OSA / Guide / RIP / 1956 / RFE/RL Background Reports : Subjects | Browse | Search

The text below might contain errors as it was reproduced by OCR software from the digitized originals,
also available as Scanned original in PDF.

BOX-FOLDER-REPORT: 87-3-17
TITLE:             Debates Begin on Amending the Yugoslav Constitution
BY:                Stankovic
DATE:              1987-2-12
COUNTRY:           Yugoslavia
ORIGINAL SUBJECT:  RAD

--- Begin ---

EAST DEBATES BEGIN ON AMENDING THE YUGOSLAV CONSTITUTION	F-566

Munich, 12 February 1987 (RAD/Stankovic)

Summary: This paper, a reissue of Yugoslav
Situation Report/11, Radio Free Europe Research,
20 November 1986, item 1, gives the background
to the debates that have begun on amending the
unwieldy constitution of 1974. Additional papers
will be issued as concrete information on the
discussions becomes available.

* * *

Yugoslavia's Constitution is to be amended. The collective
State Presidency (composed of eight representatives from the
country's six republics and two autonomous provinces, plus the
President of the CC Presidium as an ex officio member) will
propose amendments to the National Assembly by the end of this
year.[1] The changes will touch on a number of vital issues
affecting the nature and survival of this complex, multinational
state.

The Constitutional Commission of the Yugoslav National
Assembly met on October 20 and formed a Coordinating Group,
headed by Hamdija Pozderac, Bosnia-Herzegovina's representative
in the State Presidency, to consider all the proposals for
changes before they are submitted to the State Presidency, which
will then send them to the full National Assembly for final
approval.[2]

The Constitutional Commission agreed that a new approach
should be taken to the following six issues when proposing the
amendments:

1 Public ownership;

2 Relations between the constituent republics and autonomous
provinces and the central government;

3 How to create a united Yugoslav market;

4 How to protect the common interests of the country as a
whole;

5 The system of planning on a federal basis; and

6 The status of the Socialist Republic of Serbia (which is
the only constituent republic encompassing two autonomous
provinces: Vojvodina and Kosovo).

In addition, it was suggested that "many other
constitutional provisions, not sufficiently elaborated on or not
capable of realization, should also be discussed."[3]

[page 2]

EAST (1) DEBATES BEGIN ON AMENDING THE YUGOSLAV CONSTITUTION F-567

Historical Background. Yugoslavia has had four
constitutions since it was founded in 1945. The first (simply a
copy of the Soviet Constitution) was proclaimed on 31 January
1946. After the break with Moscow in June 1948, Tito wished to
change the constitution? and on 13 January 1953 a so-called
Constitutional Law was adopted. This unofficial constitution
lasted 10 years. On 7 April 1963 the third constitution,
containing 259 articles, was proclaimed. It was described by the
leadership as "progressive and modern."

The April 1963 constitution was amended three times.
Amendments 1 through 6 were adopted in April 1967, 7 through 19
in December 1968, and 20 through 42 in July 1971. Because the
amendments were so extensive, it was decided that a new
constitution should be drawn up. The result was the fourth and
current constitution. It was proclaimed on 21 February 1974 and
has 406 articles.

Its authors praised it for having given the working people,
"for the first time in the history of the world, the right to
manage the results of their work" and for having made them
"their own representatives, deputies, and committeemen."[4] Its
system for selecting delegates, however, is complex almost
beyond description. In their time, each of the three previous
constitutions had been described as "the best in the world"; and
the only reason for replacing them, it was said, was to adapt to
the "revolutionary changes" taking place in the country.
Perhaps a more realistic note was sounded when, on the very day
the February 1974 constitution was proclaimed, a senior party
leader, Veljko Milatovic of Montenegro, said that "all the
political institutions of our system have been bogged down in a
crisis" and that "the situation has gotten worse" with every
postponement of change.[5]

The Reasons for the Impending Changes. Party propaganda
claimed that the February 1974 constitution was designed to
strengthen both the working class in general and the workers'
self-management system in particular. In addition, however, it
clearly strengthened the republics and provinces at the expense
of the central government in Belgrade. So long as Tito was
alive, no one dared criticize the constitution openly. After
his death in May 1980 the country's economic and political
situation became even more grave. Although it has taken them
six years to do so, the leadership has now come to the same
conclusion that Milatovic had arrived at in 1974, that to delay
reforming the system can only make the situation worse.

The remedying of the country's protracted economic crisis,
the leadership realizes, has been impeded by Yugoslavia's
decentralized, federal system. The proposed amendments to the
constitution are therefore intended to reduce the strength of
the six republics and two autonomous provinces. This will
inevitably run into strong opposition from the regional rulers,
who have their own constitutions and great power.

[page 3]

EAST (2) DEBATES BEGIN ON AMENDING THE YUGOSLAV CONSTITUTION	F-568

A Slow Process. One of the most controversial amendments
is considered to be that dealing with the status of the
Socialist Republic of Serbia. Articles 1 and 2 of the current
constitution state that the autonomous provinces of Vojvodina
and Kosovo "are constituent parts of the Socialist Republic of
Serbia," although both provinces have their own constitutions
and are independent of both Serbia's National Assembly and its
government. As a consequence, the Albanians living in Kosovo
(77.4% of the province's population), have demanded that Kosovo
be given "complete autonomy" and that it become a separate
republic. The Serbian government has continued to reject this
demand, and it forcibly suppressed the riots that took place in
Kosovo over this issue. It is difficult to see how this problem
could be resolved in a way that would satisfy both the ethnic
Albanians in the province and the Serbs and Montenegrins there.
It is precisely this impasse that bodes particularly ill both
for ethnic peace in the area and for the unity of Yugoslavia.

The author of a recent article in a Belgrade daily said
that the changes in the Yugoslav Constitution would take "at
least two years" to complete and that in these two years the
problems might get even worse. He then asked the "heretical
question," as he put it, that is asked "by all ordinary people":
"What is our real purpose? To find a way out of the crisis or
to deepen it even further?"[6]

* * *

1 Vecernje Novosti (Belgrade), 14 October 1986.

2 Borba (Belgrade), 21 October 1986.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid, 22 February 1974.

5 Politika (Belgrade), 21 February 1974.

6 Borba, 18-19 October 1986.

- end -

[page 4]

X/15 EAST MILOVAN DJILAS: 33 YEARS LATER	F-568

Munich, 22 January 1987 (RAD/Stankovic)

Summary: On January 19, after 17 years of
waiting, Milovan Djilas, Yugoslavia's most
prominent dissident and at one time the most
important leader after Tito, was finally issued
a passport. His old passport had been canceled
in 1970 as a punishment for his having acted in
a "hostile manner" toward Tito's regime while in
the West in 1969. The return of his passport
comes exactly 33 years after he was deprived of
his party and state functions.

This is a reissue of a paper written on
22 February 1984 for the 30th anniversary of
Djilas's expulsion on 19 January 1954.

* * *

From 16 to 19 January 1954 the Central Committee of the
League of Communists of Yugoslavia convened in Belgrade under
Tito's leadership to settle accounts with Milovan Djilas, who
until then had been considered Tito's heir apparent. His
alleged crime was that he had thoroughly studied Titoism and had
insisted that it be accepted not only in theory but also in
practice. In other words, Djilas had seen that one of the
Yugoslav party's weakest points was its refusal to accept the
practical consequences of what it preached.

Djilas's story is interesting, because he was one of the
rare communist leaders who dared to question the foundations of
communist ideology--and not just because he had lost an argument
within the party over some minor issue of the day. His
rebellion at the height of his power came as a surprise--it was
practically a sensation--because Djilas, like most of the
Yugoslav party leaders, had been so orthodox in the years after
the war (1945-1948) that he was sometimes an embarrassment even
to the Soviets. Today, both his former communist colleagues and
noncommunist opponents are competing to reveal as many of
Djilas's alleged war crimes as possible.

Whether people like or dislike what he did or disagree with
what he has been preaching for the past three decades, they
cannot deny that the irreconcilable clash between democratic
reforms and the rule of a single party would have emerged even
without Djilas. Reformist pains have plagued almost all
communist-ruled countries throughout the world in the last 30
years and there is little chance that they will soon abate.

Tito's Conflict with Moscow. The source of Djilas's
conflict with Tito was Tito's own conflict with Stalin. Stalin
and Tito could not agree on anything, and the same was true of
Tito and Djilas. There had been a time when it was considered
naive to believe that the reformist impulses lying behind Tito's
heroic struggle against Stalin would end with Belgrade's

[page 5]

X/15 EAST (1) MILOVAN DJILAS: 33 YEARS LATER	F-569

proclamation of Yugoslavia's independence from the bloc. In
November 1952 the Sixth Congress of the Communist Party of
Yugoslavia (which changed the party's name to the League of
Communists of Yugoslavia) had not only protested against
"Stalinist tyranny" but also against certain fundamental issues
of communist theory and practice. Because Tito had given the
green light, Djilas began to modify traditional theories, until
Tito was forced to intervene in January 1954.

The two years between the November 1952 congress and the
January 1954 expulsion of Djilas were as important as the years
of Tito's struggle against Stalin. According to Djilas:

The Yugoslav communist party [during that time] overcame an
ideological crisis and began reviewing its fossilized
Leninist-Stalinist values. The Soviet regime was defined
by the Yugoslavs as "state-capitalist." The Soviet
annexation of the Baltic States and of Eastern Europe was
condemned as "imperialistic" and "hegemonic," and the
absolute power of the secret police branded as a betrayal
of socialism and democracy. Admittedly there were still no
internal reforms in Yugoslavia then [1948]. But the break
with the Soviet Union, which seemed radical at the time,
raised hopes within the country and revealed new
perspectives.[1]

What Djilas said was true of the period after 1949. During
the first year following Tito's "excommunication," however, Tito
and his colleagues vehemently denied that they had had any
disagreements with Stalin about theory or that they were
anything but the most orthodox Stalinists. They abandoned this
position only when it became obvious that Stalin was not ready
to forgive Tito's alleged mistakes and that Stalinism was not
the best ideology for fighting Stalin. Still, while Tito used
Stalinist methods to fight his internal enemies, he encouraged
Djilas to find new ways of "constructing socialism."

This was why in late 1953, when the "Stalinist type of
Titoism" was obviously ebbing, Djilas began to publish a series
of articles denouncing the privileges and caste structure of the
upper echelons of the Yugoslav party, which he referred to in
1957 as "the new class." He called for "real freedom," which
meant the abolition of one-party communist rule.

Idealism and Obsession with Power. According to Djilas,
"idealism and obsession with power" are inherent in every
revolution until the moment of victory. Having assumed power,
the Communists usually forgot their former idealism and
concentrated on defending their monopoly of power and
privileges. It was this monopoly of power that Djilas
mercilessly attacked in his articles in Borba at the end of
1953 and the beginning of 1954. Everyone thought that he was
writing under Tito's instructions and consequently (with several
exceptions) applauded.

[page 6]

X/15 EAST (2) MILOVAN DJILAS: 33 YEARS LATER	F-570

It appears that Djilas foresaw his own fate. In an article
on 24 December 1954 he said that his aim was "to escape from the
unreal, abstract world of the 'elite' and 'chosen' men and to
enter at last the real world of simple, hard-working people and
ordinary human relationships." His comrades, however, were not
prepared like him to question their right to enjoy the fruits of
power and privilege for which they had fought so bitterly, first
against the old royalist regime and the Axis powers and then
against Stalin and Moscow. By the time Djilas had voiced his
appeal, it was already too late.

No politically significant groups were receptive to the
appeal, since Stalin was already dead and Tito was trying to
make peace with Stalin's successors by the time that Djilas
began to publish his "heretical" articles. Titoism had
evidently triumphed: it was no longer labeled "a form of
fascism," and Tito and his colleagues were no longer "fascist
murderers." Djilas, on the other hand, had become an obstacle to
the process of reconciliation. On 16 January 1954 this obstacle
was removed, but Djilas's claim that Tito's rule was essentially
a bureaucratic oligarchy unwilling to surrender even the
smallest part of its political power has remained valid.

* * *

1 Encounter, September 1979, p. 63.

- end -

  OSA / Guide / RIP / 1956 / RFE/RL Background Reports : Subjects | Browse | Search