- In the fifties, sixties and seventies Yugoslavia differed in a number of respects from other Eastern European countries behind the former Iron Curtain. This was primarily because Tito was not comparable with other political representatives of that time such as Brezhnev, Ceauşescu or Honecker. These politicians were completely dominated by the Soviet block, whereas Tito, as is well known, was not. However, preventing the democratisation of the economy cost him political legalisation in Europe and was what first introduced developments in this country that created the state in which it finds itself today. At the same time in its role as a buffer zone between East and West Yugoslavia was economically most successful, which Tito as a kind of political genius – that he most certainly was – also defined and exploited for his own ends.

- The collapse of the country was fatal for the cultural scene in Yugoslavia. One should not forget that under Tito artistic freedom was a possibility. An avant-garde – like say under Stalin – did not "develop", it was always there. At the time when in East Germany or in the Soviet Union Stalinist Realism was viewed as the most important movement, Joseph Beuys held a workshop in Belgrade. This is an indication of the great difference.

- Naturally such differences always existed, Yugoslavia was never a homogeneous state. Slovenian and Kosovo cannot be compared with each other. Different histories, languages, economies and culture were always linked to each other in Yugoslavia. I compare former Yugoslavia with the EU today. The differences between Portugal and Ireland, for example, could hardly be greater. This doesn't mean that this is a bad thing. Tito's idea was that the better-developed nations would help the less developed ones and that both could profit from each other. This is precisely the "argument" of the EU today. The great difference lies in the success of the EU and Yugoslavia's lack of success.

- No, these identities were suppressed. Not entirely, but partly.

- Idealised? In Croatia not so much. It is more the case that my Croatian friends are almost all nationalists. Clearly there exists in this country a historically based tragedy that developed largely during the Second World War and that split the Croatians into fascist nationalists and federal communists. I personally am proud that my father was a "Tito-ist" but others are proud of the fact that their fathers were Croatian nationalists. This ideological separation still exists. It is not that we Croatians believe that the Second World War isn't over yet, but the theme is still present in public debates

- I tend to answer no. What happened is – curious or not – that in the post-socialist landscape during the nineties, when the war was still very much present, a kind of structuralist discourse started up. Croatian intellectuals regarded themselves as left-wing, however they meant left-wing in the sense of the Frankfurt School or Sartres. These intellectuals and their ideas never prevailed at any time; instead they encouraged a curious national romantic vision of a new state. Boris Groys has also commented on this theme. The gist of what he says is: if one simply extinguishes ones history (in the case of Croatia its socialist and communist history) then one is behaving like a Stalinist. It was the Stalinists who negated the Russian avant-garde in order to return to a new, pure starting point. And this is precisely what intellectuals in Croatia favoured at the beginning of the 1990s: the total effacement of the modern tradition and a return to a romanticism of the 19th century. But if one wishes to define Croatia as part of Europe one cannot encounter this new European community in such a way but only in a way that is multi-cultural, dynamic and modern.

- It was he who initiated the collapse of Yugoslavia and its disappearance. His politics were those of destruction. Slavoj Žižek would argue: look, it is not the Balkan chaos but rather the chaos of the Western powers that produces figures like Milošević. They did not support him perhaps, but created him in the first place. Western Europe was for a long time divided about how to deal with the crisis and about the question of Yugoslavia's future. When they reacted in 2000 it was clearly far too late. The process of disintegration was nearing its end point in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia. The intervention in Kosovo brought it to a conclusion, so to speak. In this sense Milošević was "created by the West“.

- There are at present no influential ministries, universities, scientific and cultural institutions in Croatia at the moment. I believe however, that some of them behave at times in an even more "socialist" way than before. If something does not happen quite soon, it will be extremely difficult to get new developments of any kind started. This is true of all countries, not just Croatia, but also the Czech Republic, Poland or Hungary.

- Yes, indeed it does. Parallel to this, however, one can observe a fantastic involvement of the "NGOs" in culture and architecture. They have initiated an interesting, "alternative scene". Nevertheless in my opinion it isn't really as alternative as many people call it. It would be more correct to describe this unbelievably active cultural production as urban – and multidisciplinary. That is to say, it receives support from all possible sides.

- Naturally one should not badmouth everything. There is always somebody in the ministries who supports these independent groups and in fact is also expected that the EU will do this. But at times communication is difficult because of people's lack of knowledge, for example in questions of urban design or regarding strategic planning.

- Without any doubt these active NGOs represent everything that is of interest in Croatia at the moment. But I think that this cannot be enough. These groups can never replace the activities required of a government, and most certainly not when the country is part of the EU. But they succumb to the belief that this is precisely what they can do. But I think that these young people are ultimately too smart to behave like Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. Croatia must change in this respect. Its institutions must be reformed; if this is not done it would be better to close them down now rather than to let things continue the way they are at present.

- The transformation of one system into another, which is being spread through all the Eastern European countries by democracy and the free market, is certainly happening somewhat too fast and with too little control. But nobody came or comes up with a better solution. Žižek wanted to reflect about a "third way", to find a middle way between communism and late capitalism but there was nobody who was in a position to implement this.

- At the moment the question is whether it is really wise to simply incorporate all aspects of European integration in our policies or whether it might be possible for us to find a concept better suited to Croatia – but that would be like a miracle. I don't see this happening.

- There is no critical mass in Croatia that seriously examines the country's development. There exists no possibility of breaking out of this system as it is at present. In this context I support these free "alternative" associations. Their activities are good for this country. This also has implications for Macedonia, Serbia and Albania. These groups have at least introduced the international discourse into this country – which is what we need at the present moment in time.
» Back to report