|
THE PARTY NEEDS TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE STATE ONCE AND FOR ALL"
Session of the Central Committee of the Yugoslav League of Communists
Transcript of the discussion of Milan Kucan
Belgrade (Yugoslavia), 30 January 1989
“The link must be broken definitively and irrevocably to separate the Party from the state. The state must operate irrespective of to what extent and in what way our internal Party disputes are settled. Without this, there can be no state governed by the rule of law, no protection of human rights and no people, no normal life in society, and no operational institutions within society. And when institutions fail to function, a state of emergency and calls to introduce an emergency arise. We expressed our profound disagreement with the generation of this state of emergency psychosis even before the 17th session. Since then, however, following some stubborn logic, things have moved in that very direction. We are already living in state of emergency conditions. …” Milan Kucan warned during a debate where he also talked about political plurality, about the prospects for Yugoslavia’s existence, and the political destabilisation, which started with street rallies.
Extracts from the debate by Milan Kucan, President of the CKZKS:
- “We must ask ourselves whether we are still in possession of the vision of common development, the vision which has linked us into a common country. Last year’s developments show that this vision has been increasingly falling apart. It has been falling apart across the country, among all our peoples, deepening the feeling that life in such a community is threatened and divested of hope for the future. Actual and stable social development is the only thing that justifies Yugoslavia and links our peoples, which otherwise are divided by huge objective differences, into a single community. A programme aimed at successful common development is the single factor of integration in this community.”
- “We need to encourage and support democratisation processes, to open up the political sphere to initiatives by the people, initiatives by citizens, initiatives for organised political and social entities. It is clear that the future of Yugoslavia is inseparable from the democratic developments of this community, which despite the huge differences among its peoples is linked by common existential interests. Yugoslavia can only be a democratic community, socialist and self-managing, or Yugoslavia will no longer exist. Yugoslavia cannot exist if it fails to assert itself as a democratic society. What we need is life in democracy, struggling for the kind of socialism which perceives democracy as a means in the struggle for socialism, and which presupposes equality, tolerance of differences, mutual voluntary help, and a democratic synthesis of interests. This is the alternative to isolation and mutual brutal confrontation. The only way to achieve this is to actively include ourselves in Europe and in the world civilisation. This is reality as experienced and perceived by the world; we only need to read what the world is writing about Yugoslavia, which has become an infamous media celebrity. Of course, this requires that we to say goodbye to many…. … and to the Party’s long political monopoly, which gave birth to them.”
- “In this time of hardship, we cannot dispute the people’s right to publicly express their dissatisfaction with the system, its institutions and, with us, who represent these institutions. We cannot agree, however, with the abuse of this dissatisfaction, knowing what can be promoted on the streets … while at the same time no kind of programme for eliminating the reasons for the dissatisfaction is being either articulated or promoted. Not everything can be done under the pretext of the will of the people. Every republic has its own people, but what happens when this people, rendered an instrument in the function of specific politicians, do not have the same desires, do not have the same views; can we then simply replace this people - and who will be the judge to take responsibility for this? I believe that all this can only contribute to the further destabilisation of society, and instability does not speak in favour of our democratic ambitions. Indeed, this is likely to contribute to an organised and escalated disorder, of which certain elements will very quickly take advantage, as we hear was the case in Zagreb, to create large-scale manipulation. Does this not clearly demonstrate that we ourselves are not sufficiently prepared to consent to anything but the most primitive forms of democracy, in which responsibility is the least clear element, but which are by far the most convenient forms for manipulation? This only instigates hostility and leads to mutual confrontation from Kosovo to Slovenia.”
- The link must be broken definitively and irrevocably to separate the Party from the state. The state must operate irrespective of to what extent and in what way we will settle our internal Party disputes. Without this, there can be no state governed by the rule of law, no protection of human rights and no people, no normal life in society, and no operational institutions within society. And when institutions fail to function, a state of emergency and calls to introduce an emergency arise. We expressed our profound disagreement with the generation of this state of emergency psychosis even before the 17th session. Since then, however, following some stubborn logic, things have moved in that very direction. We are already living in emergency conditions. Before our very eyes, boosted by the will and activities of the Yugoslav League of Communists, a silent revolution is taking place, changing the image and essence of the state. Day by day, we are witnessing not only people’s protests on the streets; we are witnessing the emergence of some other Yugoslavia."
The entire debate is available at the Republic of Slovenia Archives
|
