question in establishing federalism. Such orientation fitted into the Croatian national movement which extended all over Croatia.

The author's starting point is the claim that, despite integrative tendencies, the number of national states in the world is on the increase. The opposing national interests & conflicts may be mitigated or avoided if the central concepts & issues, the ways of the accommodation of interests & the features of the post-communist transitions are known. The author explains the concepts & issues such as nation, ethnic group, national state, nationalism, protection of minorities, the right to self-determination, decentralization, autonomy, federalism, consociational democracy, & non-territorial autonomy. He focuses on the issues that reflect the current controversies of the global & the national policies. He concludes that, among other things, the national issues are central to the process of transition & that they cannot be ignored (since nations are a reality which must be coped with), that there are principles & mechanisms of the regulation of the conflicting national interests, that democracy & nation-building are not incompatible but contradictory notions, that democratic societies are nationally tolerant, that the resolution of the national question is a prerequisite for democratic transition. Adapted from the source document.

Bijela knjiga je uobičajeni naziv za internu analizu Saveza komunista Hrvatske iz ožujka 1984. u kojoj su sabrane antisistemske pojave iz javnoga prostora od 1982. do 1984., najvećim dijelom iz Srbije, a koje su bile u suprotnosti s politikom Saveza komunista Jugoslavije. Ona je bila rezultat dosljedne provedbe zaključaka Centralnoga komiteta Saveza komunista Jugoslavije u Hrvatskoj, ali i većem dijelu republika i autonomnih pokrajina. U Srbiji su to radili parcijalno, očito iz pobuda da ne idu do kraja u obračun s kritičarima komunizma jer su dijelu političkoga vrha Srbije služili i za druge ciljeve – promjenu političkoga sustava, što je bio eufemizam za redefiniranje jugoslavenskoga federalizma. Analiza je bila uvod u Savjetovanje kulturnih stvaralaca održano 23. svibnja 1984. u Zagrebu. Izazvala je razmimoilaženje između komunista Hrvatske i Srbije i potaknula dugotrajne polemike u medijima. ; The White Book is the popular name for the internal analysis of the League of Communists of Croatia from March 1984, in which anti-system occurrences in the public space—i.e. those that were at odds with the policies of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia—from 1982 to 1984 and mostly from Serbia, were gathered. It was the result of the consistent implementation of the policies of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in Croatia as well as in most parts of the other Yugoslav republics and autonomous provinces. In Serbia, this was done only partially, obviously due to a desire to avoid a thorough settling of accounts with the media and anti-communists, because they were important to a part of the political leadership that wanted a change of the political system, which was a euphemism for redefining Yugoslav federalism. The goal of the Analysis was to highlight this issue, while the Consultations of Cultural Creators held on 23 May 1984 were intended to offer help from Zagreb. It appears that the White Book purposefully ended up in the hands of persons in Belgrade for whose eyes it had not been intended, and thus worsened relations between the Leagues of Communists of Croatia and Serbia. The White Book was also the cause of long-lasting media polemics, despite the Party leadership's demands that they be stopped. It is a concrete example that there existed serious differences in the approach to the topic of ideological struggle within the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, and that the conclusions of the League's Central Committee were not being conducted according to the principles of 'democratic centralism'.

The lndependent Democratic Party (Samostalna demokratska stranka) was one of the many political parties of pre-war Yugoslavia. Although it was not a large party as far as number o members was concerned, its role, and especially that of its leader Svetozar Pribićević, in the political life of the Yugoslav stace was very important. ln this paper the author deals with the party's foundation, development and activities, shows the characteristics of its programme, and its social and nacional basis. He restricts his exposition to the period of the Vidovdan Constitution, accunting for this by the fact that ater the institution of the dictatorship the organizational work of the party (and of all other political parties) and its activities in further political development had a special quality. The Independent Democratic Party was formed after a group of 14 delegates, with Svetozar Pribićević at their head had withdrawn from the Democratic Party in March 1924. The leaders of the new party stressed from the beginning that the basis of their policy was unitarism and centralism. Since the ideal of unitarism was expressed most strongly in the Vidovdan Constitution, the Independant Democrats emphasized the importance of the full application of that Constitution. This was the foundacion of their coalition with the Radicals and of the formation of the government of the National Block. When the Radicals saw that their agrement with the Independent Democratic Party and the enforcement of the Obznana against the Croatian Republican Peasant Party (Hrvatska republikanska seljačka stranka) did nat affect Radić's position, they broke off the alliance with Svetozar Pribićević and came to an understanding with Stjepan Radić. The Independent Democratic Party then became part of the opposition. Svetozar Pribićević started forming a large, general Yugoslav party, whose nucleus was to be the Independent Democratic Party. Thes did nat succeed. A struggle for unitarism and centralism remained the basic substance and prime aim of his political activities. Being in the opposition, however, he became more and more aware of manifestations of great-Serbian predominence. Realizing that centralism was not creating Yugoslav unity, but, on the contrary, was strengthening great-Serbian hegernony and bringing the country to a serious crisis, Svetozar Pribićević approached Stjepan Radić. Thus a political alliance between the Independent Democratic Party and the Croacian Peasant Party was formed, named the Peasant-Democratic Coalition (Seljačko-demokratska koalicija). The transformation of the Independent Democratic Party's programme started after the formation of the Peasant-Democratic Coalition. At the beginning a consistent enforcement of the Vidovdan Constitution and a respect for the law were demanded, but soon a demand was made for a revision of the Constitution and even its abolishion. This was expressed in particular after the assassinations in the Nacional Assembly. Before the proclamation of the Dictatorship formulations concerning the reorganization of the state had not been concrete enough, and left possibilities for various different interpretations. But after the manifest of January 6, 1929, the Independent Democratic Party explicitly proclaimed itself for federalism. Svetozar Pribićević himself, after emigrating from the country, even worked for a republican state.

Raspravljajući o porijeklu hrvatske nacije, autor u prvom dijelu odbacuje tvrdnju da se ona razvijala kao tzv. "jezična nacija". Također osporava gledište da je u tome bitnu ulogu imalo jugoslavenstvo. Zatim pokazuje da je hrvatska nacija nastala u procesu međusobnih interakcija socijalnih i povijesnih vrijednosti, koje su napokon odredile njezinu individualnost spram svake druge zajednice na cjelokupnom prostoru Srednje i Jugoistočne Europe. Sve je to autor dokazao u drugom dijelu rasprave, gdje analizira hrvatski nacionalno-politički program, koji je nastao za revolucije 1848/49. godine. U njemu su hrvatski liberali i demokrati jasno odredili individualnost hrvatske nacije i hrvatske države (ujedinjene Trojedne Kraljevine Hrvatske), i to kao jedinstvene, samostalne i autonomne moderne države u sklopu konfederalnog političkoga i društvenog sustava Srednje Europe (austrijske konfederacije). ; In the present paper the author deals with the origin and development of Croatian nation, and creation of the modern Croatian state (Tripartite Kingdom of Croatia) in the first half of the 19th century, especially during the 1848/49 revolution, at several levels: idea about nation, ideology, political and social programmes, political actions, institutions, and political community. If considered from the point of view of new socio-political processes, when transformation of a people into a modern national-political community takes place, we can see that Slavic peoples in the middle and south-eastern Europe formed multinational states, but followed some quite clear courses: formation of individual ethnic and national communities within a plural social system. Being aware of these historical processes, at the time of formation of their own national communities, these Slavic peoples (according to the level of their social and political organizations), especially in 1848, asked for a change of traditional societies and reorganization of the existing empires, not only by the language national principle, but also by the principle of sovereignty, policy of federalism and confederalism and the principles of international law and international agreement. All this should have made possible formation of essentially new political communities: individual national states within equal and democratic multinational communities, but within a new middle-class society. However, considered from the point of view of formation of the identity and individuality of Croatian nation, which is the subject of this paper, it is indisputable that Croatian national political programme and programme of confederalism as well as legal principles compatible with them (like natural and national laws, Croatian historical and constitutional laws, international law and international agreements), which were the values Croatian politicians based their national policy on since 1848, had the essential influence on the explicit quality of Croatian national-political individuality, and thus, looking historically, on the integration of Croatian nation and creation of Croatian political and state community (the united State of Croatia). The subject and vey complex structure of that political programme had an impact onto clear definition of Croatian national-political community (the united Tripartite Kingdom of Croatia) in relation to other political communities in such a multinational state as it was the Habsburg Monarchy. And that state, in their eyes should have been formed (within the new middle-class society, and a democratic and parliamentary system) on confederal basis, by means of international agreements between quite equal ethnic/national states: within the middle European Austrian confederation. In any case, Croatian nation (if we consider its national integrative processes in terms of events, in terms of idea and ideology and/or in terms of ethnic identity) was not formed nor developed as solely the so-called "language nation", as historiography would like it. For, neither is ethnos (not even ethnic community, or people, or nation, or ethnic identity) only a language-cultural category, nor the Croatian politicians and reformers took only language and culture to determine Croatian people and nation. On the contrary, Croatian nation was formed in the process of interactions of social and historical values which defined its individuality in relation to any other community on the whole area of middle and south-eastern Europe. Also, Croatian nation was not formed only as a natural community (determined by natural conditions of work and society and genealogic structure, i. e. determined by undefined Slavic union and/or undefined Slavic ethnic identity), but, in the course of processes of modernization, it was formed first of all as a historical community, based on group institutions of its own historical community. In other words, Croatian nation was formed on its own cultural, political, state and public-law traditions. It is quite clear that in this process neither Slavism, nor Illyrism, nor Yugoslavism had any role more important that the secondary one, not even for the definition of any particular ethnic identity. Illyrism and Yugoslavism had declarative ideological meaning, expressed through the idea of still non-existing community. On the contrary, Croatianism (as a national principle, as a community and as a legal, state and political system) was an expression of existence of Croatian community as reality. Thus, if we want to discuss the integration of Croatian nation and formation of Croatian political community, i. e. the united State of Croatia, we should realize that these processes were influenced by numerous values and structures, especially spiritual-cultural, political, economic, legal and social. However, the importance of political system and all its substructures – political action, political organization of the community, political programme and formation of a modern national state — should also be noted. Formation of Croatian political and state community, which was clearly stated in the Croatian national and political programme of 1848/49, assumed: 1) associating the segments of Croatian people into one political people, within one integral Croatian political community; 2) uniting of all Croatian provinces into one united Croatian state (Tripartite Kingdom of Croatia, Dreieiniges Koenigreich Kroatien). And these were the most important determinants which led to the political homogeneity and formation of Croatian nation and Croatian modern state.

U legitimiranju komunističke vlasti u Hrvatskoj/Jugoslaviji nakon Drugog svjetskog rata važnu ulogu imale su i tradicionalne institucije zakonodavne, izvršne i sudbene vlasti. Njihovo oblikovanje u Federalnoj Državi/Narodnoj Republici Hrvatskoj započelo je 1943. te je nastavljeno do donošenja Ustava NRH 18. siječnja 1947., kojim dobivaju ustavnu potvrdu. U odnosu na njihove ustavne pozicije, u dosadašnjim istraživanjima poslijeratnog političkog sustava u Hrvatskoj zaključeno je da su stvarnu vlast i monopol odlučivanja imala najviša tijela KPJ, tj. KPH. Pri tome stvarni položaj i uloga središnjih državnih tijela u funkcioniranju političkog sustava vlasti u Hrvatskoj nakon 1945. do sada nisu sustavno istraženi te se ovim radom daje doprinos na tom području. Prezentiraju se rezultati istraživanja organizacije i djelovanja Sabora NRH u sustavu vlasti u Hrvatskoj u razdoblju formalnog federalizma i stvarnog centralizma (1945. – 1953.). Postavljeno je više istraživačkih ciljeva: odnos između njegova formalnog ustavnog (de iure) i stvarnog (de facto) položaja u sustavu vlasti, ustroj, sastav, zakonodavna djelatnost i druge funkcije, odnosi s KPH/SKH i republičkim institucijama vlasti, te utjecaj njegova djelovanja na svakodnevni život stanovništva. Njegova organizacija i djelovanje uspoređeni su s organizacijom i djelovanjem Narodne skupštine FNRJ, institucija zakonodavne vlasti drugih jugoslavenskih republika, te drugih država u kojima je bila uspostavljena komunistička vlast, ponajprije Ruske Sovjetske Federativne Socijalističke Republike (RSFSR) i Saveza Sovjetskih Socijalističkih Republika (SSSR). Postavljeno je nekoliko hipoteza koje su istraživanjem i potvrđene: ustavni položaj vrhovnog tijela državne vlasti u Hrvatskoj Sabor NRH nije ostvarivao u praksi; bio je organiziran po uzoru na Narodnu skupštinu FNRJ; njegova zakonodavna djelatnost nije uključivala stvarnu raspravu, već samo formalno normiranje prethodno definiranih političkih ciljeva i ideja KPH/SKH; u Saboru NRH nije bilo pluralizma političkoga mišljenja; građani su se obraćali Saboru NRH prvenstveno s ciljem ostvarivanja osobnih prava, ponajprije socijalnih. Osnovne metode korištene u istraživanju su kritička analiza izvora i komparativna metoda. Rezultati su prezentirani kombinacijom tematskog i kronološkog pristupa, a u pojedinim poglavljima sistematizirani su u obliku grafičkih i tabličnih prikaza. Doktorskim radom daje se doprinos boljem poznavanju institucija i političkog sustava vlasti FD/NRH u razdoblju 1945. – 1953. Istraživanje može biti poticaj sličnim istraživanjima i u drugim bivšim jugoslavenskim republikama. Omogućuje se usporedba s političkim sustavima vlasti u drugim europskim državama u kojima je bila uspostavljena komunistička vlast. ; The important role in legitimising the communist system of government in Croatia/Yugoslavia after the Second World War was played by the traditional institutions of legislative, executive and judicial government. Their organization in Federal State / People's Republic of Croatia began in 1943, and continued until the Constitution of the People's Republic of Croatia adoption on 18th January 1947, which gave them constitutional confirmation. As the supreme state governing institutions were declared People's Republic of Croatia's Parliament and its Presidium; Government of the People's Republic of Croatia was declared as the supreme executive and administrative governing institution, and Supreme Court of the People's Republic of Croatia was declared as the supreme judicial institution. In relation to their constitutional position, in previous researches of post-war political system in Croatia, was concluded that the real authority and decision-making monopoly had the highest body of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, ie. Communist Party of Croatia. In doing so, the actual position and the role of republic governmental institutions in the communist system of government in Croatia after 1945 haven't been systematically researched, and this doctoral thesis makes a contribution in this scope. The doctoral thesis presents the results of researching the organisation and activity of People's Republic of Croatia's Parliament during the period of formal federalism and actual centralism (1945 – 1953). The aim is to explain the realation between the constitutional and actual position of the Parliament in the communist system of government, its structure, composition, legislative activity, relations with the Communist Party of Croatia/League of Communists of Croatia and republic governmental institutions, as well as the influence of its activities on everyday lives of the population. Parliament's organisation and activity is also compared to the organisation and activity of the National Assembly of Yugoslavia, as well as with legislative institutions of the former Yugoslavian republics and other European states with established communist rule, primarily Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). A number of hypotheses are confirmed by research: the constitutional position of the supreme state governing institution, Parliament of the People's Republic of Croatia didn't achieve in practice; it was organized on the model of the National Assembly of Yugoslavia; its legislative activity didn't include the actual debate, but only a formal adoption and promulgation of pre-defined political goals and ideas of the Communist Party of Croatia/League of Communist of Croatia; in People's Republic of Croatia'a Parliament, there wasn't pluralism of political opinion; citizens addressed the Parliament, primarily with the aim of solving personal problems, especially social. Main methods used in research were critical analysis of resources (notably original, unpublished archival documents) and comparative method. The research results are presented by a combination of thematic and chronological approach. In certain chapters, they are systematized in the form of graphical and tabular overviews. Doctoral thesis is structured as follows. In the first, introductory chapter are explained the research topic, main goals, hypotheses and scientific contribution, methodology, as well as literature and resources used in the research. The chapter gives an overview of the previous researches relevant to the topic, and the classification of legislatures in such researches. The second chapter gives an overview of the Yugoslav/Croatian communist system of government and the position of legislatures in this system in theory. There are explained the main characteristics of the then revolutionary ideology of the ruling Communist Party, as well as formal constitutional provision. They are compared with the main characteristics of the Soviet communist system of government. It also gives an overview of the classical Marxist theory about the state, government and legislatures, and demonstrates how it was used in the writings and speeches of Yugoslav theoreticians and politicians. The third and fourth chapter give an overview of the People's Republic of Croatia's Parliament organization and activity in practice, divided into two chronological periods: until the adoption of the People's Republic of Croatia's Constitution in January 1947, and thereafter up in 1953. The fifth, concluding chapter, summarizes the main research results. Chapter six contains several appendixes: the results of parliamentary elections in Croatia 1946, 1947 and 1950; a list of councilors, ie. representatives in State Anti-fascist Council for the National Liberation of Croatia and in People's Republic of Croatia's Parliament 1943 – 1953; a list of members of the Presidium of the Parliament of the People's Republic of Croatia 1945 – 1953; a list of representatives from Croatia in Constituent Assembly of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia / National Assembly of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia 1945 – 1953; a list of laws adopted by the National Assembly of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia 1946 – 1953; a list of tables and figures used in doctoral thesis). Seventh chapter contains a list of sources and literature used in the research. Doctoral thesis contributes to better understanding of institutions and the political system of government in Croatia in the period 1945 – 1953. Comparative approach in the presentation of research results, gives a contribution to knowledge of the political system of government and central governing institutions in the former Yugoslavia, as well in the other former Yugoslavian republics. At the same time, it can be a impulse for similar researces in those states. It also enables comparation with the political systems of government and legislatures in other European states with established communist rule. Through the analysis of the influence of its activities on everyday lives of the population, it gives contribution to the history of everyday life in communist Croatia and Yugoslavia.