Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Drapac, Vesna
2010.
Constructing Yugoslavia.
p.
195.
Article contents
Federalism in Yugoslavia
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
Yugoslav federalism does not begin with the federal constitution adopted eight years ago. Federal ideas among the South Slavs followed the stirrings of nationalism and the struggle for independence at the end of the eighteenth and early in the nineteenth century as the logical solution for a situation in which the various tribes wished to be united but not unitary.
With the exception of the Serbian Highlanders in Montenegro, who had been enjoying a precarious independence since 1697, the South Slav tribes were divided between the multi-national Ottoman and Hapsburg Empires. They generally showed little political consciousness either as separate tribes or as members of the Slav family. The first integrating movement among them began in the last three decades of the eighteenth century in the shape of vague Pan-Slav ideas stimulated by the Russian advance towards the Balkans. Pan-Slavism appealed both to many South Slav intellectuals and to the illiterate masses, but was too vague and too weak to counteract the various religious, linguistic, political, and historical differences among the tribes. Moreover, the relations between the three major tribes were disturbed by violent territorial disputes: Macedonia was the bone of contention between the Serbs and the Bulgarians, while Bosnia and Herzegovina were disputed by the Serbs and the Croats.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1955
References
1 Kohn, Hans, Pan-Slavism, Its History and Ideology (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1953), pp. 50–52Google Scholar.
2 Ibid., pp. 52–57. These Great Serbian and Great Croatian movements before unification must be distinguished from similarly-named movements after it. The former envisaged integration, while the latter were separatist. Cf. Čulinović, Ferdo, Razvitak Jugoslavenskog Federalizma [The Development of Yugoslav Federalism] (Zagreb, 1953), pp. 3–5Google Scholar.
3 Čulinović, pp. 17–23; Kohn, pp. 70–73 and 191.
4 Pribičević, Svetozar, Diktatura Kralja Aleksandra [The Dictatorship of King Alexander] (Belgrade, 1952), p. 153Google Scholar; Kohn, p. 55.
5 Pribičević, p. 153; Čulinović, p. 31.
6 Čulinović, pp. 42–52.
7 Ibid., pp. 52–67.
8 Ibid., p. 104.
9 Istorijski Arhiv Komunističke Partije Jugoslavije [Historical Archives of the CPY], Vol. 2 (Belgrade, 1950), pp. 110–12Google Scholar. See also Barker, Elizabeth, Macedonia—Its Place in Balkan Power Politics (London, 1950)Google Scholar.
10 Djilas, Milovan, “O rešenju nacjonalnog pitanja u Jugoslaviji” [On the Solution of the National Problem], Clanci 1941–1946 [Articles 1941–1946] (Belgrade, 1947), pp. 233–34Google Scholar.
11 Quoted in Čulinović, p. 133.
12 Text in New Yugoslavia, published by the United Slav Committee (London, 1944), pp. 12–13Google Scholar.
13 Cf. Dedijer, Vladimir, Jugoslovensko-Albanski odnosi, 1939–1948 [Yugoslav-Albanian Relations 1939–48] (Belgrade, 1949)Google Scholar.
14 Cf. Čulinović, p. 165 and Mojsov, Lazar, Bugarska Radnička Partija (Komunista) i Makedonsko nacjonalno pitanje [The Bulgarian Workers' Party (Communist) and the Macedonian National Question] (Belgrade, 1948)Google Scholar.
15 Kardelj, Edvard, “The New Social and Political System of the Federal Peoples' Republic of Yugoslavia,” in New Fundamental Law of Yugoslavia (Belgrade, 1953), p. 5Google Scholar.
16 Dr.Djordjević, Jovan, Ustarno pravo Federativne Narodne Republike Jugoslavije [Constitutional Law of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia] (Belgrade, 1953), p. 269Google Scholar.
17 Kardelj, p. 6.
18 Professor Djordjević (op. cit., p. 31) goes so far as to claim that the Constitution was in considerable measure independent of the Soviet pattern.
19 The principle of voluntariness was confirmed in Republican Constitutions, as in the Constitution of the Peoples' Republic of Serbia, Article 2.
20 Cf. Čulinović, p. 151 n, quoting Professor Jovan Stefanović.
21 Djordjević, p. 201.
22 Articles 9 and 44 (Cf. the Stalin Constitution, Article 14). Moreover, Article 44 spoke of the powers “comprised” within the Federal jurisdiction and the enumeration was not, apparently, exhaustive. At present the Yugoslavs themselves freely admit that the 1946 Constitution was strongly centralist, e.g. Kardelj, pp. 7–8 or Djordjević, p. 192.
23 See, for instance, the Constitution of Serbia, Articles 3–5.
24 Collected Yugoslav Laws, 2 (Belgrade, 1952), p. 37Google Scholar.
25 This, of course, confirms the view that the Republics were so subordinate that lack of compliance was unthinkable.
26 Article 100. Cf. the Stalin Constitution, Articles 76 and 85. Professor Djordjević admits the principle of hierarchial subjection but claims that, in contrast to the Soviet example, the Yugoslavs endeavored to delimit the Federal and Republican spheres of competence.
27 Chapter 13. Cf. the Stalin Constitution, Articles 102–12.
28 Chapter 14. Cf. the Stalin Constitution, Article 147.
29 Chapter 16. Cf. the Stalin Constitution, Article 16b. The authorization in the Soviet Union was not utilized in practice and Western scholars generally agree that the amendment was only part of the window-dressing calculated to obtain separate United Nations membership for the Union Republics. The fact that the provision was not imitated by the Yugoslavs seems to confirm this view.
30 Wheare, Kenneth C., Federal Government (London, 1947), pp. 11 and 27–28Google Scholar. Reference of Yugoslav institutions to the authoritative definitions of Professor Wheare is necessary in order to couch the analysis in terms generally understood in the West and the statement that they are not “true” to them does not involve a value judgment.
It may be noted that “federalism” has become one of those emotionally charged political terms, like “democracy” or “freedom,” which are understood differently by Western and by Communist scholars. Both sides agree that the absence of coercion of the federal units by the central government is desirable and disagree only in their estimate of the actual conditions. E.g. Professor Djordjević (op. cit., pp. 185 ff.) condemns Western Federations because essential powers have been usurped by the center.
31 Cf. Kolarz, Walter, Russia and Her Colonies (London, 1952)Google Scholar.
32 See the complaint of Professor Djordjević, p. 204.
33 See above, pp. 420–21. There is no documentary confirmation for this view and it is denied by Dedijer, op. cit., but the writer heard it generally expressed by the inhabitants of KOSMET in 1953 and found it fully convincing.
34 Cf. Djordjević, pp. 33 and 204–7.
35 Kardelj, p. 27.
36 Cf. Djordjević, pp. 201–2.
37 Kardelj, p. 25
38 Cf. Joeip Broz [Tito], Sur le nationalisme et l'internationalisme (Belgrade, 1948), p. 7Google Scholar: “The problem of nationalities has been regulated, and even very well regulated, to the general satisfaction of all the peoples.”
39 E.g., the books by Čulinović and Pribičević, both published in 1952.
40 The English translation has been published by the Union of Jurists Associations of Yugoslavia under the title New Fundamental Law of Yugoslavia (Belgrade, 1953)Google Scholar.
41 Fundamental Law of Yugoslavia, Article 2, and Fundamental Law of Serbia, Articles 1 and 2.
42 Fundamental Law, Article 3; Djordjević, p. 194.
43 Djordjević, p. 232–33.
44 Kardelj, pp. 21–22.
45 Borba [Belgrade newspaper], September 3, 1953.
46 Kardelj, pp. 25–26.
47 For a more detailed analysis of nationalism in Yugoslavia, see Frankel, J., “Communism and the National Question in Yugoslavia,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. 15, pp. 49–65 (April, 1955)Google Scholar.
- 1
- Cited by