Arts Entertainments

An Examination of Tito and Yugoslavia

“Achievement makes the man, not the man makes the achievement,” says Milovan Djilas in his biography of Tito written shortly after the latter’s death in May 1980. At the time of his death, more than 122 representatives from around the The world gathered to pay tribute to him. This contrasts with today where there was hardly any commemoration of the anniversary of his death. He shows that the image of him has not withstood the ravages of time and only proves the adage in the poem about King Ozymandias that “the paths of glory lead but to the grave.”

Having said that, it may seem strange to talk about Tito now. After all, neither he nor his creation Yugoslavia exists. So why talk about them at this crossroads? True, I am only considering the subject from the perspective of the biography I read of Tito. Apart from the Balkans he has traditionally been a tinderbox. Twice there was chaos in the region in the 20th century. In 1914, it precipitated World War I, and in the 1990s a devastating civil war broke out there, marking the end of Yugoslavia as a nation.

Tito is considered the founding father of Yugoslavia and believes that it was the strength of his personality that held it together. While the Comintern appointed him head of the Yugoslav Communist Party, or ‘League of Communists’ in 1937, following the Communists’ victory in 1944-45, he assumed full control. A control that lasted until his death in 1980 at the age of 88. However, Milovan Djilas points out that he was a personality with limitations, for example, as a military strategist. Similarly, although he was systematic, he was not supported by party functions, which were also. Where I disagree with M. Djilas is in describing the communists as a monolithic entity presiding over a plural entity. Let’s not forget that in the Yugoslav context he was a ‘Hu Yaobong’ figure. Also already in the 1920s and 1930s, the communists were divided between moderates and radicals. Similarly, while Tito, according to Djilas, foresaw collective leadership after his death, he believes this was not in tune with the party bigwigs and probably led to the rise of men like Milosevic. However, I would attribute it much more to the strength of ethnic feeling in Yugoslavia. I think it would be appropriate in this context to quote Aleksa Djilas writing in a recent issue of ‘Foreign Affairs’ magazine in this context: “As time went on, the official concept of Yugoslavia became increasingly emptied of ethnic identity, linguistic and historical tradition common to all national groups in Yugoslavia. In the 1960s it was almost completely vacant and the Titoist ideology was substituted as a substitute.”

Democratization and the 1970 Constitution

Similarly, it has been argued that Tito was not a democrat, but let us not forget that the 1970 Constitution marked a significant step towards decentralization, turning the country into a virtual confederation. At the same time, going the maximum way along this road would have meant ending the Communist Party’s monopoly on power which could not have been tolerated at the time. That would come later with the revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in that form. Despite this, major economic reforms towards decentralization were initiated in the 1960s. Whether they were real or cosmetic and only resulted in autarchy and duplication of effort, as Aleksa Djilas would like us to believe, is a moot point. However, when it comes to duplication, there is also a lot of that in free market economies.

Is there a legacy?

A more complex issue is what is Tito’s legacy? Unfortunately, in concrete terms there is nothing except that he unified the Balkans under one leadership like Ataturk did in Turkey. The difference, of course, is that Turkey lasted while Yugoslavia did not.

In evaluating Tito’s role we must keep in mind that one man cannot make a country. They all have to unite for that purpose. From what the events of the 1990s showed that considerable elements of the population and its leaders were imbued with ethnic sentiments, the belief that this was reflected earlier in both the party and the intelligentsia seems to be well founded. Furthermore, Tito himself had the weight of history against him, having been born in 1892 in Croatia, then part of Austria-Hungary, and having served in that country’s armed forces against Serbia in the 1914 conflict. The Comintern also played its part in the ideological deconstruction of Yugoslavia by initially viewing it as a “prison of nations” and changing its focus only in the 1930s when it was seen as convenient as a barrier to Nazism and fascism. That, as subsequent events showed, was not the whole picture and it probably changed once again with Tito’s falling out with Stalin.

Be that as it may, there is no denying that Tito was a remarkable leader. He ensured that Yugoslavia was one of the architects of the non-aligned movement and allowed a relatively modest country to play a role well above its weight in world affairs. Therefore, Robert West’s view in his book ‘Tito and the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia’, that Tito’s role is exaggerated and that only the communists and the secret police kept him together is a simplistic assessment, as Yugoslavia lasted a full decade after Tito’s death. This brings us to the salient point that the process did not end with the disintegration of Yugoslavia and that a calculated effort is now being made to deconstruct the image of its founder. This is important because we cannot ignore that the West’s hostility towards Yugoslavia has contributed to its disintegration. This is amply confirmed by NATO’s intervention against Serbia in the 1990s civil war and the bombing of Belgrade, as well as the targeted indictment of Serbian politicians as “war criminals”. Keep in mind that there are no heroes in war, only dead and wounded, and also that crimes are bound to be committed by each and every one. This is particularly so in a region that has traditionally been on a “short fuse” (Achin Vinayak in South Asia). We can only hope that it doesn’t blow up again and cause a major international conflagration.

Finally, this is a subjective account of Tito as read with value judgments, which is perhaps not surprising, as Djilas eventually fell out with the Yugoslav communists and Tito and was imprisoned in successive periods for his ideological leanings. For those of you interested in a more factual understanding of the period, you can refer to Duncan Wilson’s excellent account in his book ‘Tito ‘Yugoslavia’. As the former British ambassador to Yugoslavia, Wilson has brought a broad perspective to the subject, even if we don’t agree with all of his observations, some of which he hasn’t fully explained, such as that Tito was always a “soul partner.” . of the Soviet Union or that the Brionne meeting between Tito, Nasser and Nehru was more important to Nasser than Nehru. However, Tito is a very broad subject and there is no limit to the degree to which we can delve into the subject and these books are a good start to understanding him and Yugoslavia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *