Marko Kovacicmarko Central Central Hungary (2011) CROATIA ANDSERBIA CROATIA of IS By

CEU eTD Collection

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Science of Political of Arts Master for degree the requirements of the fulfillment In partial A COMPARATIVE ANALYS A COMPARATIVE AN ASSES THE DEMOCRATIC CONSO DEMOCRATIC THE S MENT OF THE ROLE OF IN SOCIETY CIVIL Submitted to to Submitted Supervisor: prof.dr.Supervisor: Anton Pelinka Department of Political Science Political of Department Budapest, Budapest, Marko KovacicMarko Central Central Hungary (2011) CROATIA ANDSERBIA CROATIA OF IS By

European European

University LIDATION:

CEU eTD Collection

poslijednja (i meni najvažnija) zahvala je upućena svim mojim mojim svim upućena je zahvala najvažnija) meni (i poslijednja napokon, I I I would like to thank my supervisor, P as well as suggestions and Zahvaljujem se i su me svojim društvom i optimizmom pratili tijekom cijele godine cijele tijekom pratili i optimizmom društvom me svojim su guiding meguiding through Tinu GazivodiTinu Posebno hvala Melini hvala Posebno dinamiku civilnog hrvatskog društva to

Timar Eszter instructor writing my academic ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

koji mi je svojim znanjem i iskustvom pomogao shvatiti shvatiti pomogao i iskustvom znanjem je svojim mi koji entire academicthis writing out rofessor ii

Anton Pelinka , Laći i

Bakiju

, for the valuable comments comments valuable the for , !

year. prijateljima

who has been been has who

koji koji CEU eTD Collection its arg I in game town”. “the democracy only as introduce and regimes Serbia society civil in change the political applying to am which I structure opportunity political of concept useI the consolidation. in role crucial a play also citizens ed organiz that but process, consolidation the in role important an play institutions governmental formal only not that am showing I society, countr in two the its specificities andelaborate of democratization concept the of explanation process

function . This thesis will demonstrate will thesis This . ies of the Western Balkans – Balkans Western ies the of This paper analys paper This – consolidation, using qualitative methodological tools. I start from the theoretical theoretical from the start I tools. methodological qualitative using consolidation, Croatia and and Croatia s

was the most efficient factor for making democratic consolidation possible. consolidation making for democratic factor efficient most was the be supported will Serbia. Serbia. e s

the impact of civil society on the final stage of democratization democratization of stage final the on society of civil impact the by two cases where civil society has been crucial, crucial, been has society civil cases where by two T he theoretical overview of the debates of conso debates of the overview he theoretical

Croatia and and Croatia how organized attempts ofcitizens can change political ABSTRACT iii

Serbia. By introducing the concept of civil concept the introducing By Serbia.

ue civilthat society due to lidation and and lidation Croatia and

CEU eTD Collection AND ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS 4: CHAPTER 3.3.3 Civil Society Spherein Serbia and the fall ofMilošević 3.3.2 Milošević and HisWay of Governing Political Parties3.3.1.2 andParty System Electoral3.3.1.1 System Parties Political and Systems Electoral 3.3.1 GONG3.2.3.2 GLAS 99 3.2.3.1 3.2.3 Civilin Society in Croatia the 1990s Franjo3.2.2 modushisTuđmanand operandi Political Parties3.2.1.2 andParty Systems 13.2.1. Electoral Systems Parties Political and Systems Electoral 3.2.1 CHAPTER 3: CROATIA AND SERBIA: CASE STUDIES Negative are Consolidation on Democratic Effects of Civilthe Society that Arguments 2.2.3 Positive are Consolidation on Democratic the Effects of Civilthe Society that Arguments 2.2.2 Consolidation of as Democratic aFactor and System Party Parties Political 2.2.1 2.1.3 Functions of Civil Society Society Civil of Definitions 2.1.2 Concept the of Evolution 2.1.1 CHAPTER 2: A THEORET BACKGROUND ICAL METHODOLO 1: GICAL FRAMEWORK CHAPTER INTRODUCTION Relevance 4.1. Croatia Regimeof Change the and Nature the Politics SERBIA: Polity, 3.3 2000) CROATIA:3.2 Institutional and StructuralAnalysis of Croatian Political- System (1990 Time3.1 Thesis the of Context the in Consolidation Democratic and Change Regime 2.4. 2.3. Concept PoliticalIII: OpportunitiesStructure Democratic Consolidation II: Concept 2.2 Civil Society Conceptualization: 2.1 Hypothesis and Question Research

...... - space Contextualization ......

......

...... Table of Content of Table

......

...... iv ......

......

...... 56 43 24 55 28 26 26 24 16 10 10 47 44 44 29 18 32 22 20 42 39 34 31 30 22 20 18 14 12 49 45 11 7 4 3 1

CEU eTD Collection REFERENCE LIST CONCLUSION

4.2 Serbia4.2

......

...... v

67 63 57 CEU eTD Collection C option. political democratic more a victory of the to was a realsocial and politi in whileSerbia key roles, playing been have (CSOs) organizations society civil institutionalized, more was movement o nor politics, h society civil cases where two will present solidarity. and freedom of association of basicthe principle the for explanation an interes of representation the on organization its structured to due democracies contemporary end of 20 are happening within that andpolicy processes state the of institutions merely studying towards state the society and the between interaction from of study the deviated lately have andpoliticians scientists political of anchor in process the people the of role the well as as structure, its dynamics, process, of that nature the understand better to inorder Balkans Western the countries of intwo democracy of consolidation of the analysis a comprehensive write to is revolutionheartsin andminds.” Bearing the peoples' in (1990) my thismind, goal a effect years to andsixty systems, economic change the years to six systems, political the Europe in in in Europe, hisand Central East book process democratization In order to understand political dynamics of the Western Balkan at the end of 1990s, I I 1990s, the end of Western at Balkan understand the of to dynamics political In order Frommy point of view, c the to comes it when scholars quoted frequently most the of one Dahrendorf, Ralph th

has a compelling thought about democratization: “It will take six months to reform reform months to six willtake “It democratization: about thought has acompelling

century see 1999). Thelen, Croatia, this this Croatia, In it. support not do citizens if tolerated be will and can ppression sphere in which there are active citizens are insphere there which ts of citizens on the other the on citizens of ts , aside from an those institutions (for more on the nature of political science at the the at science political of nature the on more (for institutions those cal movement that helped erode helped that movement cal INTRODUCTION ivil society is one of the most impressive concept in in concept impressive ismost ofivil one society the

institu 1 as shown its strength and argue and strength its shown as tionalized version of civil society action, there there action, society civil of version tionalized

. The concept encompasses ofsociety civil The concept . ing of democracy. It seems to me that me seems that to It ingof democracy. oncretely, I will investigate how civil civil how investigate will I oncretely,

the authoritarian power and le and power authoritarian the

Reflections on the revolution Reflections onthe revolution who grasp who one hand, and pure pure and hand, one

andmanifest can

that neither neither that a d

CEU eTD Collection results brought by the Croatian Democratic Union Democratic by Croatian the brought results the on influences their law and changes electoral of the aware make was to citizens 99” attempt organized civil actions. produced society that circumstances present the to in order from 1990s early historical the overview some 2000 with will paper this frame, time the Regarding consolidation. Tuđman's partieslost the election, which is considered to be th was acampaign of approximately second - meta civil society two were there in Serbia But regime. significance The transparency. GONGassociation the samethe time, turnout the increasing of goal (primary) with the campaign in electoral the participate would which form acoalition to decided organizations 3 2 1 we (and country in elections a started society civil in which helpedin the democratic Serbia Croatia (in society because most of the media were under the influence of CDU influence the under were media of the most because formera president of Croatia. More on them will be explained in the third part of this paper.

„ Even though the public knew about manipulation this was the first time that some organization said it publicly Slobodan Milo Otpor re

largely

” in Serbian language means “resistance”, while “Izlaz” means exit means “Izlaz” while “resistance”, means language Serbian ” in In shor In the -

social movement “Otpor”. “Izlaz 2000” (a kind of Serbian version of „Glasversion “Izlaz kind 99“) “Otpor”. (a of Serbian of movement 2000” social

social movement

Serbia. Slobod Serbia. ignored. the the šević(1941-2006), aformer president of andMontenegro,Serbia Franjo Tuđman(1922 -1999), t, t, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) in an autocratic way where civil liberties liberties civil where way in autocratic an Yugoslavia) of Republic Federal in in s

the coalition of 149 CSOs coalitionof 149 the to to Croatia in 1999, 145 (later four join) inmorenongovernmental 145(later Croatia 1999, will How didmovement “Otpor social How the student arise. questions Two better the better consolidation process consolidation n ioei ad i Socialist his Milošević and an

is known as known is

of those organization lies in that it wa inliesthat organization those of freedom of speech. One of the first strategies of the “Glas “Glas the of strategies first the of One speech. freedom of revolution

150 CSOs that de that CSOs 150

began “Otpor” and and “Otpor” against against is is 2

named “Glas 99”, and CSO GONG, while GONG, CSO and “Glasnamed 99”,

in both countries both in rate to insist on 2

Serbia is the case case the is Serbia that referred is often . It

President in the in mandedfree andfair presidential the the concentrate on the years 1999 and yearsand the 1999 on concentrate

actors: first – first actors: subsequent e subsequent Party of Serbia were ruling the the ruling were Serbia of Party campaign

Slobodan Miloše the importance of importance the . In 2000 Milosević’s 2000 In . e beginning of democratic beginning democratic of e as as lections of lections s one of the first first the of one s “Izlaz and 2000” “Izlaz 2000”)

i ad his and vić

2000. At 2000. electoral electoral 1

and and has has

3 in in ” CEU eTD Collection in processes political party. of end consolidated couldmake democracy thesis this but judiciary, and opposition government, as and Croatia of consolidation democratic that oppression. for responsible politicalstructures towards huge resistance oppression on civilsociety and the overallpopulation can at soburst andme a point produce in change the ci shallpolitical I 998) (1 opportunities present year 2000. in of political the opportunities isit find whatthus structure interestinglookedthat like it to used) out createdhow (or and the of description is clear no there literature the and Serbia in role important an played opposition extent what to examine to is aim a being opposition suggests often literature The respectively? Tudman and Milošević fallof the led to that Serbia Serbia in consolidation democratic of in path the was civil society factor important in consolidation democratic the impacted Hypothesis and Question Research that ro le le

formed in 1998 of “Izlazof 2000” campaign? The

My hypothesis is that civil society was the most effective structure that could aid could aid that structure effective most the was society civil that is hypothesis My The There are two dimensio two are There alike the the Croatia and and Croatia

1990s because it an was the because 1990s circumstances, both circumstances, were the What . research question is focused on on focused is question research

key factor for democratic consolidation (see Merkel, 2006). Therefore my Therefore 2006). Merkel, (see consolidation democratic for factor key grew Croatia and and Croatia Serbia. An argument will be presented according to which long to according will presented be An argument Serbia.

into a a into ns that will be presented in this in presented be will that ns revolution Serbia. Th Serbia. se questions will be will questions se

given in the conditions of conditions the in given

Serbia. In that process there were other actors such actors other were there process In that Serbia. entity Croatia and that brought that e first one is theoretical. In this part the main main the part In this is theoretical. one first e 3 By introducing Sidney Tarrow’s concept of of concept Tarrow’s Sidney introducing By

na identifying not influenced by the state or the or state the by influenced not

ture of civil societies in the in societies civil of ture

rcumstances that have helped have that rcumstances in in Croatia and what were the factors in factors were the what and Croatia

thoroughly answered inthoroughly answered this

Serbia. I would like to analyze how how analyze like to would I Serbia. strive down Milošević down the difference in factors infactors the difference

to show that Croatia and Serbia were at the the at were Serbia and Croatia

paper in order to understand into order paper .

Also only only se two countries countries se two

what was the the was what civil society society civil Croatia an Croatia

the regime regime the Croatia. In governing governing

paper. - lasting lasting which

CEU eTD Collection in sphere society a nongovernmental media, note some organizations about Some write society. of civil aspect foreign authors as such as wellas but (2007), Dinić & MilivojevićPopović, (2006), MihailovićDemeš (2007), Zakoš society has played amajor historical compared Asfar as subject. the on research Relevance consolidation. democratic on of impact society civil the about willmake aconclusion I byoutcomes cases two their those comparing By democracy. Hence, countries. those of polity and societies civil of structure methods, context, the explain will I possible, democracy maturing made has society civil where examples concrete the Through th against arguments present will in democracy endorse to power the and legitimacy subsidiar and representation function, watchdog socialization, in society civil of functions actual the and presented be will society civil of responsibilities and functions enhance democratic change in those two countries that can that countries two inthose change democratic enhance pivotal are Serbia rule of law and civil liberties are liberties civil and law of rule Hence, countries. communist nd some the political context of context political the some nd ek (1995),

Firstly, if I manage to provide plausible arguments that only civil society could could society civil only that arguments plausible provide to manage I if Firstly, I will demonstrate the weakness of the other potential factors for consolidation of of consolidation for factors potential other the of weakness the willdemonstrate I C roatia and and roatia The topic is relevant because there is no serious and adequate scientific scientific andadequate serious no is there because is relevant The topic

Croatia and and Croatia

Croatia and and Croatia Jašić (2000), (2000), Jašić for understanding the democratization process due to several reasons. several to due reasons. process democratization the understanding for

Serbia through the perspective of civil society even though civil civil though even society civil of perspective the through Serbia Barlett FisherBarlett (2002), Rahmet (2006), deal (2005) only one with Serbia Serbia shown. I will argue that, due due to functi the I will that, shown. argue Serbia Veljak Bežovan Pavlović (2001), (2005), e positive impact of civil society and evaluate their validity. validity. their evaluate and society of civil impact e positive

1999 or 2000. 2000. There is1999 or no comprehensive civil analysis of the literature review uncovered literature the , nor a the comparison of the of comparison the a nor , - political role in those countries. Scholars such as: as: such Scholars in countries. role those political 4

Croatia and

be used for later analyses of post of analyses later for be used it y, only civil society had the the had society civil only y, se two countries. Croa countries. two se Serbia. On the other hand I I hand other the On Serbia. , there is no an author an no is there ,

a challengefor allnew

(2 006), Forbig006), & ons of tia and and tia other

who who -

CEU eTD Collection were many differences among many among were differences there that see will we identical, are cases those it seems that sight first the at though Even demonstrate the and realcivil power of possibilities society their through dissimilarities. between changes yearisfor 2000 essential year 4 and Croatia in both processes, political because relevant is This opportunities. through explainedthe perspectivescience political and t of through in actions societies’ politics. present learnthe about people and of the character contentious the about conclude can we experience from their society, of civil methods and scope the Knowing countries. t and culture political of the structure infer the can and systems political into order are consolidation of beginnings and nature the what know important findto isit Croatian cases.I deals and Serbian the the with comparison of political processes. dynamics of present understand to inorder past communist of heritage the determine to science political for align yet democracies, Factor. wher Serbia) and all commonof Croatia and different factors (comparison IV of part thosethe in two countries. provided be Hence, will it will be democracy shownon why civil society societycivil was The

More detailed methodological justification why Croatia and Serbia are adecvate cases of the study of impact of impact of study the of cases adecvate are Serbia and why Croatia justification methodological detailed More Serbia are direct products products are direct ofSerbia in the events thusmovements bystudying 2000, those we 2000, are influenced2000, byin the happenings Therefore 2000. ed state in the Cold War, equally (not)influenced by the West and the East. It is relevant It is relevant andWest East. the by the (not)influenced equally War, in Cold the state ed

Why Why In short, the novelty of this paper this of novelty the short, In that text scientific one not is there change, regime the after years eleven Secondly, Croatia and and Croatia

Croatia and Croatia Croatia in Croatia factors social and political The present better. countries both of countries offormer Yugoslavia aspecial case. a are non was Yugoslavia Serbia Serbia and Croatia

not identical? The answer is: to is: to answer identical? The not but similar cases Why two Serbia? understand Serbia.

Croatia and and Croatia

ing at

differences in the speed and the direction of political of political direction the and inspeed the differences

is that the structures, methods and the results of civil

the the of end the Serbia 5

4 .

he nature of institutions in those two institutionsin ofnature two he those 1990s are for the first time examined , a

better

of the the of analysis comparative

he concept of political of political he concept understand the present present the understand Serbia after after Serbia e I will list

the the - CEU eTD Collection

cases two those of analysis comparative be will I B section in while states, both in action society civil for context political a andpresenting impact society civil the of studies case A am I doing In section Serbia. Croati is about The part third structure. brief opportunities political description of ends with a part The second consolidation. democratic the on ofsociety civilimpact negative is defi consolidation democratic development of the termitsin andfunctions. of giving Hence, the preview this part am definingI part background, society, describing providing the the theoretical civil methodological argument the of framework rest the on whichbuilding I am

the am presenting I part first the In blocks. building main four of consists thesis The

ned and theoretical discussions are given on the positive and and positive the on given are discussions theoretical and ned .

. In the second second the In .

doing a a doing a and CEU eTD Collection appropriatemethod for the study of theimpact of civil societyand its outcomes. In short, single in change regime the of explanation the for be used will case” Considering (187). the theoreticalframework of politicalthat structure opportunities asingle for explain outcome to asingle seeks researcher the inwhich “a situation study to a s using suggests (2007) John cover. Gerring to wants caseof aresearcher the part the on depending used are that studies case of types several are There 2005). & Bennett, developto difference. – technique methodological cases usinga third two the thesi this of part innovative most the semi and tracing process casemethods: study, research willemploy I actions of those products the and society civil actions of the i understand the Into order in case relevant. whichisdepth, this political opportunities as well as ins quantitati of perspective the from consolidation democratic on works excellent some are there though Even process. in democratization the of actors and role the (civilsociety), Ibeli phenomena social ofimpact certain and contextual the structure determine the is to thesis this goal of the that examine. Considering to wants aresearcher that consolidation democratic ar methods research qualitative or quantitative tance tance - outcome which study, requires a rigid understandingis of relations, causal an When it comes to the study of democratic consolidation, there is no rule whether ruleno is whether there consolidation, of democratic study the it to When comes Case study Schneider, 2009), ISchneider, believe qualitativemethodological that toolsmotives, can clarify CHAPTER 1: METHODOLO 1: CHAPTER

or test historical explanations that may be generalizable to other events” (George (George events” other to maybe generalizable that historicalexplanations test or

is a “detailed examination of an aspect of historical episode which is used used is which episode historical of aspect an of examination “detailed a is eve qualitative methods are more suitable for explaining those processes processes those explaining for suitable more are methods qualitative eve specialties s, as noted in the introduction, I will do a comparison of of comparison a do will I introduction, the in noted as s,

of the of 7

e more suitable. It depends on the part of the of the part depends the on It suitable. more e

GICAL FRAMEWORK democratic building democratic - structured interviews.structured final In the and

Serbia and Croatia, I believe that a that believe I Croatia, and Serbia Mill’s methods of agreement and and of agreement methods Mill’s nstitution building, as well as well as building, as nstitution

vemethodology (for transition change transition

ingle the following -

outcome s

in CEU eTD Collection types of qualitative interviews: the structured version, semi structured the interviews: of qualitative types well as but 2000”, and“Izlaz “Otpor” informing steps several are there where Serbia study of for the mostlywill useful be method This regimethe change. towards steps the understand ofsociety civil organi examine to the process outcomes.in Inin spurious differenceorder producing casual their or similar were cases between two difference whether is residual the test that to usedmethod is a interview. qualitative is ano context the discover to The possibility undiscovered. stay would otherwise that interviewee the of values and motives the out find can researcher it the By intodepth. conducting go itsis to ability interview qualitative of the canimproviseimplement and some in depending questions onthe subjec - semi the in given, is script andthe permanent, are interview questions structured in the While interview. unstructured social change. or causes political some incentive that or event the of detection requires which opportunities political of theory the with combined be in Croatia changes in government role big played a Milošević down and (bringing events two those of logic internal the show will I study, outcome ina regime have change ledto that incentives and context the understand me to allow will combination their so tools methodological theory structure opportunitiespolitical of the political circumstances. For this is the reason I will use interview use will I reason the is this For circumstances. political the of the the asfor Croatiain order to show the way offorming responsive civil society. The third qualitative method I will use is semi is use will I method qualitative third The Process tracing Process tracing. is process thesis inthis willbe used that method The second Croatian Democratic Union) and examine the causality of several factors that have that factors several of causality the andexamine Union) Democratic Croatian The zation and actions in the two countries, process tracking will help me me help will tracking process countries, in two the actions and zation

topic structured version the script is incomplete so that the researcher researcher the that so incomplete is script version the structured

of this thesis this of

and a single a and

is to determine to is 8

Croatia and and Croatia ther usefulther can that thing be done by the - outcome study are compatible theoretical compatible are study outcome and and -

structured interview. There are three three are There interview. structured Serbia. Case study requirements will will requirements study Case Serbia. Serbia

the social concepts of the actors actors the of concepts social the - structured interviewstructured and the .

Hence, by using t. The positive side side positive The t. s

as a method a as a single a

of of - -

CEU eTD Collection and of Croatia consolidation on impact democratic the society civilon argument deductive cases and developing the two of the comparison for tool a be will methods Mill’s while actions, society in civil the participated that actors the with interviews structured beginning of the consolidationin happened. actually has happened what why argument theoretical possible a offer as well as Balkan Western dif and agreement of methods Mill’s of framework and standards the mind in Bearing change. regime the caused that factors main the extrapolate and identify me to willallow case that method This eyes the of citizens. regimethe through about interviews while 99”, “Glas in relations andpower structure the it explains because important is Croatian case The interview about better. of 2000 atmosphere the understand to inorder of Serbia citizens with the and“Glasthree 99”, campaign of the coordinator the with one taken: interviews four be will There . data g structurin and gathering

ference, I will make an inference on the movements that occurred in the two countries of of countries in two the occurred that movements the on inference willmake an I ference, Serbia th at In In The last methodological tool all

, case studies and process tracing will be used to pres to used be will tracing process and studies case , help s the e endof the

researchers in discovering the cause or the effect of a effect the cause or the in discovering researchers 1990s will demonstrate 1990s willthe atmosphere demonstrate and the perception of

Croatia and and Croatia I will use I

9 is

Mill’s method Serbia. That willSerbia. by That be supported semi

who will share their life story story life their share will who of agreement anddifference of ent thelogic of the phenomena. In my my In phenomena. Serbia.

- . CEU eTD Collection changingmeaning of civil society and some contemporary of definitions the concept. historical development of theidea. such As the to answers independence of society’s balance civil to How society? and civil sphere economic between the distinction aclear there Is democracy? on impact negative or apositive have society civil Does limit concept this of definition agreed unanimously no stillis there science social intoday’s Greece, Gesellschaft ( society as civil interpretations Society Civil Conceptualization: 2.1 thesis. of the part in betheoretical this elaborated is concept to last the activities society b will which opportunities political m The democracy. of consolidation the on society ofimpact civil the on discussions willtheoretical I in present that thesis away of in the and context set the elaborated defined, democrat is concept second The phenomenon. of the aspects different and functions its development, historical its presenting by society civil of idea the willelucidate I part first the In sciences. social incontemporary terms fashionable and and Croatia of analysis s

of civilsociety – There are few concepts in social sciences that have caused so many discussions and and many discussions so have caused that sciences insocial few concepts are There relevant concepts three are There . The discussions are various: are political parties political are various: are The discussions . CHAPTER 2: 2: ACHAPTER THEORET ). Even though the idea of civil society is no is society civil of idea the though Even ). se questions it is crucial to define the concept properly and understand the the understand and properly concept the define isit to crucial se questions state and state’s financing of civil society? In order to get glimpse the get to order In society? civil of financing andstate’s state Serbia. The first concept is civil society, one of the most the of one society, is civil concept first The Serbia. can we can

include some part of family life in the realm of civil society? society? ofin civil life family realm the of part some include koinonia politike, societas civilis, societe civile, burgerliche e usedfor the analysis of the Croatian and Serbian civil

for the thesis which should be elaborated before the the before elaborated be should which thesis the for 10

I am offering a offering am I

ICA L BACKGROUND

a part t young t ic consolidation which will be be will which consolidation ic

of civil society? society? civil of

historical overview of the the of overview historical as

it dates back to Ancient Ancient to back it dates What are the the are What

discussable discussable

odel of of odel

the the CEU eTD Collection once slaves; finally the slaves themselves who had no rights at all. (Meier, 1984) 6 5 state. the to counterbalances are organizations those All of organizations. social and individuals market, are the actors bo scholars. intheory can consent found the be that ideathe of society civil uncivilsociety or the state civil and state separate to isitimpossible concept In this violence. of reduction and civility of zone law, of ideas. social of history in the periods with correspond that society civil of versions different five She offers War AnswerAn to (2003). b giving is development society civil the citizensin were participating policy in Hence, particularly is society civil of version modern koinonia, literalis translatio a society civil term the claims that between distinction the to back date sphe social all of Division solidarity. and association of freedom of principle basic the with citizens active are there inwhich be asphere to considered Concept 2.1.1 Evolution ofthe citizens (usually immigrants) –

Only those in the upper class were citizens perPrivate, say; state, then civil sphere you had the middle class who were free men but NOT urgeoisversion of civilsociety is a product of development of capitalism and themain back to the Middle Ages Middle backthe to The first concept is civil society as societas is as society concept civil civilisfirst The - ‘state the to refers usually society civil The term The second conception of civil society is grounded in This and Hegel’sTheis Marx’s texts. societygrounded conception civil second of

which will evolve into evolve will which Greece and and Greece society because civil society as society civil because society

Rome those terms were used for the sphere of free citizens free of sphere the for used were terms those Rome the youhave then etc; manufacturers merchants,

Greece and Greece of ancient state Thisis historical the of nature.

the the the emergence of that conceptual separation can be tracked be tracked can separation conceptual that of emergence the

the oikos -

and politics and Latin version societas civilis version Latin

Global Civil Global Society and, book her in Kaldor y Mary

and and 11 polis

an area of policymaking is different from the the from different is policymaking of area an

different from the antique understanding. understanding. antique from the different -

in ancient ancient in making. One of the best chronologies of of chronologies best the of making. One politike politike term Greek ancient the n of . This concept encompasses This concept . society’ r society’ Greece. Manfried Riedel (1991) Greece. ManfriedRiedel (1991)

men who were were who -men free class: lower res elations in a regime. ina elations regime. . He emphasizes that the the that emphasizes He . 5

in main sectors three

6 the rule rule the

Rome, Rome, where It is is It CEU eTD Collection neo offers Gramsci while society, of civil feature (1998). relati have specific organizations Those self are nonviolent, be to tendency the have that organizations - non of sphere dynamic and complex describes hat construction type Civil Society 2.1.2 Definitionsof society. civil l the in accepted definitions numerous are There concept. this of understanding contemporary the to bet distinction a is pluralism, deliberation and different identities. In thisstage of civil society devel one principle the is principle main the today) in of social area protection). the functions (especially state’s some replace and problems insolving citizens helpother that associations of citizens’ set is Civil a society power. state’s is of aversion laissez of America, States mechanisms are socialmovements. level of increase the to in order power state’s of redistribution for request inthe be summarized can Features society. 1970s and the Joan Keane, Joan a famous coming are we society, civil of idea the of development historical the mind in Bearing con last The t the Furthermore a The Habermas (2002) proposed the criterion of deliberation in the public sphere as a key key in sphere a as the the public criterion deliberation of Habermas proposed (2002) iterature and here I am presenting some of them that emphasize different aspects of aspects emphasize different that ofsome them and amhere I presenting iterature

ribed inribed as desc Kaldor’s society, book, ofis civil concept for inherent ctivist

1980s. This concept is post as described concept This 1980s. ween civil and uncivil society. cept of civil society society civil of cept

democracy, spread the realm of political participation and the main main the and participation of realm political the spread democracy, United United the of characteristic society, civil of (neoliberal) version hird contemporary contemporary

has a postmodern trait has apostmodern -

fa onship with the state which frames their actions actions their frames which state the with onship ire English English 12

politics where there is a tendency in decreasing inis decreasing atendency there politics where

of toleration. Civil society is an arena of of arena an is society Civil toleration. of - Marxist perspective of civil society as an an as society civil of perspective Marxist

philosopher sees civil society as an ideal ideal an as society civil sees philosopher - Marxist and utopian version of civil versionMarxist civil of and utopian . In this version (that is present present is (that version this In . - - auto organized and governmental governmental opment there there opment reflexive. reflexive.

the the CEU eTD Collection and otherand funding bodies; businesses; and social responsibility programs” based networks; professional associations;organizati NGO and capacity networks society development civil organizations; including: society philanthropic of civil spectrum the foundationsspan and which constitute an influential network oforganizations at the local, national, regional and international levels, 8 7 conveyingmutual (Schmitter, respect 2003; 240). within act pre agree to 4) whole; and polity a as ( private or agents state either replace indefenc actions collective andtak about deliberating of capable are 2) families; and firms is, of that reproduction, pri and authorities public both of independent relatively are “civilsociety canbe defined asa set or system ofself definitionfor the terms of thisis thesis one by the Philippe Schmitter it. influence tries to but rather aim state, not occupy the to does and financial terms f (market: production economic the and household) family (individual; the state, between the operate that of organizations Rethinking Civil Society article in their Mudde (Tusalem, 363). 2007: joinin polity” to the commit citizens civic engagements totality of as the becan defined society civil or society, of civil part as claimed be can interests collective of representation interests.” common advance into order where people associate market market andhegemonystate against (inthe the the Pavlović,2009). of of area independent (Gershman, 2004

There is an academic discussion whether political parties should be considered as a part of civil society. of civil a part as be considered should parties political whether discussion an is academic There “ CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation Additionally, civil society can be defined as “any grouping that asass “any bethat can society civil grouping defined Additionally, CIVICUS Perhaps the most comprehensive, concise and analytically the most appropriate appropriate most the analytically and concise comprehensive, most the Perhaps de accepted) commonly (and precise more A ). For the purpose of this paper I will exclude political parties from the concept of civil society 7 , defines civil society as “the arena, outside of the family, the state and the state the family, of the outside arena, “the as society definescivil ,

interaction between state, market and people in which people are fighting fighting are people in andwhich people market state, between interaction

e or promotion of their interests or passions; 3) do not seek to seeknot to passions;do 3) interests or promotiontheir of e or

irms). Hence, civil society is independent from the state in state the from independent is society civil Hence, irms). re)produces or accept to re)produces or responsibilityfor governing the 13

(2003) where they say that civil society is a set is civil aset society where they say that (2003)

is an international alliance of members and partners partners and of members alliance international an is

- established rules of a “civil” nature, that is, that nature, “civil” a of rules established

- finitionis proposed byKopecky and organized intermediary groups that: 1) that: groups intermediary organized

( http://www.civicus.org/who vate units of production and and production units of vate

8 . According to him, him, to According . ons; trade unions; faith

-we

umes umes -are ing ing ) . . -

CEU eTD Collection certain degree of stability and a sort of institutional structure institutional of sort a and stability of degree certain essent v as organizations institutionalizedforms of civilsociety. TheCouncil of Europe definesnon 10 9 agencies. executive or other government of the front it in represent and citizens of preference and interests articulate organizations society civil watc and subsidiarity socialization, Civil Society 2.1.3 Functionsof a Croatia in happened for understandingis processesmindin that the society“ bearing relevant and them se always mobilization and institutionalization. of level the and of stability is degree the movements social and organizations society civil between 20 in byvonverydecades fashionable last became Lorenz the of political sociology Stein, the in of glossary introduced the This term, issue. political or social some inchanging focused a movements Social organizations. – society forms of civil are There two it. of manifestations seen real not have we but concept, broad and vague a is society civil that seen have governmental organizations in Croatia and and Croatia of analysis

Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)14

In the th

century. I century. - non ially continuation of this work the difference between those two forms will be extremely important for the for the important be extremely will forms two those between difference the work of this continuation Briefly, there are four major functions of civil society, namely representation, namely representation, society, civil of functions major four are there Briefly, the All In addition to that,it is important to note diff nd Serbia at th nd at Serbia se definition are important becauseshow they important are se definition profit n contrast to social movements, civil society organizations are more more are civil organizations society socialmovements, to n contrast oluntary self oluntary Serbia. Serbia. - making objectives of their founders or members, characterized by a by a members, characterized or founders their of objectives making Europe

e end 20th of the eks at least some institutionalization (Arato, 1995). (Arato, institutionalization some least eks at 10

Nota bene - of the Committee of Ministers to member states . governing bodies or pursuebodiesorganizationsor the governing established to

re a type of group actionis ofin a re type of people which a group group hdog function.

, as Andrew Arrato noticed this distinction is fluid fluid is distinction this noticed Arrato Andrew as ,

century. 14

Representation

erent manifestations of civil society. We We society. civil of manifestations erent socialmovements and civil society 9 . In. other words, the difference

complexity of the term “ term the of complexity is the first one in which which in one first the is

on the legal status of non

- governmental governmental civil civil - CEU eTD Collection are some other functions, for remotely succesful analysis of civil society see Diamond, 1994. arbitrary policies imposed by the state. (Schmitter, 2003) imposedby state. the policies arbitrary society can challenge theabuses of executive or legislativeauthority, andminimalize pr democratic line with in is do they what that care taking actually government, members government CSO of the competence various various itscitizens all welfare needs, so they are transferring their responsibilities CSOs. to The big sc 11 welfare. their increase self upon socialpower activities supports andthe idea positive that manyindependent of points of s which tradition) (liberal negative perspectives: two from observed citizens. concern that problems the solveunderstand or/and ability to due their to social factories capital of organizations nongovernmental consider Scholars as: capital social concept of social capitalhas become very popular in social defines sciences. Putnam Robert democracy for important

Presented functions ar functions Presented - organization in which people are solving their own problems and deliberate about how about in to ownsolving problemsand their deliberate which organization people are ope of their work do not have the time or resources (as knowledge or people) to ensure ensure to people) or knowledge (as resources or have time the not do work of their ope The last function is the is the function last The We could say that Wesay that could The function of subsidiarity of function The is function second The social capital refers to connections among individuals individuals among connections to refers capital …social 2000: 19) necessarilycapital.individuals (Putnam,notvirtuousis socialmany in isolated but rich of A society relations. social reciprocal of network sense a in embedded that is difference The virtue.” “civic called have some what to related social closely sense is that capital In them. from arise that trustworthiness and reciprocity of norms problems are, in that way,in solved that are, problems “social capital” calls attention to the fact civic that virtuemost is powerfulwhen

e only one typology proposed mostly according to my research interest, however there

such such the the

socialization as tolerance and collaboration. In the last fifteen years the the years fifteen last In the collaboration. and tolerance as concept watchdog

isvital for democracies as well. Governments due to

of civil society, regarding its regarding society, civil of . Civil society is an arena for learning the virtues is virtues learning the for society arena an . Civil 15 s at function where civil society supervises the the supervises society civil where function

trusts them.

the lowest possible level and due to the to due level and possible lowest the

– social networks and the the and networks social upports limiting state’s upports

functions

actice. Civil Civil actice. 11 , can be be can ,

the

CEU eTD Collection 12 as: democracy of consolidation considers (Mungiu was previously authoritarian.” that in polity a “initiation deepening democracy and as defined isNevertheless, termusually this anot one to speaking of illusion the maintain a turnover double that claims hand other the on Huntington, party. elected next the to governance conso of democratic some instance, For definition. consolidation. ph in third the interested are we paper, In this of democracy. consolidation 3) of democracy; institutionalization 2) regime; autocratic aintroduced phaseidea Rustow’s and democracy, politicalscientists (O’Donnell, Schmitter understand the path of transformation from authoritarian regime to fullyfunctioning realizeboth immanence the sharing of Harrop, Breslin, power (Hague, 48). 2001: In order to de elite, (autocratic in regime autocratic the groups competing between two as acompromise understood be can democratic transition that suggested He – politics comparative of field foundeda Rustow time Denkwart that At world. witness changes regime to hadscientist politicala1970s, opportunity remarkable in the Consolidation Democratic II: Concept 2.2 winners then peacefully over turn power to the winners of a election later election“ those if (Huntington,and 1991). winners, election those to power over turns and election subsequent a loses transition of bout democratic consolidation: “ democratic consolidation: bout

He argues th argues He Democratic consolidation is a is consolidation Democratic democratization of wave third to Due 12

ssary condition for democratic consolidation. As Andreas Schalder says says As Andreas Schalder consolidation. for democratic condition ssary nece a is at there is consolidation if “the partyor group that takes power

lidation when the party elected on the first democratic election turns turns election democratic first the on elected party the lidation when

authors (Hague, Harrop, Breslin, 2001) believe that we can talk can we talk believethat Breslin, 2001) Harrop, (Hague, authors […] n

political science political d obody can be sure what it means to others, but all all but others, to means it what sure be can obody

model of transition that consists: 1) the end of of end the 1) consists: that transition of model ase of democratic transformation transformation democratic of ase 16 her inher 36). some way.”(1998: comprehensible “ - (described by Huntinghton) by (described e accidentalth transforming of process the Pippidi 2005, 16). Furthermore Pippidi 16). 2005,

concept and elaborated Whitehead, 1986)

mocratic proponents) when when proponents) mocratic

that enjoys that in the initial election at the time

that happened in in happened that

no unanimous

– , Schmitters Schmitters , transitology. transitology. democratic democratic CEU eTD Collection level the isandlast the consolidation democratic institutions” The of (Merkel, 14). 2008: with actors vet potential political informal the whether deciding in crucial is 2 and 1 levels at consolidation landmajor capital owners, […] andbusiness, radicalmovementsSuccess group. with info “is the consolidation) where ( 3 level In mesolevel. the is This 1. level in established rules and norms the practicing are and they group interest and parties political are mainactors The aggregation. representative consolidation is 2 Level structures. of level the level: macro level this calls He judiciary). and president, government, (parliament, institutions political main of establishment the to refers he called 1 Level consolidation. of democratic graduation In Merkelsociety words, other go through. an es giv a and state stages that to levelsin according four consolidation democratic positive he divided in version positive elaborated and consolidation negative and positive the between legitimacy of democracy Merkel, (in 100). 2009: alternati any see citizens no and legitimate, is system when whole the consolidated positively is system The political democracy). to alternative systematic no is (there institutions democratic outside for interests seeksone’s actor when relevant no consolidated negatively are democracies that argues politicians participate and citizens, that in democratic governance“ 241). (2003: persons by those accepted voluntarily and practiced regularly known, reliably are that competition and cooperation relations of into from autocracy transition the during emerged have that solutions contingent and norms prudential arrangements, Wolfgang Merkel, one of the giants of comparative politics, adopted the distinction distinction the adopted politics, comparative of giants the of one Merkel, Wolfgang between between differentiates Pridham Geoffery o power will pursue their interests inside, outside, or against democratic norms norms democratic against or outside, inside, interests their will pursue power o where the focus the where rmal actors operate operate actors rmal 17

positive and negative consolidation. He He consolidation. negative and positive is on the interest representation and and representation interest the on is –

ve to democracy – democracy ve to potentially ones, such as armed forces, forces, such armed as ones, potentially

ideal type preview of chronological c . It It consolidationonstitutional .

or collectivities, i.e. i.e. collectivities, or

political or societal societal or political they believe in the the in believe they

behavioral behavioral a way that that way a CEU eTD Collection Basically, 5). only 1997: all (Toka, citizens” to influence equal formally gives arena electoral i of in of representation stability degree certain if words, po In other arena. political the in policies proposing for legitimacy them gives which society, in groups certain r parties Political consolidation. indemocratic role have aprofound indeed parties formsocietyjust atinfluence andleast tend or to isit government politics) why clear political definitio vague a from consider2000) political being parties a crucial of constituent democratic Even consolidation. consolidation. democratic on impact system’s covering be will I that before but countries, two in those process in consolidation role the their and Serbia and in Croatia political parties to can Consolidation as aFactor ofDemocratic System andParty 2.2.1 PoliticalParties consolidation. democratic the of multidimensionality and complexity show categories All those democracy. s the and dimension institutional and behavioral Merkel’s typology, I wouldlike point to out that consolidation of democracyhas its norms as a result of the types three (Merkel, political of 2009). culture Keeping 2008, inmind values and three between balance and participatory); passive, (parochial, culture political of types three among balance in society; subcultures ideological between different balance socio political culture not neglect their impor their neglect not - cultural ground for democracy. This microlevel is characterized by three balances: balances: by three is characterized microlevel This democracy. for cultural ground Generally, authors (for instance: McAllister and White, 2007; Toka, 1997; Čular, Čular, 1997; Toka, 2007; White, and McAllister instance: (for authors Generally, myfrom unders parties political have excluded Although I

. Here civil society is starting to be consolidated; civic culture civic consolidated; be to starting is society civil Here . n of political parties (stable organizations that represent some part of part some represent that organizations (stable parties ofn political

tance for the political system. In the part of case studies I will refer will refer I studies case of part the In system. political the for tance litical parties fulfi parties litical l their role as populous representatives, there is a there representatives, role populous as l their 18

nterests. Gabor Toka considers that “only the the “only that considers Toka Gabor nterests.

the theoretical overview of parties’ of overview theoretical the ynthesis of both is the key for maturing maturing for key is the both of ynthesis tanding of civil society, I I society, civil of tanding

becomes a a becomes

and party party and epresent epresent

CEU eTD Collection ofwriting thisthesis still is not a 13 democratic with inaccordance more are competition political of ways transparent, more promoting. are are they aware more politics of the voters and spectrum ideological domestic the in position their strengthen parties national parties, family European some well as politics national the for but Union, European the someideology (Christianity,federalism, Euro operat that parties of political set the refers to It well. as created space was party aEuropean parliament, and Union European the of creation With the families. party European creating elected. they get programimplicationsifin thethat understand of arena political party and position the the programs and those familiar are with Electors now istransparent. that program a political b individuals are of certain interests particular all, Above representation. interest regarding political stability which create interests, diverse represent that parties of politi proliferation means authoritarianism abandoning that is perception ageneral There politics. influencinginlegal they ways haveand values,because practice policies defined parties pro institutionalized, that is in country some system When party the relationship. democracy of consolidation ideathe of equality. reflect who ones l the they are process, electora of the mainactors the are parties that considering and equality political ensures process electoral the example, example,

to be a be to have not does Country policies are becoming becoming are policies party in that a way consolidation democratic impacts All this t point last The parties infeature political the is aprime systems of party Institutionalization the the cal options, therefore political parties. In institutionalized party system there are are there system party institutionalized In political parties. therefore cal options, e on the European level,mostlymade up of nationalformed parties and around Croatian Democratic Union is a member of

o note is the the is note o duces a certain degree of stability. People know what to expect expect to what know People stability. of degree acertain duces n n

EU member in order to some party is amember of European partyfamily. For EU member.

current trend of E of trend current

19 scepticsm etc.). Their importance is not just for for just not is importance Their scepticsm etc.).

the

European People's Party Croatia and at the moment uropeization of political parties and and parties political of uropeization 13 . By showing showing By . eing transformed intoeing transformed affiliation towards towards affiliation the the European European - CEU eTD Collection the about citizens educate organizations society civil capital) (social virtues civic learning the Through laws. accordingto act not does if government andsociety warns supervise government to society civil function allows which watchdog the po the of it because isdemocracy impartialindepen and (Schmitter, 2003: 240). Civil society its due to function can help in consolidation of are Positive Consolidation Society onthe Democratic ofCivil theEffects Arguments2.2.2 that country. of acertain consolidation democratic of and path the nature the identify can we culture) (political country of acertain context we as violence level of and ethnic conflicts but andelites), actors Merkel (political by described those mostly factors: internal be would category second The democracy). developing internationa instance (for support the international democracy), of consolidation the on surroundings ofimpact the (the context categ first The in categories. factors two those divide can we that argue would I 2009). Schneider, to (according system electoral coordination and strength of opposition, civil society,judiciary, economic development or consolidation influence democratic could that factors other factor insufficient a but necessary of group representation the and system political in the stability more is and there overall narrowed individuals are of interests particular rules, ll. Depending on those factors (and the strength of each of them), as well as the political political the as well as them), of each of strength (andthe factors those on ll. Depending “Civil society society “Civil are parties political 1997) Toka, (in emphasized Scully and Mainwaring as However, litical regime t regime litical l market aspect (if we accept the assumption that market economy helps in in helps economy market that assumption the (if accept we aspect market l contributes to but does not cause the consolidation of democracy” democracy” of consolidation cause the not does but to contributes democratic for is responsible hat European Union andits funds for developing democracy) or for democratic consolidation. for

ory would be external factors such as regional such as regional factors external orybe would 20 dent from the state, but it can s is more effective. s effective. more is

development. One of the functions is is functions the of One development. : the the function of socializ of function type of the previous regime, regime, previous of the type

Hence, there are several several are there Hence, not take the role role the take not ation and and ation

CEU eTD Collection Source: 1800. since regimes authoritarian decreasing while parallel of democracy, number of increasing the of trend general identify case we 1 Figure the In itself. democratize t it starts time over was, aregime strict how matter No democracy. of consolidation the before comes society civil efficient why is reason the 1) Figure (see democracy towards final word. the have who ones the are people is regime a authoritarian how matter no and state the before the is assumption last the view, of point my From socie civil efficient or society, civil vibrant participation. active on them stimulating by community political the with individuals for civil societ Moreover, in game town”. become“the only to democracy help and deliberation) toleration, (participation, virtues democratic of advantages , while , theredemocracies is constantly atrend raises decreasing of number autocracies of Figure 1– an democracy is consolidated is debate: open an There I woul I -

http://www.systemicpeace.or

d argue that instabilityd argue that historicaland authoritariantheir of regimes tendency Global trends governance, in 1800- g/polity/polity1.htm tyis a conditionfor consolidation of democracy? 21

accurate 2008 (

it suggests the number that of y helps building the identification identification the building y helps one . I believe that society comes comes society that believe I . necessity

for efficient and

)

o CEU eTD Collection donors. There is a fear that they will promote interests of those donors because they because depe donors of interests those promote isthey will that fear There a donors. and Central the in those (especially organizations society. civil Weimar is the democracy community. One of themost for badthe inherent is particular which but people, of general the the will not promote do he Contract, The Social are Negative Consolidation Society onDemocratic ofCivil theEffects Arguments2.2.3 that processes. inlater the roles civil plays distinctive seewe that society making, institution with democratic starts consolidation that argument Merkel’s accept if we semi or authoritarian the during mobilized be can society civil how show examples Those in democratization. resulted that movements social and people of mobilization the prevent not did that oppressed, been has society civil and liberties the se countries there were authoritarian regimes (to different extents) and even thou andeven extents) different (to regimes authoritarian were there se countries on, thereis the additi possibleIn problem offoreign donors. Civilsociety Arguments on the negative impact of impact negative the on Arguments lately have we inLikewise, beenchange regime witnessing 420) message party's the spread pro n dense The leaders“. their and organizations these class middle the of troops radicalized the Instead headed. traditionally had elites old which the andright center the of organizations political be channe to ceased energies ho and with disenchanted more and more became middle class "Asit. the it subverted in but fact virtue, republican to possible that democracy collapses with vibrant vibrant with collapses democracy that it was possible how demonstrates Republic vided the Nazis with cadres of activists who had the skills necessary to to necessary skills the had who activists of cadres with Nazis videdthe

Not only did participationin civilsociety organizationsfail contribute to

Weimar Weimar claims that all partial associations weaken democracy because they they because democracy weaken associations all partial that claims Republic. Berman in her article on the role of civil society in the society of role civil article the in on her Berman Republic.

famous examples of the negative effect of civil society on on society of civil effect negative of the famous examples

and increase recruitment. increase and l ed

into proto political proto into and party organizations 22

civil society date from Rousseau. I Rousseau. from date society civil

East are East Europe) financedoften by foreign stile towards the republic, their their republic, the towards stile - etworks of civic engagement authorit

(Berman, 1997: 417 and (Berman, 417and 1997: arian regimes. In addition, addition, In regimes. arian

Tunisia and and Tunisia

deserted deserted

n his book book his n Egypt gh civil . In In . nd nd CEU eTD Collection caring caring about the other groups' interests. Serbia was a part discours public wasof apart the Serbia in Croatia state the on of society civil impact negative of the promotion We see that and will less or 14 democratic (rightor in “usually that a category is society Uncivil society. uncivil and civil between distinction is There a presented. critiques of some the on answer can and of society civil concept the state cooperate with willingform to minority not exclusive groups way to ininterestscultural that or linguistic ethnical, promote or governments democratic of legitimacy lowering thereby diverse civilsociety makes theformation of definedit as depends onthe bargaining power societ and civil government of the relationship the because system balance is check no there and Basically, interests. by particular those influenced willbe t isa threat there interests particular and promote can elected not is society policy the and government the on influence strong goal ofsubverting thenationhood of and Croatia the with donors international of puppets as society civil present to trying were elites political in and happened Croatia as willsee, we This scenario, on resources. their

cludes organizations that use achieve organizations violencecludes that into groupsnon order with goals their or For example u example For

more are democracy on impact society’s civil the of sides negative all those However, Besides those arguments there are several more that Schmitter (1993) emphasizes: emphasizes: (1993) Schmitter that more several are there arguments those Besides Finally, I exaggerated and they mostly ignore contextual and real effect of civil society actors. actors. society of civil effect real and contextual ignore mostly and they exaggerated

nions who can have a big influence on government and promote workers' interest without without interest workers' promote and government on influence big a have can who nions

would point out the distinction that is rarely used when writing about the the about writing when used rarely is that distinction the out point would - wing)ideas” extremist (Kopecky& Mudde, 3). 2003:

e, but with one goal – goal one with but e,

majority more difficult, lengthy, and precarious, precarious, and lengthy, difficult, more majority 23 14 .

- making process. Due to the fact that civil fact that the to Due makingprocess. Serbia. Hence, civil society can have a a have can society civil Hence, Serbia. to gainto electoral support. y is not and can and not yis

hat government government hat Serbia, where where Serbia, not be be not

- CEU eTD Collection a as transformation democratic can we define that argue I democracy. of consolidation and hybridregime regime, authoritarian the of end the phases: general of three consists Thesis of the Context the in Consolidation Democratic and Change Regime 2.4. social movement politicalwhich that suggests are opportunities Structure Opportunities Political III: Concept 2.3. structure as “ as structure end. the to beginning the from movement social some of the window which is opened and some actors jump into the room through that window. that through room the into jump actors some and opened is which window the of metaphor the is theory this explains that metaphor The be used. can that opportunities political ordinarythe people. social movement’s leaders a argues that Tarrow his approach. as voluntarism introduces way in and that movements change. social initiate someand/or political of kind to of seesgroup the opportunity people who is 85). 1998: The(Tarrow, point failure” or success for expectation their by affecting action collective undertake people to political opportunity“dimensions provide as of that environment political forincentives struggle I am adopting Merkel’s understanding of the regime ch regime the of understanding Merkel’s amI adopting P

This theory suggests th suggests theory This

olitical opportunity is a theory primarily used for the analysis of social movements movements social of analysis the for used primarily theory a is opportunity olitical that encourage people to engage in contentious politics” (1998: 85). Hence, he sees Hence,he sees 85). (1998: politics” inengage people contentious to encourage that He introduces elites as a vital factor of the co of the factor vital a as elites introduces He M of this theory is Sydney Tarrow ost famous Sydney is proponent theory this of consistent s . This is a political a is This .

but not necessarily formal or permanent - permanent or formal necessarily not —but

interpret the complex social movement’s nexus and promote it to to it promote and nexus movement’s social complex the interpret at there has to be some breaking point, some event that creates creates some that event be somepoint, has to breaking at there

that -

procedural approach that the observes that approach procedural when a political system starts to be vulnerable, there is a a is there vulnerable, be to starts system apolitical when 24

the main factors that determine that factors main the

ntention in the analyses of of analyses the in ntention ange (1999) as a process that that as aprocess (1999) ange

dimensions of the political political the of dimensions

who defines political political defines who

process offorming

success of some some of success social

CEU eTD Collection in and cases the of Croatia demonstrated willbe approach of this application The practical consolidation. democratic for keybeingthe 200 Antolić, a that authors are There transformation. democratic of dynamic influence the ability society to has the that in direction goes the myargument Therefore, opportunities. of political concept Sydney Tarrow’s introduce I Here consolidation. of democratic process the of for beginning the window the opens that junction critical regi hybrid a of factors authoritarian of rejection

critical junction is not enough for the beginning of democratic consolidation (Pavlović, (Pavlović, consolidation democratic of beginning the for enough not is junction critical 7) but mostlyauthors that b elong to this transition focus o focus transition this to elong Serbia. 25

abideby a me. Hence, there has to be some kind of of kind some be has to there me. Hence,

different approach, believing that believing approach, different n political institutions political n

CEU eTD Collection was succesfully integrated into the nationalist regime. left semi institutionalized highly was a Croatia andsemi apparatus repressive Serbia byinMilošević's was1990sestablished will we the later that see differences, to comes - state facedwith were Serbia an Croatia Hence, heritage. revolutionary of preservation the and socialism management bothhad 590), command self countries 2008: with economy, (Zakošek, experience integrati “ were Serbia fact thatthe besides similarities; Croatia noticed. Regarding be should Serbia which and differen clearly are life. There social and political while become have nominally dem These countries formed. were countries 15 Time 3.1 did as perspectives same from and the society state Serbian the 1990- period in time the society civil of analysis of nature regime, the points: three on focusing Afterwards,1990s. will I examine theCroatian political and social arenain am I offering countries, those of dynamics political understand to order in Firstly, contexts. specific two in the society civil

There was no extreme right as an autonomous political force in Croatia for a lon - populism CHAPTER 3: CROATIA 3: CHAPTER AND STUDIES CASE SERBIA:

2000 and the context ofin parliamentary elections In 2000. will the thirdI part analyze in reality reality in In the region of South East Europe, after the dismantling of Yugoslavia, som of dismantling the after Europe, East South of region the In discuss will I the part this In on into the European market before the foundation of common Yugoslav state“ state“ Yugoslav common of foundation the before market European the into on - space C space 15

predominantly agrarian and experienced only partial modernization and and modernization partial only experienced and agrarian predominantly (Zakošek, 2008: 509). Besides in 509). 2008: (Zakošek, that, many

ontextualization of of the former regime reminiscences regime former the

- building and war approximately at the same time. When it it When time. same the at approximately war and building a legal net legal

time

- case space contextualization of the Balkans area in the early in early the area Balkans of the space contextualization works withworks extreme andleft right populism, while s of of -

presidential country without extreme right and and extreme right without country presidential 26

Croatia and and Croatia

ces and similarities between between similarities and ces Croatia there was more political political more was there Croatia Serbia

in the Croatian case. in Croatian the were still represented in the represented still were

and demonstrate the role of of role the demonstrate and ger period of time because it ocracies over ocracies the the Croatia and

1990s by 1990s by e new e new night

d - , CEU eTD Collection 16 Lojze with DEMOS party by in (while Tuđman Franjo was Croatia of Republic Federal in governance the over took Union Democratic elections has caused tensions, th devaluation of percent 100% and development inindustrial the of 18% a drop caused that reform economic began the in domination pr that against was Serbia but elections Yugoslavian next the on procedure electoral democratic more demanded representatives Slovenian and Croatian the 14 Yugoslavia.January Atthe end1990at of of Rights for Politi and Liberties Civil of results House's Freedom value of (approximate freedom lbdn ioei) though Milošević) Slobodan of remandedpart Croatia of president the won FranjoTuđman 1992 In 25. June on Parliament i Slobodan Milošević who had been changing his positions of the president of of president the of positions his changing been had who Milošević Slobodan several protests. organized active and in actions many so contentious not were While in politics. in contentious manifested inculture is political the difference ndependence from

www. freedomhouse Generally

were held were Croatia 1991- Yugoslavia. At the same time, in addition, Yugoslavian minister of finance finance of minister Yugoslavian addition, in time, same the At Yugoslavia.

speaking the year the speaking .org/uploads/fiw/FIWAllScores.xls country named named country

Yugoslavia occurred Yugoslavia and the communist party was defeated party was communist the and the the , a economic and political crisis political and economic 2000 was while 4:4, Serbian were 6:5.5 results

function

in 1992

Slovenia). In Slovenia). of minister prime first the as Peterle e currency. All this e currency.

he held he Federal Republic o Republic Federal

1990 is considered to be the year of the collapse of of beyear collapse of the to the is1990 considered

changed changed

in in until until the the 27 1991, declared, aby referendum, after 1991, the early 1990s, Serbian civil society was more more was society civil Serbian 1990s, early Croatia, the president of the Presidency of the the of Presidency the of president the Croatia,

Serbia Serbia time, same the At he died. when 1999 its its

, enforced bynationalisms enforced , and ethnical the first presidential elections, becoming elections, presidential first the

th the name into into name the of

League of Communist Yugoslavia, of f - Yugoslavia

1991 Slovenia the same thing was done done was thing same the Slovenia

in both cou both in both both oposalin order not to loseits in in Serbia and Croatia and and Croatia

16 FRY (with P (with FRY ntries ). Equally important Equally). . The Croatian Croatian The . Serbia Serbia Croatia there there Croatia Montenegro. Montenegro. Slovenia Croatia, Croatia, r and the the and esident esident cal cal

CEU eTD Collection regime. political of the see into nature the order in 1990s the at situation look Croatian the let’s Thus civil human, of protection the with but elections general and free were there where democracy defective of a type as 1990s inthe Croatia that opinion the am of I Union). Democratic Croatian the to attached politicians (mostly claim thatin that time period Croatia wasnothing more and nothingsome while less 1999), than true (Kasapović, democracy elements authoritarian some are there that but exaggeration, 2 of the decade Political 3.2 anti Every disagreement was presidents with two those some policy proposedduring 1998- by Tuđman or Miloševićto fleefrom Kosovo an was presented Albanians thousand400 inducedabout had policies Milošević’s 1993, of end “bythe saythat as Data Kosovo. on Albanians the with problem special a had Milošević 2005:161). (Rahmet, – authoritarianism asoft generally Milošević, on the other Slobodan state. the of enemies as the seen often nations were in other which Croats hand, described saw Tuđman Franjo by nationalists. were Sell“was an odd kind of dictator… [H]is waselections. in the parliamentary defeated he was 2000when till FRY governing president was of - state propaganda with the goal of destroying destroying goal propaganda of with the state CROATIA: Institutional and Structural Analysis of Croatian Croatian of Analysis Structural and Institutional CROATIA: the of the nature the about debates open are There they Firstly, similarities. several had sides, different on though even presidents, These

- (1990 System 9“ (Rahmet, 2005: 162). 162). 2005: The9“ similar second (Rahmet, characteristic (during the 0th century. Some consider it authoritarian (Pusić, 1998), others believe this is thisbelieve others 1998), itauthoritarian(Pusić, consider Some century. 0th d provide 000Albanians of anby estimate 12 forces the killed Serbian that they created they that 2000) at least until shortly before the 1999 war with NATO”. withwar NATO”. 1999 the before until least shortly at

Croati

there was no strong opposition. opposition. strong no was in there the polity which 28 a as an independent and nationalistic entity of of entity nationalistic and independent an as a

Croatia and and Croatia or minoritylackingor rights (Merkel, 1999). Croatian political system in the last last the in system political Croatian Serbia. Serbia.

1990s) of of 1990s)

CEU eTD Collection of system. party and structure the regulated Political Parties and 3.2.1 Electoral Systems fromcontrol Kasapović,expression21- and(adapted 2001: absolute i last Croatia. The against were CDU the with not was who everyone that meant which nationhood, with Union Democratic Croatian of the equalization the to due opposition efficient and of effective wanted. he as govern to legitimacy presentingfounderhimselfindependent of Croatia the the as which had given him a that time and president of the prisonersfrom and refugee political communist veterans, with them surrounded CDU minorities). (especially rights i company, broadcasting national the controlling were they positions, state with support their ( party - is charismatic feature the e second Th president. the of facto was de parliament that She argues majority. andparliamentary president the among harmony is first the The president. of role Croatia was the 2000 till in politics Croatian mainactor because the important iswhich was created the new constitution was adopted. By that constitution the semi - liberal limiting and agencies security national misusing judiciary, the nfluencing the the Perhaps the best indicator of the nature of political system is the way the elections are are is way elections the the system ofnature political ofindicator the best the Perhaps npresident. Mirjana Kasapović be should system political Croatian the of analysis This Croatian Democratic Union). CDU was governing in a way that they were buying buying were they that way a in governing was CDU Union). Democratic Croatian s the structure of the actor (president Tuđman) who had a tendency towards Bosnia Franj and Herzegovina. Croatian Democratic Union, had a strong charisma and was was and charisma a strong had Union, Democratic Croatian

The third feature of the key role of president was the lack lack was the of president key of the role feature The third (2001)

the the andgovernment legislature, 29 , identifies, four institutional features of the key

clientelistic nature of the governing governing of nature the clientelistic o Tuđman,Croatiano presidentat gin - presidential political system system political presidential

with December 1990 when 1990when December with 25).

executive “service” “service” executive democratic democratic CEU eTD Collection 17 Croatia from segmented 1992- (in features proportional has of kind some that system of factor the electoral important assureman enough that of fear the of because Moreover, in Croats the extending by legislative in possible as seats The logical more becomechanges those But 27). 2001: (Kasapović, in as fundamental so and often so system electoral of changes were where there pol inthe wrong something is there that sign a is decade inone changes four that notice could inpsephology any knowledge without Even aperson parliament. national for representatives when They kept the segmented system,but it wasmodified the elections parliamentary the just before 1995 e segmented by the replaced in1992 was that majority) (absolute system electoral majority 2000) sub a was systems) electoral and law (electoral thing first the case In of the Croatia state. the and society linkbetween visible most indeedthe Systems 3.2.1. 1 Electoral 8%, for the coalitions of more than two unit parties 11%). Aselectoral well, new the from sixty to twenty eight mandates, and threshold was increased form 3% to 5% (for coalitions of two parties to three (Zakošek, 2002). thirteen from of mandates number decreased was there representatives Serbian to and mandates, twelve the with lectoral system (sixty electorates) with D’Hondt’s method of calculation of mandates. In mandates. of of method calculation with D’Hondt’s electorates) lectoral (sixty system

The number of the electo of the number The itical system of that kind. Hence, “there is no new democracy in Central and East Europe Europe East and inCentral newno is democracy “there Hence, kind. that of system itical Croatian Democratic Union (responsible for 75% of changes) wanted to win offormany 75% changes)as to Croatian wanted Democratic Union(responsible Croatia changed four main types of electoral systems. In the 1990ssystems. the In main electoral of fourCroatia types changed Croatia The electoral system, a set of rules and methods of transforming votes into seats into votes of transforming methods andof aset rules system, The electoral Bosnia and Herzego and Bosnia the the

the of the wish the indicated in1992 reform electoral introduced introduced ae fr omn gvrmn (aaoi, 01 3) Mroe, an Moreover, 31). 2001: (Kasapović, government forming for dates

rates was increased form sixty to eighty, the representative segment was decreased decreased was segment representative the eighty, to sixty form increased was rates winner takes itall the the

1999) is 1999) the the sizeof structure electoral and consti

the of the voters traditional they were because vina) proportional electoral system as a method of electing asof amethod system electing electoral proportional 30 electoral system perhaps in future wouldfuture in electoral perhaps system

general suffrage to suffrage general CDU changed the electoral system again. again. system electoral the changed CDU ject of major change. In ten years (1990 years ten In change. major of ject 17 . . The last change happened in 2000

if we know their background. background. their know we if CDU for staying in for stayingCDU charge

the –

diaspora was introduced diaspora (mostly to Croatia had Croatia tuencies. It Croatia“ Croatia“ CDU. CDU. not not , is is , a -

CEU eTD Collection ofprocess establishing stabilityin support of the popular parties and of domination the transition – phase this of issue main was the that for The reason voters. of attitudes and values and parties of preferences policy between correlation biggest the paradoxically, was, there 1991) (1989 stage first the In competition. of stage the and phase stabilization stage, formative Croatian Party of Right) had a coalition potential (Čular, 2001). Democrat Social five he that only of them argues ( Furthermore in politics. 2000 eighty political parties were registered but onlyfew themhad of anyinfluence of kind Party People’s Croatian the (like parties new political andcompletely Right) of Party Croatian the Party or Peasant Croatian the (in parties of tradition historical some renewed have that parties are parties of types of emergedout that Party Social was the Democratic actor important Another nationhood. and independence ex is an Croatian Democraticof Union, by the a dominance in 1990s determined was the 3.2. democracy. aconsolidated not was that time, Consideringall those changes of electoralsystem we can claim, with certainty that at Croatia, of regardless constituents in the divided is whymajority. That assure into the order electorates the manipulated Union a is ample of the party that was created from the social movement that was demanding Croatian was demandingCroatian that from movement social the was created party the that of ample

1.2 Political Parties and Party Systems and Party 1.2 Parties Political well The same author proposes three phases of the party system development, namely namely development, system party the of phases three proposes author same The polity Croatian parties. is political system of political factor important most The other

know from communism to democracy. The second phase was characterized by the by the characterized was phase second The democracy. to communism from n the ic the Party, the the fact (Vrcan, 1995 and 1999; Veljak, 2000) that the Croatian Democratic Croatian Democratic the that 2000) Veljak, 1999; (Vrcan,fact 1995and old communist structure evenlostit the 1990 electcommunist structure though old Croatian Socio Croatian ). Goran Čular writes that in the time period of 1989

the official administrational unit or inhabitants. inhabitants. or unit administrational official the - the the Liberal Party, 31

the the Croatian Democratic Union, Union, Democratic Croatian Croatian Peasant Party and Peasant Croatian

Croatia was was Croatia ions. Other Other ions. Croatia Croatia CDU. CDU. the the the the - -

CEU eTD Collection war for independence. His independence. for war 19 18 - para of this creation called so the forming clean ethnically wanted Tuđman 598). 2008: (Zakošek, Croatia” in minority Serbian the to given previously power all “rejected Tuđman resentment. connotations. he again later years Five Croatia. of of Republic president the became officially and elections presidential direct won Tuđman F. constitution, the of changing after 1992, In Croatia. of Republic Federal of 60% than multi first the were there the modus operandi Tuđmanandhis 3.2.2 Franjo as well options real policy becoming are parties opposition the though Even e the isend 1995) of a of and phase confrontation cooperation with due to stage In opposition. this system party predominant the as described be can This phase “Croatian post as civil war (mostly Serbs), while in Croatia the official name is Homeland War. Some foreign (Cular, 2001 taken from Sartori, 1977).

There is di a is There m an absolute has party One Croatia. In April and May 1990 1990 MayApril and in In Croatia. figure 1990s the of a central Croatia was of Republic nd of war, oppositionstarts be to more visible and oppose Tuđman’s andCDU’s regime. There are several characteristics of Tuđman’ of characteristics several are There - (1922 Tuđman Franjo Yugoslavian war”. war”. -Yugoslavian Croatia and and Croatia between happened that war the about terminology in fference

seats Croatia. Serbs were discriminated and marginalized, which resulted in in resulted which marginalized, and discriminated were Serbs Croatia. CDU is still the strongest and most influential political party in party political influential most and strongest the still is CDU

and and state can be considered as the background of Homeland War of Homeland background canas the bestate considered won won Krajna rno umn o apitd s the as appointed got Tuđman Franjo - ajority of mandates, total control of executive without need of forming coalitions party party elections in which the the

political orientation was democ was orientation political

presidential elections. He was in charge of incharge was He elections. presidential 1999), a1999), former general, communist andfirst president of the (a state in a state where there was a Serbian majority). The The majority). aSerbian was where there instate a state (a

- sharing mechanisms and privileged veto powers mechanismsveto sharing and privileged 32

the the s regime. One of them is strong anti is strong of them One s regime. Croatian Democratic Union won more more won Union Democratic Croatian

hristianity (Čular, 2001). 2001). (Čular,

18 president o president . The third stage (starts at the

with strong nationalistic nationalistic strong with f the Presidency of f of Presidency the Serbia. Serbia. Croatia during the Croatia the during

S 19 ome refer i refer ome .

ers call it it call ers Croatia, Croatia, - Serb Serb t to CEU eTD Collection corporativism, with complementary is culture political of type this Hence, government). come central from the that andall rules to decisions subjected (people were culture political subject a was there inCroatia (1963) cultures political of classification Verba’s and Almond account into taking moreover culture, civic developed no was there Croatia in that can we conclude Therefore (55). with [CDU]…” HDZ cooperate to which extent (2007) “ Bijelić & Fisher by written was period time that in opposition Croatian describes that sentence best the opposition, the to it Whencomes state. the and of society aspect policies. win wi elections to no possibility was there wrote andVrcan 1999) (1995 o perspective from the unacceptable thewarning marginalized was about in position of SerbsCroatia of asingleis suggestion against whoever narrative: simple very a had Tuđman 1998). (Pusić, version cultural the into transformed it governance CDU’s and time over but version, first the as started nationalism Croatian religion). with bonded clo authoritarian, (xenophobic, nationalism cultural and Rousseau) and movement Croatian traditionemphasizes two types ofnationalisms – Croat – andSerbs Croats between by antagonism the was shaped that thing other was one There development. Croatian slowed 1991) happened(in that war t openness tourism, successful livingstandards, high by relatively it was characterized as transition, One of the central questions for Croatia’sfor questions central the of One oppos ian politician and university professor ofSociology of politicsin her analysis of In the 1990s Serbs had the status of state enemies. Crimes against Serbs or even a a even or Serbs against Crimes enemies. of state status had the Serbs 1990s In the successful for prospective very good hada Croatia perspective From comparative the

In total, Croatian society was faced with the fear and “croatization” of ever fear“croatization” and facedwith the was society Croatian In total, owards owards f the Croatian president (Veljak, 2000). Human rights were not a priority and as apriorityas and not were Human rights 2000). (Veljak, president f Croatian the the the West (in Yugoslavia Croats were ones who could travel abroad) but but the abroad) couldtravel who ones were Croats Yugoslavia (in West 33

ition during the 1990s was whether and to liberal (grounded inliberal (grounded Enlightenment his or or his the the nationalism. Vesna Pusić, Pusić, Vesna nationalism. CDU is against Croatia. against is CDU th human rights rights human th sed society, society, sed y single y single

: CEU eTD Collection 20 pro were 56). 2007: Bijelić, & (Fisher Republic” the “subverting was purpose whose ones as beingthe in public imagea negativeof NGOs promoted putting obstacles the to development of the civil society. The Croatian Democratic Union in there wasno efficient civilsociety. is It important to keep inmind two factors of civilsociety - non visible merely and intellectuals several Besides roles. its of all fulfilling been have not could emphasizes that Croatian polity wasnot liberal suggests the 1990s of society civil of 2) Croatian (2000: the1990s inCroatia in 3.2.3 Civil Society newspapers dared speak that to upagainst the ruling party – independent some were there control, government’s the under still stayed newspapers daily important company most the and broadcast e national th While president. the and party ruling the criticize occasionally and becomefreer to started media slowly time At that 56). 2007: countr theto treat the real any perceived longer no people fro itself distance to started public Croatian “The change. society (Veljak, 2000). believing in tradition and radical glorified. publishing beenhave newspapers Croatian bulletinsthe Democratic which Tuđman and and in were Union the government. Organization like that enjoyed privileges Pašalić Ivić advisor closest Tuđman’s was president whose Organization for the Children of Croatia led by Tuđman's wife Ankica or Foundation of the C ability to promote their activities through different state companies and institutions.

There were some civil society organ society civil some were There Croatia: the first is that the NGO sector had a big problem with the rul the with bigproblem had a sector NGO the is that first the Croatia: governmental organiza The civil society arena in the early 1990s was very limited. Lino Veljak in his analysis analysis his in Veljak Lino limited. very was 1990s early the in arena society civil The Croatia won, so the circumstances slowly started to started slowly circumstances the so won, Croatia ended, inIn Croatia 1995the war

- democratization, and transparency and democratization,

tions and few independent mediaindependentfew infirst and half thetions of the 1990s

umn n CU ie Humanitarian like CDU and Tuđman to close were that izations nationalism that were the main values of the Croatian Croatian of mainthe were values the that nationalism 34 20 -

democratic at that time and that civil society society civil that and time that at democratic were not usually taken seriously by the seriously usually not taken were . In addition ,

such asserioussuch budgeting from the state and the tal organizations, that that organizations, tal Nongovernmen

the term “ term the the Croatian Democratic Union. Union. Democratic Croatian the y’s existence” (Fisher & Bijelić & (Fisher existence” y’s

m the nationalism, as ordinary ordinary as nationalism, m the various veteran associations supported supported associations veteran various reduced civil society“. He He society“. civil reduced

Organizations of sort that ing elite that was that elite ing roatian State Vow State roatian ,

CEU eTD Collection 21 didthat something unimaginable – Globus value. a freedom as promoted that newspaper and violence and war the against newspaper aweekly as mentioned, never succeeded in shutting down Feral Tribune he hard how matter no Tuđman, that was thing interesting The thinking. critical way satirical a In regime. Tuđman’s against openly was of themost important fac stopped. Tuđman Frano against articles andcolumns close byabought company to were newspaper InPresident. 1993this was one first The opposition. of voice the were media that other some were there But regime. the the that mentioned war. the inMostly,CSOs dealinghelpingvictims with the 1990s early were and campaigns antiwar of are attacking devils that yellow asgreen “Red, and collaborators and his Soros George he characterized inspeeches his of hence one Open Society, towards antagonized very was Tuđman course, Of tolerance. and democratization of values in role vital a played time that at Society Open his and Soros George actions. number offoreign donors that were giving moneyfor different community development vast is a there 2 inFigure be seen As can donors. byforeign financiered mostly were CSOs w reason was the That of society. civil sphere the towards state of the support financial the of Republic the of president the and government

In Croatian Croatian In Slobodna DalmacijaSlobodna It is worth noticing the role of media in Tuđman’s Tuđman’s in media of role the noticing worth is It

Slobodna Dalmacija

Croatian national broadcasting company was under the strong influence of influence of strong the under was company broadcasting national Croatian 21 tors in the media scene in inmedia scene the tors

where ther where

means Free Dalmatia. Dalmatia. Free means

it published the secret bank accounts of Tuđman’s wife wife Tuđman’s of accounts bank secret the published it e were articles that questioning the impeccability of the the of impeccability the questioning that articles e were 35

Croatia. Croatia. Croatia. It was the only newspaper that that newspaper was only the It Croatia. Feral Tribune

. In this context Arkzine context this In . was the first pol first the was Feral The second point was the lack of lackof was the point second The

was the voice of freedom and voice was freedom and of the Croatia. Earlier it has been been it has Earlier Croatia. Croatia” (Tuđman, 1996). (Tuđman, Croatia”

was considered to be one to was considered itical media in media itical listNovi the the

promoting the the promoting as aregional CDU so the the so CDU

was trying trying was should be be should Croatia Croatia hy CEU eTD Collection Telecommunicationsfor taking off the concession for the Radio 101, one of thesymbols of main the on 21 November in politics contentious politicalmoves. for legitimization as a Serbia of fear use the to difficult more it was so a threat as Serbs, more no were There quickly. 2000). from Veljak, (adapted activities andillegalhis president the themlinked with Ankica and

I would I When in civil thedevelop ended war to more 1995, society started organizations Aspects of Community Stubbs. AspectsSource: Development 2006.: of Contemporary in Croatia: Zagreb to protest against the decision of the National Council for Council against the National of the decision protest to Zagreb of square st Globalization, Neo-

1996, while F. Tuđman was inthe TuđmanwasF. while 1996, point out one event that definitely opened the way for democratization and and democratization for way the opened definitely that event one out point Figure 2- Croatia. That event is a protest of the support is OnRadio support of 101. of event That the theCroatia. a protest

Overview of foc Overviewof liberalization andNGO uses civil of society and donors foreign 36

USA, al USA, most 120thousand peoplemost gathered - isation

CEU eTD Collection process. political Croatian in society civil of role Neumann was heldin that Stiftung) Decembe can bein found on in seminar parties and the elections c of actions intensive, more later, for the atmosphere the created attempts those conferences, press and of complaint letters writing just were of reacting methods common most Nongov positions. socialeconomic and achieve better to in order mobilize workers tryingto Parliament. the in majority the lost finally Union in 2000when wouldcumulate that the actions the beginningof theCroatian Democratic was 101 Radio the for support of protest The Union. Democratic Croatian his and Tuđman shutting down the it Radio 101, was against the first protest the politicalFranjo of regime protest.decided This to collective decision showsthat this wa protest 21 the on Telecommunications, for Council of the decision the changed and session urgent an had that government bi the though Even the held. be would after day the that announced Čičak Zvonimir Ivan Committee”, Helsinki main second the to went peop concession, the lost had radio the that announced 101 Radio the on host the When hours. four twenty than less in organized was protest The restriction. media of freedom obvious the against demonstrate to Zagreb main 120000peopleinhandsthe strongly of that. against to square their candles with came – his ofadvisers one delegated and station the Croatia ivilsociety. The beginning ofstructuralization coordination and of civilin society Another crucial factor was the growing strength of the trade unions that had been been had unions that trade of the strength growing was the factor crucial Another ernmental organizations started to be more loud and proactive. Even though their loud bemore their though Even and proactive. to ernmental started organizations n urban culture and free thought. In 1996 Tuđman decided to shut down this radio radio thisdown shut to Tuđmandecided 1996 In thought. free and culture urban n square of Zagreb. of square At that time, the president of“The Croatian le started coming in the redaction, after that spontaneously spontaneously that after redaction, incoming the le started 37 r 1998 where there were discussions about the about discussions were where there 1998 r Ivić Pašalić to do that, but the citizens were were citizens the but that, do to Pašalić Ivić

Croatia byFriedrich (financed of November 1996people still s not only against g protest Croatia Croatia

CEU eTD Collection one that announces parliamentary elections (Orešić, 2010) (Orešić, elections parliamentary announces that one than stoppedhe governing country. In forty days – how long he was document one on in hospital, he sighed 23 22 Due elections. from the focus their moved which elites, party the between fractionalization was there Union Democratic Croatian In the hadbeen changed. structure political opportunity Sidney Tarrow’s termin rigid more became even groups some goals clear and any coordination Without chaos. had life. better a assure to competence Tuđman’s party doubt his and Tuđman that and to started people low of social growth welfare, significant yearslast ten without for the governing were pensions and standards living that of independence the and welfare life, economic better promising were low. CDU al was quite first when his time thehappened: voters support ofFor a revolutionary publicsupport thing discredit. the towards affection new Tuđman’s didtrust not sector society civilthe Center, the towards Right from the CDU of the discourse the in change the of indicator the been had that of all that thought some though Even CSOs. the half a and year next the In budget. state’s from the associations financingof the regulate was to goal whose Associations for es government the In 1998 pressures. foreign of because mostly sector, the society which resulted in defiance among people, especially civil society civil especially amongpeople, in defiance which resulted society the CSOs was born while Tuđman was alive, I think that he being alive would change the course of socio of course the change would alive being history. he that think I alive, was Tuđman while born was CSOs was acc muchto do withTuđman’s death. I partially agree with evaluation.his From my ofpoint view, Tuđamn’s death Gazivoda Tin Mr. founding that said of “

Itis interesting howfastall thiswas happening. Tuđmanwas admitted in the hospitalon November 1 In the interviewwith the coordinator of elerant ofelerant change social thatwas about to Even happen. the though idea of forming two important most At the end of 1999 (December) Tuđman died after a long illnesses. The party was in in was party The illnesses. long a after died Tuđman (December) 1999 of end the At the collect to trying was Tuđman approaching. were elections parliamentary The nongovernmental the to sensitive more be to started party ruling the passed, As time

ways had feelwayswhat people the ability using to wanted, demagogy they ology (Tarrow, 1998), that was the signal to the civil society that the the that society civilthe to signal was the that 1998), (Tarrow, ology

Glas 99“ mobilization and and activation of civil society did not have “ Glas 99“ one and of the most eminent civ m. But as we will see, they were not alone in that inthat alone not were they see, will we as m. But CDU was supporti CDU was 38

ng various events organized by the by the organized events various ng il society actor in Croatia, Croatia, in actor society il Croatia. Considering Considering Croatia. tablished the Office Office the tablished 23 . By. using -political st

since since 22 been been

the the

on on to to CEU eTD Collection opposition saw the opportunity president. due to the weakening 25 24 Union. Democratic Croatian by the brought results the on influences their and changes law 99). Glas of Bulletin the development ofbounds helpin Croatia conducting to fairfree citizens and – elections” poli of (“crisis “Glas was established 99” or Elections” Fair and Free for Coalition “Civic the is how That 2000. in elections the in turnout the increasing of goal (primary) the with campaign in electoral the participate would which coalition 114(later1999, twentyfiveformmorenongovernmental a join) will organizations decidto ed inhadas“appealing”little organizations something society money. May and In that 25 Croatia 3.2.3.1 GLAS99 in transition democratic for importance methods and goals, structure, their sketching briefly am I continuation the In argue. would I for democratic consolidation incentivevital a whichGONG, were In November 1999six opposition parties signed the: hands. own their into things take to opportunity its saw opposition the party, the in chaos the

Glas Glas Again, even I do not think that Tuđman’s illness and death was the real cause of this Declaration, I think that (LS) and the Istrian Democratic Assembly (IDS) (Fisher,Bijelić, (IDS) 2007:- 60 Assembly Democratic and the Istrian (LS) Party Liberal the (HNS), Party People’s Croatian the including parties, Pa liberal small three Peasants’ Croatian conservative the together grouped Four of the Coalition (HSLS), Party Liberal Social Croatian the and (SDP) Party Democratic Social Coalition of Two and the Coalition Whileof tthe Four. Coalition of Two included the established parties six the system, was proportional law purely a to electoral changed the that fact the to Due issues. policy various on agreed and HDZ partiesvowed to create common a government, promisednot to coalition form a with the

– “Declaration on the Fundamental Direction of Post of Direction Fundamental the on “Declaration 24

One of the first strategies of the “Glas 99” was to make citizens aware of the electoral electoral of the aware make was to citizens 99” “Glas of the strategies first One of the pro Slovakian the by Encouraged na initiatives, civil two were there 1990s the half of second In the voice in Croatian. in voice decided to try a similar thing. The problem was that civil society was not recognized recognized not civil was society was that The problem thing. asimilar try to decided

Croatia. Croatia.

- voting campaign, civil society organizations in in votingsociety civil campaign, organizations 39

- Election Activity” tical, socialand economic wo coalitions: the the coalitions: wo mely “Glas 99” and and mely99” “Glas 61) , in which the the which in , rty (HSS) with with (HSS) rty .

from from th

CEU eTD Collection porm oriao) Sna uoi (aktn codntr, n Krlk Dlć pbi relations (public Dilić Koraljka and coordinator), (marketing Vuković ( representative)” Sonja coordinator), (program New 2000! Think with your head! often mentioned often was change the for call the and common were government actual the of critiques The happen. it didis not that myimpartial, be opinion they“Glas would was that 99” within the agreement ( did” opposition political before well campaign preelection its begun had 99” “Glas that Itnoteworthy is important. were and elections why materialsfocused solely onvoter education,informing citizens of whohad the right to vote ﬂ brochures, as well as spots, 27 26 as projects and write do to autonomy the had fairfree elections and for declaration Citizens’ th organization society civil Hence, project. financial and but only territorial, not was decentralization, acting was 99” “Glas upon Gazivoda Mr. to according principle, c in was that main office the set and regions) bigCroatian (four committees coordination regional four elected Assembly authority. supreme was the vote hadone organization each to people. ordinary close briefly reality were tryingto political intellectuals that well educated “Glas 99” of the leaders the ordinaryin Thehappened thing same Croatia: people. movement’s leaders asocial argues that Tarrow approach. his as voluntarism introduces way inandthat Heincludes elites asvital a factor of the contentionin theanalyses of the socialmovements actionguides to byprospective created existing or m The campaign get harge in coordination of the campaign, public relations and project funding. The main funding. The relations and project in thepublic campaign, of coordination harge

The anthem of the anthem The “Tin Gazivoda, an employee of HHO, became director of the main office. He was joined by Darko Jurišić Jurišić Darko by joined was He office. main the of director became HHO, of employee an Gazivoda, “Tin “Gla constructed purposively [are] frames action “collective believes that Tarrow Sidney s 99” had a remarkable and highly developed structure. General assembly where structure. highly had anddeveloped remarkable a s 99” Fisher,Bijelić, 2007: 63). 26

campaign was the song Novo vrijeme (New time), slogans: Circle and you win! Happy Happy youwin! and Circle slogans: time), (New vrijeme Novo song the was campaign . -

out

interpret the comp the interpret - the - vote

yers and rock concerts for young people. Some o Some young people. for concerts rock and yers was run through“posters andbillboards, radiojingles, TV

lexsocial movement’s nexus and promote it to the 40

Fisher, B Fisher, ovement organizers” (Tarrow, 2010: 77). 2010: organizers” (Tarrow, ovement ijelić, 2007: 56). Even though the the though Even 56). 2007: ijelić, at have signed signed have at f the Glas 99 99 Glas f the 27

were were

CEU eTD Collection elections. Problems of coordination and justifiability of theforeign donation was another caus might public of attention extra every that afraid were they because 99” “Glas of activities media of the coverage allowedthe has not media usually controlled who problem was thehosti second The supervise. to bit difficult a were activities the so Croatia the all around scattered 149. They to were grew number which of organizations “Glas coalition was the 99” mindthat (Vijesnik, 1999 and coordination an interview).We of should bear problem in was a there sector. andsociety civil the opposition the of “friendship” stress the out to started influential, has ast “Glas 99” seeingthat after opposition, actions. ignored mostly company broadcasting national Croatian and newspapers FeralGlobus, Tribune ( media Some participate. to want not did politicians the of lots but candidates the among debates and tables round organizing were They citizens. the to try were They education. was the – message was clear The 2000!). head), se bori i Izađi were: slogans Time), (New was song theme The pensioners. on fourth a and organizations environmental third on youth, a onwomen, another on focusing groups: one four separate made upof of voters. mobilization and process electoral democratic they promote was that important the they wish, Zašto ste nam lagali? Zašto But there were some problems regarding the action. Tin Gazivoda pointed out out that pointed Tin Gazivoda action. the some regarding were there problems But were Programs society. Croatian in s main group divideduponthe “Glas was 99”

the the that le atmosphere ) helped in visibility of campaign, while the most influential influential most the while campaign, of visibility in helped ) (Why did You lie to us?) ing to make an electoral process more transparent and closer andcloser transparent more process make electoral an ingto it was time for the change. The key method of the “Glas 99” “Glas 99” of the method The key change. the for it was time

(Go (Go 41 government ( government

and fight), and fight), rong support and it has become very very become has it and support rong ,

and and Misli svojomMisli glavom Sretna NovaSretna 2000 C Novi list, Radio 101, Nacional, Nacional, 101, Radio list, Novi D U) created. The government The government created. U) ! (Happy New New ! (Happy e their lost in in lost their e Novo Vrijeme Novo

(Think your

The The

CEU eTD Collection donors however there were some attempts of influencing individual organizations (interview with T. Gazivoda). financial support uncon was donors and biggest the UK were and Netherland of Finland, embassies house, Freedom Democracy, for Empowerment 29 28 into option, stepped the new– phase development political of and Račan Ivica became minister prime The win. to opposition the with has resulted actors society civil of the campaign meaningfuland structured inreduction the popularity the of ledprogressive […] to government ofnature the media, authoritarian the the and services intelligence the of manipulation “The elections. the to go to voters the of 75% mobilize to it as anti perceiving of fear the of because 99” “Glas joined never GONG that mentioned be should It Law. a of intention its in managed GONG with politicians) contacts personal and commercials seminars, (posters, actions in is) still (and was r GONG’s headquarte and president. board executive elects which Assembly isGeneral authority highest GONG’s Jašić, to According 160). 2000: (Jašić, process electoral cond the securing rights, civil their about of citizens education elections, of observation for of citizens in inequities 3.2.3.2 GONG “Gl of obstructing in enough not was donors international the regarding regulation state’s strict to due problem

GONG In Zagreb and in 1998 it had thirteen regional offices. By successful lobbying successful andit organized By offices. regional had thirteen inZagreb and 1998

the interview Gazivoda Mr. with Ihavefound out Open Society that i In all, the results were fascinating. Campaigns of those two organizations su organizations two those of Campaigns fascinating. were results the In all, by a Februaryin 1997 “[Gong established was] – itionsfor the runningfairfree and in electionslevel and raising the of publictrust the

. Voting Monitor to Organized Citizens or izbore nadgledaju organizirano Građani “ Glas 99“ approximately got 1.5 million dollars for its activities. It is crucial to stress that this Croatia’s electoral system.” GONG was establish with the goals of mobilization mobilization of goals the with establish was GONG system.” electoral Croatia’s 29

- CDU. CDU. ditional, meaning that central o central that meaning ditional, doption proposals for free and fair elections into the Electoral Electoral the into fair elections and free for proposals doption

CDU” ( as 99” and their activities. andas 99” their Bartlett, 2003:Bartlett, 55). All enchased that, of by the 42

fficeof Glas99 was influenced not by wishes the of

group of NGOs eager to address the the address to eager of NGOs group consolidation. But this was not not was this But consolidation.

Croatia, by elect Croatia, nstitute, USAID, National National USAID, nstitute, 28 . However, that that However, .

ing the Left Left the ing cceeded cceeded

CEU eTD Collection 30 in before, thesis. my of a regime, hybrid term the use will I However, democracy. being for requirements minimal the even fulfill not it does that out point and authoritarianism (electoral) competitive call this like regimes partici could that opposition was an there administration, mediapublic and over control was governmental there though Even universal. not were and suspended often were liberties hence civil free, completely pa one or person one in concentrated was realjust power nominal was (the powers of separation hand, On other the society. in judiciary), and the legislature, (the powers of separation constitution, the had in Serbia the 1990s facts: following basedis the on conclusion My characteristics. authoritarian and democratic Serbia consider will 1990- period in time the regime political Serbian of Classification hard. as double it was in Serbia 1990s difficult, was 3.3 in society civil the only“Glas the havehelped did, 99”in andthey image GONG the changing negative of of 2008; 123). differ several were there 2008; Goati, 2002; Zakošek, 2008. The important feature 1990s Ithat would the emphasize is in that in Serbia

Witho SERBIA What was the institutional organization like inlike in Serbia institutionalthe organization was1990s? the What As mentioned the in system political Croatian the of rmination dete the that fact the accepted If we ut going into discussions upon it, I will

s there were nominal democratic institutions but they were under under were they but institutions democratic nominal were there in 1990s the Serbia Croatia and e and Croatia : Polity, Politics and the Nature of the Regime C Regime the of Nature the and Politics : Polity, s a middle step between authoritarianism and democracy due to the context context the to due democracy and authoritarianism between step middle s a Serbia there were elections on local and national level, as well as a civil acivil as as well level, national local and on elections were there Serbia ent “types of regime” (post regime” of “types ent

in the given time period as a hybrid regime, a regime with both both with aregime regime, hybrid as a period time in given the 2000 is a true challenge for political scientists political for challenge a true is 2000 mphasized the importance of civic education. importance mphasizedthe

pate in Levitsky Way (2002) elections. pate and parliamentary refer to refer rty), elections weremultiparty but fair not and totalitarian, pseudo democratic and tyrannical tyrannical and democratic pseudo -totalitarian, 43

on several texts several on

: Pavlović,: Antonić, 2007; Molnar, 30

. In this analysis I I analysis this In . hange – Molnar, Molnar, executive executive

CEU eTD Collection majority the from shift of idea The . 2001) (Goati, 5% of threshold a with system electoral 1993, external.allfollowing (1992, In elections something was system electoral an that feeling a had they so making policy this in participate (absolutemajority). This type of electoralsystem favors major parties. Opposition did not - two system a in as political parliamentary Serbian 1990) elections by “imposed” was communism of collapse the after system electoral first The of change. lots to subject 3.3.1.1 Political Pa and 3.3.1 Electoral Systems limited. were in members parliament government of the andresponses interpellation be problem wouldagree to I What specificity. as aSerbian feature this interpret not is would That Breslin, I why 2001). proposesgovernment 90% around lawsof – parl weak of as the asign government from the laws came 90% of the that fact sees the He controversial. somewhat seems suggests Molnar that point third The all. laws propose at not did committees parliamentary and party was procedures of rule The parliamentary parliaments. non was feature second The obedience. complete assure to order in wished he as party his from MPs change could Milošević meaning independent, firstin 1990s: the weaknesses parliament in Serbian the of dimensions are three there argues that 91) (2008; Molnar body. legislative of this weakness fragilitthe popular most the be to sketch to laws. Just representbring citizensis andin to institution goal whose democracies considered is Parliament Milošević. Slobodan of influence the Croatia ininit was the 1990s, system in Serbia as electoral the Croatia it to When comes Electoral System Serbia I am presenting the the amin I presenting Serbia organization institutional y democratic the of the the SPS. They brought the law which establishes then onwards (for (for onwards then establishes which law the brought They SPS. Serbia in the 1990s where there was no no was there where 1990s inthe in Serbia setting agenda is atic iament. However, today in most parliamentary systems systems parliamentary most in today However, iament. 44

the so called “90% ( rule” called so the rties

1997, 2000) 2000) 1997, wasthere a proportional

suspended as it suited Milošević’s Milošević’s suited it as suspended - parliamentary activities of the the of activities parliamentary ly, representatives were not not were ly, representatives ro und majority system system majority und Hague, Harrop, Harrop, Hague, CEU eTD Collection from swinging were Parties question. this upon parties of position fixed no was there parties, two besides those note that to important is It democracy. and tolerance religion and ethnical second The 1990s. the in governments Party of Serbia and (SPS) Serbian the RadicalParty (SRP) – Socialist of the apart was world, of the rest the with communication limited of a sort and religion in belief by strong territory the ideology, supported of Serbia. This the on minorities “ S “ethnical from “citizens” differentiated basically which cleavage is first ethnic The system. party influencedthe that life political Serbian the in cleavages main two identify could we questions those Upon country. the of definition and territorial the state of the character the community, the of identity of the matter the parties. influence of all those and realthe strength 30” (Goati, 9). 2002: Byitselfinformation this do beginning 2002the number of 250and around at the was endyear – the same of number thefifty beginninginincreasedformed at 1996that at the parties, ofaround 161, the System and Party 3.3.1.2 Parties Political results. electoral “improving” as well as 275) 2003: al, et. (Vujadinović districts” electoral of number the in fluctuation by the committed power. parliamentary and electoral between convergence greater create was to proportional representation to system electoral Serbia is a country of Serbs” was the discrimination and marginalization of the ethnic ethnic the of marginalization and discrimination was the Serbs” is of acountry Serbia At the beginning of the 1990s there were three major questions in the Serbian polity: major polity: in Serbian questions the beginning were there three the 1990s At the of end “Till of the was 1990there of parties. number large a is with acountry Serbia frauds electoral and manipulations of number vast is the out pointed be should What SPS, which was tailoring electorates as they wished, there was “regular “regular was there wished, as they electorates tailoring was which SPS,

pole was citizen option that was arguing in favor offavor in citizen was arguing that pole was option 45

es not say much because one does not know not does say one because much es not

erbs”. The consequence of the claim that claim that the of consequence The erbs”. two parties that formed all all formed that parties two more than than more CEU eTD Collection system because it fulfils all three criteria: there is an ideological distance between political political between distance ideological is an there criteria: three fulfils all it because system a considered be can Serbia that believes classification Sartori’s taking influencebig the party of management (Goati, 2002: 17). internal or loose parties: of Serbian organization party the were parties all among Similarities of Serbs?). acountry or its territory on living resolving andnationalism, while opposition was arguing infavor of democracy,market economyand (79 Question” for “National the answer and effective no questions), politica relevant about opposition consulting been not has party (governing power lack real political the the of parties), swing of (cases regime from the lack distance the of Ot parties). reform and nationalists democratic nationalists, streams (extreme different inthree prominent. most Part Democratic the pole this On heritage. communist the anddropping anti pole was second The cleavage. second the pole of first the was This orientation. economic same the had SRP andjointdistribution ofownership goods – self of worker concept the favoring still they were 1990s of the beginning Leag reformed a is) still (and was Serbia of Party polity. Serbian in present been always has cleavage but this insociety, situation current the on depending other the pole to one the Regarding the classification of system party inSerbia of the Goati 1990s, (2001) In short, the governing parties were pro were parties governing the short, In fragmented Florian was ininAccording opposition the Bieber Serbia (2003) to 1990s The second cleavage was about the difference in favoring the regime. The Socialist The Socialist regime. the favoring in difference the about was cleavage The second

Serbia Serbia is (What question national Serbian her features were: the lack of internal democracy (domination of party leaders), leaders), party of (domination democracy internal lackof the were: features her

- systemic. Parties on that pole were arguing in favor of the liberal market liberal market inof the favor arguing pole were that on Parties systemic. the the Besides communism. of leftovers the 46

- socialism, supporting distribution of goods socialism, goods of distribution supporting ganization, the lack of internal democracy, internal democracy, lackof the ganization, ue of Communists Serbia (SKS). At the the At (SKS). Serbia Communists of ue – a heterogenic country of all citizens citizens all of country heterogenic a

- 82) y of Serbia (DPS) was y (DPS) Serbia of

polarized multi polarized - management, - SPS, SPS, oriented oriented - party party the the l CEU eTD Collection 31 country. He the of allow prosperity the first half of the 1990s, Serbssaw Milošević as a personthe electionsin demonstrates 1992(Goati, 21) 2002: who his charisma support. and popular In the would regain Serbian glory and elections in parliamentary year same the his than party votes more 20% got in1990 elections inpresidentialMilošević that factThe 593). 2008: (Zakošek, movements” mass and rallies instigated form of officially in the revolution, bureaucratic so the movement, protest nationalist broad a mobilized he dissatisfaction, namely them, of Serb Kosovo five “Using corruption. and be nationalism charizmatism, to clientilism, populism, seem there regime, Milošević’s of characteristics overall power. stayinto to tried inloss elections the 24 between September period time the economy, the control SPS his was phase, tyranny last The liberties. of practicing civil not allowdo true media and and influence Milošević stage this At authoritarianism. electoral like something be to started regime his time Over will. own his impose to communism of fall post was first The governance. Milošević’s of phases three a were there that believe 2002) Goati, or 2008 (Molnar, Authors change. to started time things over but country, in pluralism allow and values democratic would that be apresident to seemed he career presidential his of beginning years Federal of Republic Yugoslavia of andeight of Governing His Way 3.3.2 Milošević and (31). parliament the in issues five more hot are electedthan and there get ifimpossible they is promising opposition parties,

In 1992 Serbia and Montenegro proclaimed the creation of a new state – state of a new creation the proclaimed Montenegro and Serbia 1992 In Milošević was a charismatic leader who enjoyed popular support. If I have have I If support. popular enjoyed who leader charismatic a was Milošević Milošević- (1941 Slobodan

- totalitarian where he was using un using hetotalitarian was where Serbia for thirteen years (1987 thirteen for Serbia governing was 2006) th

and October 5 October and often used demagogic rhetoric to mobilize Serb mobilize Serb to rhetoric demagogic used often

- (1992 th

00 hn ioei dsie the despite Milošević when 2000 2000) (Molnar, 168). 2008: In the , and almost 46% more in votes 46% and almost ,

The Federal Republic ofYugoslavia. Republic Federal The clear conditions after the the after conditions clear - calledanti to identify identify to

embrace embrace - 2000) 2000) -

CEU eTD Collection 32 in war the to due embargo UN the was under Serbia that wouldthat helphim ke thinking etc. universities of authoritarian. autonomy media, of freedom the against laws bringing more started He even being for Milošević stop not did that But circumstances. their with authoritarian Milošević’s of correlation behavior andhis popularity. negative Over time, citizens the sta was feature second The situation. because this was the way of distracting peoplefrom the devastating political andeconomic brand Serbian turbo- rheto nationalistic was the first The time. that at Serbia of situation 1990s. the of half first the in society picture the get can we drain, brain strong the with opposition true andlack 291) 2010: the perception the of rumination, conspiracy“ of exaggerated (Rahmet, dysphoric towards tendencies up built which “the propaganda add we If administration. jo and positions political with individuals loyal awarding were they that way a clientilism in supported party his and Milošević situation.Hence, economic Serbian help way that in and trade foreign stimulate and economy enchase to use not did Milošević se impul nationalistic this Moreover, position. that in stay to but situation, economic and political help to power use their not do in power people where populism, of case clear a This was liveinstate. for one alljust in Serbs to order 2008:594) (Zakošek, control Serbian under state Yugoslavian reduced a keep to wanted Milošević because war the of motives main the of one is This country. same the in live should Serbs all that idea the promoting by nationalism

Even though the same music can be found in all the Balkan region and Turkey. and region Balkan the all in be found can music same the though Even folk The economic situation in situation The economic the describe that regime Milošević’s regarding points interesting more two are There

music, a characteristic type of music with a lot of vibrato and considered to be a to andconsidered lot of vibrato a music with of type music, acharacteristic 32 Mlšvć upre mscas ht ee perfo were that musicians supported Milošević . ep power. power. ep

Serbia inSerbia was the 1990s devastating. From 1992-

rted to become more and more dissatisfied dissatisfied more and more become to rted Bosniaand Croa and Herzegovina

of the conditions of Serbian rming that kind of music music of kind that rming

ric canalized through ricthrough canalized bs in public inbs public 1995 1995 tia, tia, CEU eTD Collection 81). 2007: Dereta, andcollaborators traitors, thereby, themfrom disqualifying political and publiclife” ( bylabellingas them the public of s eye the in forces democratic discredit to was propaganda - democratically other the all and opposition democratic the bashed systematically and propaganda xenophobic and nationalistic c “State actors. state anti the considered were which organizations, strugglefor their provide did existence. Thenot state civil anyfunding almost society to pronounced structural 2003: weaknesses” (Bieber, 82). as from suffered however democratization with concerned society of civil “actors notes: Milošević, Bieber Florian of dethronization the in role important an play later would polity the of side other That authoritarianism. Milošević’s to counterbalance a Serbia”, “other forming for cause was the rhetoric populist and nationalistic All that war. against wer that CSOs numerous of consisting world different a was there hand, other the on but his, than other methods and values complex. On the one hand there was a powerful dictator who did not allow opposite opinions, thefall ofMilošević Serbia and Sphere in 3.3.3 Civil Society pensions dissatisfaction. and hugeforleading the war spendinggreat caused was that Serbia reduction 313%, of abut of inflation corruption, of levels High corruption. of percentage high incredibly the was his ofregime characteristics One of the wanted. he whatever do basically could Milošević power economic and political great the With anything. change powers greater exert economy.over 15000students though against Even protested to Milošević authorized Assembly Serbian the 1992 in instance, for growing: was power GDP was decreasing and grey economy was around 50% of the GDP. Over time Milošević’s Like every p every Like in Serbia society civil of structure The

ro - democratic actor innongovernmentalhad Serbia, organizations to democratic actor e promoting civil and human rights, education fighting fighting education rights, human and civil promoting e minded activists. The ultimate goal of this type of of type this of goal ultimate The activists. minded 49

at at the beginning of the 1990shighly was

ontrolled media issued issued media ontrolled

, did, not Serbian Serbian Minić, Minić, CEU eTD Collection protest into context: Serbialost the warin Croatiain 1995, ICTY indictment set an issue the autonomy of against the university protested put To which that. the students thisstudent the decreased drastically that law a proposed Milošević Slobodan when 1998 in movement “Otpor” movement – 99” “Glas match of Croatian anda Serbian student the are Those down. Milošević bringing and change regime the the be to out turn later would beginning his of end. what elections, local of results the accepted Milošević very in fragile was democracy even though showsthat, This example process. electoral the and suffrage defendinggeneral apparatus, state corrupted the citizens of disobedience civil example of elections local the on defeat the accept to refused Milošević that fact was the protests these main of reason the But less oppression. and Serbs, for quality life ( (Bieber,protests 83). 2003: biasesof these the on challenge regime the to opposition inability the of was the reason September power, Fall1997; election antiregime against 1999;for protests, fraud a change protests and of electoralfraud, November 1996- Juneprotests, student 1991; March protests, antiregime Milošević: of rule the during protest significant of waves “seven were there that fact in the found be claim can that for reason The tradition. contentious a with is Serbia acountry Croatia) to (as that opposed before said Wehave Đinđić, Drašković etc.) and the other bystudents with almost the samenominal goal – “ helpe that organizations society civil vital two were view there of myFrom point instance For Serbia, was firstly created as a student s as astudent afirstlycreated synonym was forOtpor”, democracyin Serbia, - July the 1992; opposition Vido Serbi - 2003: 83). 83). 2003: Even (Bieber, protests those though failed, 2000” the October in 1997 there were two parallel from side one the opposition were there protests, in two 1997 a, people were able to act and get what they wanted. In the end, In end, the what actthey wanted. andget to able people were a,

February 1997; student protests, November1996 protests, student - February 1997; “Izlaz 2000”. 50 vdan against assembly, 1992; June protests

in was an This 1996. protest March March better better ocial ocial d in d in CEU eTD Collection flyers. protests, performances, ro called its campaign launched continued directly the president addressing duringthe presidentialin campaign when it 2000, Milošević be to claimed they what pavement the on footsteps red painting or dinar; one paying after punch could passers which Milošević of effigy an displaying included Activities protests. these of part isimportant an theatre Street activities. tional unconven in engaged often that movement “ Milošević. against campaign the run to started They people. mobilizing began “Otpor” change. regime the to sensible people ng projects writi forfight, foreign political for donors and activists making train to started position of president. situation of despair – was situation the interviewed people I and hopelessness. the to According exhausted. and tired confused, were People power. his increased Milošević It was clearand that Milošević bybeing national attack serious In under the organizations enemies society came 2000civil wouldnot give uphis for people of Serbia. the devastating were days eighty redu imposed; was embargo The isolation. economic and timeininYugoslavia that political was at MarchSerbia 1999. con Kosovo the of outbreak the and Milošević against le in ousting Milošević. Slowly they started to infiltrate into society by numerous numerous by society into infiltrate to started they Slowly Milošević. ousting in le

NATO collaborates. Several months after the war against NATO it seemed that it seemed NATO that against war the months after Several collaborates. NATO

social and political consciousness of pro of consciousness political and social At the same time, the NATO bombing of forces built cross and realized thateffecting lasting changein Serbia could only be achievedif they joined Serbia’s political and social development ( development social and political in Serbia’s force destructive increasingly an been had decade a than more for which (SPS), At that time “Otpor” started to prepare its actions for bringing Milošević down. They They down. Milošević bringing for actions its prepare to started “Otpor” time that At

's bloodied steps - steps bloodied 's - sectoral cooperation to oust the ruling Socialist Party o Party Socialist ruling the oust to cooperation sectoral ctions in electricity and constant bombing lasted for almost for lasted bombing and constant inelectricity ctions Gotov je Otpor” was not a traditional political party but a but party political a traditional was not Otpor”

(He’s done!) and came to be widely credited for its for credited be widely to came and done!) (He’s s a s a wa knowdo; what there to not did People bleak.

- leaving officefor final the (BBC, time 2000). democracy activistsgroups. and They quickly Minić, Dereta, 2007: 81). 2007: Dereta, Minić, 51 Belgrade signi Belgrade

ﬂ ictled to NATO airstrikes against ﬁ cantly increased the level of of level the increased cantly

f Serbia Serbia f - by by

It It CEU eTD Collection 33 discredfor attempts all those that was He hoping election. preterm announced process. electoral the understand participatin actively citizens of number wouldincrease the that campaign nonpartisan but in apolitical, participate Aroundvoters. 150civilsociety organizations bounded signed the declaration that them to Focu andvote. get out to people mobilize 86).2007: That was the goal of the campaign “Izlaz 2000”. the establishing andof counts re everyvote them that ofvotes, convincing ofimportance their in the trust citizen of restoring that became goal primary sector’s society civil the this, recognized they kindfuture of say what clearly wanted for themselves andfor their children. Having itwas they whowould win againstMilošević thatand all citizens should have the chance to regime. dis their demonstrating been have they this doing By spoons. with pots beat to started TV, national the on starting was program informative daily whenproPM 7.30 the is people every at day note that Interesting a change. wanted They optimistic. and euphoric became suddenly Everyone in air. the was future feel of The contentious. was society in atmosphere The Milošević against clips short broadcast to The was. situationin Serbia which

Association of independent electonic media. electonic of independent Association The cumulating of the contentious collective action occurred in 2000 when Milošević Milošević when in2000 occurred action collective contentious the of cumulating The that understand citizenshadto that approaching were elections as the became clear It the for culprit main the became Milošević again. happen to started Something This campaign, inspired by the Croatian and Slovak example, had the goal to to goal the had example, Slovak and Croatian the by inspired campaign, This

ir faith in the ability of the people to win democratic change change win democratic to people the of in ability the irfaith g in the electoral process and to enable citizens to better better to enable citizens andto process in electoral g the

media, especially ANEM especially media,

ses of the campaign were rural areas and women andwomen areas rural ses were of the campaign 52

satisfaction with Milošević and his his and Milošević with satisfaction

and local TV stations started ( iting him were him iting Minić, Dereta, Dereta, Minić, - regime regime

CEU eTD Collection inform voters and to protect electoral abstinence. The second phase (September 24 (September phase The second electoral abstinence. protect andto voters inform demonstrations, and civil 2008). disobedience (Molnar, - non for appealed Church Orthodox (Serbian actions religious fraud), actors 5 October 24 September 27 July the from is one first the phases: resigned. Milošević and power the lost had regime Milošević’s that sign the was that down fell Milošević, of fortress the RTS, the When (RTS). company broadcast Revolution is This u known burned the protest protests. was during partially The parliament demonstrators. beat andarrest to they refused and officer chief their longer no was Milošević that realized police as crackdown, police scale large no was there protests, in arrived from Serbia all over protesters thousand Pe in democracy of consolidation the of beginning be the to considered is date This 2000. 5th October on changed Atfirst 2000). (Official(37.15%) Gazzet, Milošević Slobodan incumbent the over (50.24%) Koštunica Vojislav candidate democratic victory to clear and a vote gave their cast citizens of 71% over September 2000, 24, all Serbia. of the enemies the against victory this glorious was the that and NATO the against war the won had Serbia that announced He enough. powerful not ople went on the streets of hundred not Belgrade,but only Several of Belgrade. people do four types of actions: legal actions (they appealed to the court due to the electoral electoral the to due court the to appealed (they legal actions actions: four of types do In short we can divide the civil society process of bringing Milošević downinto two Miloševi the of beginning was the that But th )is the phase when Milošević refuses to accept hisloss and then civil society because the protesters used the wheel loader in order to take over the national national into over the take loader usedorder wheel the because protesters the th

2000

when elections were held. phase In that civilhad society two tasks: to Serbia. At that date the protests against Milošević cumulated. cumulated. Milošević against protests the date that At Serbia. th

when Milošević announced presidential election to to election presidential announced Milošević when

Milošević did not want to accept his loss, but that that but loss, his accept to want not did Milošević 53

ć’s end. At the presidential elections on on elections presidential the At end. ć’s

legitimacy. Two days later, Slobodan later, days Two legitimacy. Belgrade

to protest. Unliketo previ

Bulldozer Bulldozer name the nder violence), violence), ous ous th -

CEU eTD Collection civilsociety, Milošević wouldnot have resigned, and consolidation wouldnot had a chance. the Without indemocratization. play can society civil organized and active arole important Party Democratic of the members becamemostly later that “Otpor” of members by the organized mainly actions, society Civil Unsuccessfully. saw September. their in parties elections Political early set (1998) wouldSydney “creating Tarrow callportunities”. political that of op to decided chance Milošević when July in it succeeded they in this and elections the for call could parties where political environment the created they Thus, and they r mobilize the to started they inthat; its opportunity saw society Civil changed. used it,from be somethingpeople inhadbut that a the society general was 1998there opinion to but Milošević tried to “steal elections”. mobilize to unable they were weak, were parties inpolitical 2000 the In conclusion, 54

, are the best example of how how exampleof best the are , est of society. society. of est CEU eTD Collection change. government first for ground the the prepared society civil Croatia Hence, society. is knownfor its uncontentious tradition. However,in both countries In Tuđm visible to dueso not was 1990sthe societyduring rule. Milošević’s from independent organizations society civil active and movements of social asphere Serbia”, “other the talkabout 2007) Dereta, Minic, 2003; (Bieber, some authors that extent the to visible activemore and was society civil In Serbia society. civil lessvibrant or more a was there countries inboth isit true, While righ political and suspended almost were general in liberties civil House, Freedom Milošević’s in Croatia, in number their limiting and Serbs the with in While it. of in character the was difference thesis. topicof the the regarding and the role of opposition. Thelast structure the with perspective comparative ina be done will This consolidation. democratic the on society of civil impact of the myargument present is to task The second change. between differences and willsimilarities I examine basis, theory. On this opportunity structure by political helped the cases Croatian and Serbian the show not did democracy. maturingit in of and the theset context still dethronization of their circumstances I however Milošević, Slobodn and Tuđman Franjo of down bringing demonstrated I previous mainthe part Croatia and and Croatia in seen, have we As d will I chapter this In in situation the seen what Wehave

CHAPTER4: ANALYSIS AND ARGUMENTATION o three moves: firstly I will provide my interpretation of the of the myinterpretation firstly willprovide moves: I three o

point will be the presentation of my argumentation argumentation my of presentation the be will point

structures,institutions and forces thatled to the Croatia and and Croatia Serbia there was a similar type of regime, the the of regime, type was asimilar there Serbia 55 Croatia Tuđman’s regime was more concerned concerned more was regime Tuđman’s Croatia

Croatia and and Croatia Serbia in theIn 1990s alike. Serbia was the an’s personal dislike and fear of civil civil of fear and dislike personal an’s Croatia, on the other hand, civil civil hand, other the on Croatia, Serbia in the matter of regime of regime matter in the Serbia

Serbia, according to to according Serbia, ts limited.ts

CEU eTD Collection retrospectively. watching fascinating, were Results and getvote. to out mobilize to in order efforts their doubled time that at actors society Civil alternative. political acceptable an offer to how know not did they thus consolidated not still accepting hadtrouble followers figure withbig a andin is power not authority the polity more, people confused. any get His omnipresent an such When society. and state Croatian in the his role to due chaos caused junctionfor the beginning of the true consolidati opposition and (civil) society. I would argue that the death of Franjo Tuđman was the critical the (basically apparatus situation. the and state regi of democratization inthe role vital a played society civil Nevertheless, act. to opportunity hadrestricted society Cr and bynationalistic which was rhetoric glorifyingCroatia was supported All that of Union. Democratic Croatian the to alternative real political was no t Due free. completely fair not yet and not they were elections, multiparty were there society. Hence, towards responsiveness and accountability limitedpolitical with but institutions democratic were there 4.1. me to change. Considering that there was no other institute that was independent from the from the independent was that institute other no was there that change. Considering me to Croatia Civil society’s intentions were enchased by the death of F of death the by enchased were intentions society’s Civil Croatia consider I earlier, As noted

CDU but civil society, it had the opportunity to act in order to change political political change to order in act to opportunity the had it society, civil but CDU

Croatia, as it seems to me that it created political opportunities for the the for opportunities political it created me that to seems it as Croatia, o the weak opposition and the lack of innovative policy solutions, there there solutions, policy innovative of lack the and opposition weak the o Croatian Democratic Union) became more repressive towards the towards repressive more became Union) Democratic Croatian Croatia without a powerful leader, and his opponents were were opponents his andleader, a powerful without Croatia

ina hybrid is the 1990s regime. The that reason 56

on of democracy. His death created and created death His of democracy. on oats. In these conditions civil civil conditions these In oats. ranjo Tuđman when state state when Tuđman ranjo

the Croatian public public Croatian the Croatiastarted its CEU eTD Collection 34 featurefragmentedimportant vivid ofbut opposition, and the and 1990s active weak was equally Another situation. badeconomic catastrophically and clientilism media, of limitations allfor Ser country one create 4.2 – democracy maturing newthe of phase entered Croatia change government with the that conclusion methe take to 2000, after Croatia in changes political process. inthe role their of conscious more peoplebecame words, other In wishes. their to according act not does if government the change government to have power the who ones the they are that ed people realiz In addition, system. itsbalance and check in of terms institutionalized on politics (as that was the case with Tuđman) so we could say that Croatia started beto more parliamentary to changed consequentially which changed constitution the government), formedthe that parties the of (one Party People’s Croatian the of candidate Februaryin a 2000as tions elec presidential the won Mesić Stjepan After consolidation. of grow to started BDP Union, European the with negotiations stable credit improve slowly, moderatewith but steady GDP growthbetween 4%and 6% led by rebound tourism a in and to began fortunes economic Croatia's Wall.followed fallof Berlin Between the 2007 the 2000and however, , that Europe Eastern and Central in of investment waves early the missed country the and collapsed output as wealt of the one „once attemp to present the growth of GDP as their result, that was the previous government's merit. economic sagnation, results of the effors of that government were visible afterwards. In spite of the CDU's

aa' gvret a gvrig rai fr he yas Ee though Even years. three for governing Croatia goverment wasRačan's Croatia improved. Croatia Serbia -driven consumer spending. Inflation over the same period remained tame and the currency, the kuna, “ (CIA Serbia was a country under the strict and authoritarian president whose goal was to was to goal whose president authoritarian and strict the under acountry was Serbia of phase democratic the enter to politics Croatian enabled results All those According to Merkel’s phases of democratic con democratic of Merkel’s phases to According - The World Factbook) World The

system. Moreover, there was no more such a strong influence of one person person one of influence strong a such more no was there Moreover, system. hiest of Yugoslav the republics, Croatia's economy suffered badly the 1991 during -95 war

bs. Milošević’s regime was characterized by electoral frauds, frauds, electoral by characterized was regime Milošević’s bs.

Croatia from being a semi a being from Croatia solidation and Schmitter’s definition, definition, Schmitter’s and solidation democratic consolidation. consolidation. democratic 34

and the international reputation reputation international andthe in that time period there was - presidential presidential

CEU eTD Collection the unjust regime 130). 2008: (Molnar, from late 1998 in research the of result the illustrates story This regime. his and Milošević with dissatisfaction their expressing of as company away broadcasting in national newsthe central the every tingbea pots during time people were sayingthat myinterlocutors of one of experience was microlevel the the on success exampleof best their the Perhaps people. mobilize goal – one actions with numerous they organized in protesting, experience previous exa Croatian and Slovak by Influencedhope. the is there show themthat in society civil what exactly was andthat system. political change the attemptto or forelections in going for struggle, motivation political no hope, no was There witnessed. interviewed have I people as resignation of absolute is time the h We down. Milošević bring to order in masses national mobilize to way the organize to and learn to train, to started They change. perception inthat chance is saw society, ofpart overall coordinated more as a society, be Civil solved. to wanted whi country the in crisis economic critical the solve to how) know not does (or not can who demagog a is Milošević that realized people time, that At state. the in junction more perceived in be critical result later will that society in junction critical was the that believe to I negatively. started Milošević autonomy, university decreased the of because 1996/7fading.After protest the student But imagestarted this time over publicsupport. of leader unquestionable the was Milošević time, Milošević’s regime. socie civil It was interesting to see the discourse change in Serbian society after 1997. Until that Until 1997. that in after society Serbian change see discourse the wasto interesting It Here comes the role of civ of role the comes Here ty. The synthesis of those two factors, as I am about to show, led to the collapse of of collapse ledthe show, to to am as I about factors, two those of synthesis The ty.

Se rbia which says that 60. 3% demonstrations 3% 60. supported of people against says that which rbia

il society to mobilize people, to initiate civic participation participation civic initiate to people, mobilize to society il

Serbia did. It was their goal to shake society, to to society, shake to goal was their It did. Serbia 58

Serbia, a popular figure that enjoyed a great a great enjoyed figure that apopular Serbia, ave to keep inave to mind that this mple, but by their bybut mple, their ch people to to CEU eTD Collection the for vote not did they Hence, change. a wanted they realized they because opposition pro coherent and developed well their of because Left the for voted people that argue not would I secondary. merely was Their role elections. the won and developed civil actors society that was theinstrument of en factor”. somenot other andmost, the consolidation democratic aided society “why civil question answer the andto conclude order elaborate concreteto functionsanalysis: thisin to society civil of 0 1999/200 in Serbia”) and Croatia of consolidation coulddemocratic aid that structure effective most democratic consolidation. entered that country calling for me, For reason isthis enough power. have ultimate the they that realized 5 October exit Moreover, his governing. theduring hybrid was Serbia regime possible to even hispeople. Despite that, my opinion is that without bringing Miloševićdown itwould notbe administr public era Milošević’s of end the After transformation. of phase democratic last the entered Serbia whether isit discussable However, regime. transforming allowed This elections. in the loss Milošević’s was democracy of consolidation in As him. dethronizated literally and strength its all showed society civil then and results electoral dispute to tried Milošević However, elections. the won and situation new this used options parpolitical Opposition action. th

gram for the was peoplevoted promising wouldargue that and I welfare; prosperity that 2000 defini 2000

Regarding the first point; first the Regarding p two are There towards attitude changing for the responsible was Serbia of case the in society Civil rai te et o Tđa, in Tuđman, of death the Croatia

into a stable democratic country with limited leftovers from authoritarian authoritarian from leftovers limited with country democratic astable into tely showed that democracy was in the minds of people and that society society that and people of minds in the was democracy that showed tely

oints I need to elaborate due to my hypothesis (“civil society was the the was society (“civil myhypothesis to due elaborate to need I oints chasing democracy. Opposition opportunities democracy. political partieschasing used ties, scattered, undecided and unable to present their policy policy their present to unable and undecided scattered, ties,

in in Croatia, as noted, opposition was weak and civilsociety Serbia the critical junction for allowing the the allowing for junction critical the Serbia 59

ation was still crowded with with crowded still ation was Serbia to start to Serbia Serbia a a Serbia CEU eTD Collection l in political the participating not in were countries 1990s the in two People those like. and in role playeds society civil why precisely reason of the – society civil of task vital a encompass roles Those transition. of phases the in society civil of missions possible two are role, instrumental MiloševićMiloševićrevenge oppositions’ answeredbrought theagainst down. call and ch for eager time, that at People, demonstration. for people called opposition the instrumentalfunction.opposition Theelections,the won Milošević admitandrefusedit, to opposition when the Later, society. civil of Serbian mobilization function of of part the first the ends Here Serbs. among in politics trust the of areturn and mobilization overall successful andorganization coordination that realized society civil Over time, unsuccessful. were earlier, as shown society, by organized protests all Hence, omnipresent. was regime Milošević’s that seemed it because in People liberties. political pro governing, of way Milošević’s against were They known. well was scene. society Civil Tuđman. of political creators the fact they are the Franjo and in polity Croatian role their people understand and CDU the against voting were they but coalition

Serbia at the end of the 1990s. Let me remind you what society in society meyou what Let remind 1990s. the endthe of at Serbia an anti an

Croatia and Croatia The first explanation comes from the contextual perspective of civil society in society civil of perspective contextual the from comes explanation first The The last question in this analysis that should be answered is regarding the explanation explanation the is regarding be answered should that analysis inthis question last The the and mobilization of role the change, political of context the in roles two Those in hand, other the On realized that people were more interested in politics, civil society takes a more more a takes society civil in politics, interested more were people that realized - system option. Even though they were weak and fragmented, their position was was position their fragmented, and weak were they though Even option. system Serbia. I am I Serbia. possible providing two explanations. were Serbia Serbia the story is a little more complex. Oppo sition in in sition Oppo complex. more little a is story the Serbia

are vital for the success. The result of that realization was was realization of that The success. result the for vitalare aware of their existence, but were not motivated motivated not were but existence, of their aware 60 to be a link between the state and the society. and society. the be to state alink the between

uch a crucial (mobilization or instrumental) instrumental) or (mobilization crucial a uch

Europe andEurope supporting Serbia and and Serbia Croatia was was Croatia ange and and ange Croat helped helped Serbia Serbia

ife, ife, ia ia CEU eTD Collection not well defined and civil society organizations were suspicious abou suspicious were organizations society civil and defined well not them. to closer elections make to order in concerts 36 35 regime. the indirectly) in regimes of nature the to due foreigninfluences for closed in was general society earlier, mentioned as because, isimportant component international This well. as andks Slova from Croats learning get their and was Slovakia that Croatia of case the In colleagues. foreign of their experience from the learning were they Secondly, public were that campaigns how organize knewto they of that Because people. of the pulse the knew they and developed highly were strategies Serbi due several factor to reasons. efficient most was the astructure civil as words, society other poli and social imposing of factor internal be an think I could society civil only conditions, these Under culture. political subjective society waslimited, political culture would correspond to Almond and Verba’s second type – stru governance actual of the omnipresence and visibility media poor to due alternative limitedpolitical was Hence,there societies. and foreign countries with contact much have not did Society limited. liberties civil biased, and arbitrary were laws the political regime. Hence, civil societies in societies civil Hence, political regime. the civi of position the in found is down Milošević and Tuđman bringing in organizat funding society civil of the financing(most lack from the of moreoverthey suffered state,

In In In In Croatia, for example first time voters were the target, considering they were young, Glas 99 organized rock rock organized 99 Glas young, were they considering target, the were voters time first example for Croatia, Croatia in 1998 government established The Office for the Cooperation with NGOs, but its function was a and and a Civil society a society Civil in organizations society which civil organization is structured well reason the first The The second explanation why it was precisely civil society that played such a vital role role vital a such played that society civil precisely was it why explanation second The ions were getting from abroad) and inadequate law protection inadequate and abroad) from getting ions were Croatia and and Croatia Croatia had. They were well organized, with clear role divisions and goals. Their Their goals. and divisions role with clear organized, well were They had. Croatia t the end, saw its chance, used the opportunity and changed (directly or or (directly changed and opportunity the used its chance, saw end, the t Serbia. Serbia.

- out

tical change towards democratic consolidation. In democratic consolidation. towards change tical - and 61 Croatia and and Croatia

- vote campaign “OK 98”, and Serbians were were Serbians and “OK 98”, campaign vote ly accepted and efficient in goals their andly efficient accepted t its naturet andgoal. Serbia were independent from the from the independent were Serbia cture. The point of view of of view of point The cture.

l society regarding regarding l society 36 . I think I this. 35 .

CEU eTD Collection two, I would say that we can see that civil society in Croatia and Serbia at the end 20 the of the at Serbia and inCroatia society civil can that we see would I say that two, factor of essential maturing democracy. democraticvalues. Those examples show that civil society, despite arguments againstit, is an century and showed itsfunctions defended imagein and and supporting preserving re was ideal the of function inherent The better. function watchdog their fulfill could they government the of influence the under l or (more organize and a risk its goalsin general. Theyknew they could not havemuch lose to so they were willing to take independent position of government towards civilsociety wasbeneficial for civilsociety and Croatia and and in Croatia alized In light of the given analysis and supported by the theoretical part presented in chapter chapter in presented part theoretical by the supported and analysis given the of light In

Serbia. - type of civil society – society civil of type ess direct) actions for the government change. Without being Without change. government the for actions direct) ess

to protect society protect to from authoritarianism th

CEU eTD Collection democratic for of phase entering actors the state conventional how non showed 1990s and – segments the of one in system political current the of essence the and dynamics political comprehendthe to in order important are differences Those happened. diff some were significant there However, similar. is) still (and was development political their similarities, than rather differences theybecame enemies and despite their wishfor independence andinsisting more on one in being of centuries After relations. their of nature Balkan at the end ofprobablyin thecentury 20th most influential two, the inWestern countries the happened that polities in changes examine to was thesis my of goal The Balkans. Western the Balkan region. Someone of the traditions onceover is atorture liberal democracy that said the commonly as known Europe East of South in area livingthe people(s) of the interaction the and structure the understanding for crucial is dimension political That region. the of comprehendthe privilege to all views those an have scientists Political scientists? political about And are. what nature human the to regard in region the of understanding issuesin contemporary the the and what “Balkan” created term how was the to answer the seek Anthropologists themselves. between bond strong very a feel people of the Balkansare soinclined conflictsto among themselves,but on the other hand have shaped this region. The goal of sociologists that deal t withBalkanimpulses is determine to historical the why understand to trying been have historians years For scientists. s Croatia and and Croatia social for topic interesting an been has always region Balkan of the area The territorial – Croatia and and Croatia Serbia are countries intriguing for political scientists due to the specific specific the to due scientists political for intriguing countries are Serbia Serbia. Serbia. civil society. I demonstrated the nature of political community in the the in community political of nature the demonstrated I society. civil -

state actors can be as important (if not more important) as important) more not (if important as be can actors state CONCLUSION erences in the way democratic transformation transformation democratic in way the erences 63 Serbia. In my thes my In Croatia and Serbia. dimension political the with them emphasize d

state and the collapse of that state, state, that of collapse andthe state consolidation.

isfocused I on hat hat CEU eTD Collection The Milošević. Slobodan against demonstrations in strength its all owing sh burst energy 5 October on culminated society civil of dissatisfaction and actions All come. had change for time the that realized actors society civil when was junction critical the In Serbia, sense. ina democratic stable more polity made the consequentially his death and inpolitics procedures democratic conso democratic to door the opened and oldregime with the breaking for important was that point was acritical and Croatia in both that showed I junction. critical on focusing change political possibleobserve to regimes two through the perspective political of and opportunities a and in Serbia and change regime itstructure appliedon country. one that of institutions of structure the and culture political it reflects because country certain of polity consolidatio democratic of study the not, or right was he whether matter No consolidated. fully become to democracy for years sixty it takes Dahrendorf, believe we If regime. authoritarian previous inevitab the as democracy perceive When people intown”. game “the only being democracy of accepting process isthis the is that democratic consolidation of definition simplest for The allcountries. challengebiggest tasks. of those infulfillment effectiveness the on depends partially of democracy success andthe state inthe have can society civil that socialization) watchdog, subsidiarity, possi several are There polity. and politics influence way inthat and rights their increasing for actions organize and satisfactions, wishes, fears, In my thesis I have been using Tarrow’s simplified conc simplified Tarrow’s using been have I thesis my In their express participate, freely they where citizens active of arena the is society Civil Democratic consolidation as the last phase in phase last as the consolidation Democratic n and its critical junctions allows us better insight into the characteristics of of characteristics into the insight better us allows junctions its critical and n

Croatia the death of president Franjo Tuđman allowed more more allowed Tuđman Franjo president of death the Croatia In lidation. le alternative, they mean there is no fear of returning in of fear returning no is mean there they le alternative, same happened with the protests in where no 1997 protests the happenedwith same 64

the path of maturing democracy is the ismaturing path of democracy the the Croatia. I wanted to see whether it is is it see whether to wanted I Croatia. ble functions (representation, (representation, functions ble ept ept of political opportunities th

2000 when civil society society civil 2000 when

Serbia there there Serbia nalyze nalyze CEU eTD Collection inpost society civil of conception detailed our and validity functionsArmenia) and the o post other some choosing consider should researcher future a society civil of role real assessthe to In order background. historical in countries similar perspective, insocietal countries even different though two, Serbia, and Croatia of example the using democracy, maturing of in process the role significant a plays society regardi its role and judiciary of efficiency the of evaluation the but aspect that on focus not did I paper, this of nature the and limitations space the to Due process. whole inthe judiciary the of role see the and ignore will people. to the of his attempts result wasThe obvious him. - against campaign in actively more involved and regime Milošević’s against people passive, in While Croatia Serbia. in than the oppositionin role Croatia playeda different wasmore they cou apparatus of not state under control the institutes rare the of one were fact they the to Due democratic. more countries two those making of intention in society Civil polity. Croatian and in role its Serbian for great reason was the that and of society wishes the directing for channel best the civil was society that argued I andorganization. its structure to due consolidation democratic. result of that was his announcement of electoral loss and allowing Serbia in the context of bringing Tuđman and Tuđman bringing of context the in Serbia There are several recommendations for the future research of civil society in society civil of research future the for recommendations several are There eno powerful was society civil that was hypothesis My Opposition, a part that usually has the biggest impact on democratic consolidation consolidation democratic on impact biggest usuallyhas the that apart Opposition, in Serbia the opposition saw the opportunity civil society created by mobilizing bymobilizing society created opportunitysaw civil the opposition the Serbia

ng political change could add to this topic. This thesis showed that civil civil that showed thesis This thisto topic. add could change ng political

Milošević was not president any more any president not was Milošević f civil society there. An analysis like that could enlarge the the couldenlarge like that An analysis there. society f civil Serbia and Serbia

Croatia was efficient and determined in its its in determined and efficient was Croatia

Milošević down. It would be interesting to to interesting bewould It down. Milošević - communist country (such as

after the loss in elections despite despite inelections loss the after - communist countries. Hence, Hence, countries. communist ugh to enhance democratic enhance democratic to ugh ld freely. act Serbia to become more becomemore to Serbia Georgia or or Georgia Croatia Croatia

CEU eTD Collection countries and understanding their political dynamics. cha compare time to first for the intention, myin succeeded have I think I usage, practical and community topic should having that and imperative the consideration into that all Taking consolidation. democratic of beginning inthe its role observed and Serbia posit saw Hence,we the change. inthat helped that society of civil features the on inference made an we (change), regime of the nature the as well as Croatia and inSerbia society civil of and position the structure Western countries of the intwo democratization as well. and limits “Otpor” see scope Asia of to but or Africa actions contentious those between link examine should studies Further Africa. in Northern 2011 in happened that movements social the in and organizing civi inand involved were training “Otpor” actors of Serbian indications somethat are there nge. This paper can help in interpreting the current political situation in two situation political those current helpinterpretingin the can Thisnge. paper

In conclusion, this analysis has shown that civil society was an important factor of of factor important an was society civil that shown has analysis this conclusion, In Croatia and and Croatia c actions in c actions Serbia focusing on civil society and its role in political and social social and in political role its and society civil on focusing Serbia Armenia (in the case of the youth movement HIMA), in Georgia HIMA), movement youth of case the Armenia (in Croatia and and Croatia of system political the in opposition the of ion 66

in order, not just not understandmovementsorder, inin to

Balkans. From the examination of the the of examination the From Balkans.

be relevantfor academic CEU eTD Collection . Beograd: Institut Institut ______2002(ed). Partijska scenaBeograd: Srbije posle 5. oktobra 2000. Serbia” in Vujadinović, Veljak, Goati, Pavičević Goati, Veljak, Vujadinović, in Serbia” of System “Electoral 2001. V. Goati, Gerring, CaseStudy Research, 2007. J. A., Bennett,George, A. Case 2005: Studies and Theory Development SocialSciences in Fisher, S., Bijelić, B. 2007.“Glas 99: Civil Society Preparing the Ground for a Post Diamond, “Towards L. 1994. Democratic Democrac Consolidation”. Journal of Dahrendorf, 1990. R. 2001.“Vrstestranačkei______sustavainkompetencijeHrvatskoj”razvoj u stranačkog Party Party I Čular, G. 2000.: “ izbore poštene i slobodne za povelja Građanska 1999. Bulletin 99. Glas of F.Bieber, 2003. “The Serbian Opposition and Civil of Roots Society: Delayedin Transition Berman, 1997. Civil S. Society and the Collapse of the Weimar W. Croatia:Barlett, Between 2003. the Balkans. Europe and Democracy” of Consolidation and Transition A. “CivilSociety, 1996. Arato G, Almond, ,

društvenih nauka & FES Beograd: CEDET Beograd: University Press University Press MIT London. (ed.). 2003:(ed.). Be German Marshal Fund of the United the of Fund States Marshal German Croatia”. In Fotbig, J, Demeš, P. (ed): Reclaiming 17 and Competition Kasapović, M (ed): (ed): M Kasapović, system in Nonconsolidated Democracy: Case Croatia] Case Democracy: in system Nonconsolidated primer Hrvaške“, in: Fink- fair elections] free for and declaration Serbia”. pp401 (3), Routledge Ljubljana: 211 - Ljubljana: FDV, raziskave, zapolitološke Centar and Continuity, and Continuity, Conference Eastern andin Democratic Rupture Europe: America Latin in Transitions

Verba, S.1963. International JournalInternational Politics, of Culture, andSociety.

Institutionalizacija strankarskega sistema v nekonsolidirani demokraciji: demokraciji: v sistema nekonsolidirani strankarskega Institutionalizacija - 409 Reflections onthe tween Authoritarianism andDemocracy: Serbia-

Paris, Paris,

Development of Party Systemin

Hrvatska 1990. politika

The Civic Culture France

REFERENCE LIST Hafner, Danica / Haček, Miro (ur.), Miro Haček, / Danica Hafner,

Principlesand Practices

Revolution 67 .

Boston:

2000 in Europe in

Little, Brown and Company .:123- Croatia] .Washington .Washington Democracy

, 146 [Types of Party New York: Times Books Times York: New Republic. Republic. . Cambridge. Cambridge. tionalization of of tionalization 239 [Institu

London and and London

Montenegro- 17 pp73 (1), Demokratični prehodi prehodi Demokratični World Politics Cambridge Cambridge

y. y. International International New York: New York: 5(3), pp. 4-

[Citizens’ [Citizens’ Croatia. - - DC. The The DC. 90 Tuđman

CEU eTD Collection ______2001. “Demokratska konsolidacijaiizborna politika uHrvatskoj 1990. 1999.“OKasapović, „DemokracijeM. knjizi Vesne Pusić Jašić, S. 2000. “Monitoring Vote 11(4) in of Journal Democracy. Croatia”. The Third Wave: Democratisation the in S,P, Twent Late Huntington, Harrop,Hague, R, Breslin, M, 2001. Komparativna S. vladavina i Politička Zagreb: politika. Habermas, Jürgen, 2002.: Wolfgang.Merkel, "Plausible 2008. results: theory, unexpected the rapid democratic Meier, C. 1984. “Političko u Grka” Političkamisao McAllister, S. Lewitsky, Keane, 1998. J. Civil Society: Old Images, New Visio M.Kaldor, 2003. Civil Global Society, An Answer War to Minić, J., Dereta, M. 2007. “An Exit Democracy to in ______2009. Contentious Society? “Rethinking Mudde,2002. C. Kopecky,Civil Society” P., in Uncivil A.Molnar, 2008. Oproštaj odprosvetiteljske ideje ustavotvorne skupštine? O rotacionom consolidation in Central and and Central in consolidation 11- Hrvatskoj iHrvatskojjugoistočnoj Europi“. University of Oklahoma Press, 1991. andPolitics]. Governance [Comparative misao in in Communist Societies”. Party Politics Societies”. Communist Consolidation Democracy. analyses] politič Fakultet Politics in Post- kretanju revolucije uSrbiji 2000 - States Reclaiming Kasapović, M (ed): (ed): M Kasapović, 29. I. and White, S. 2007. “Political Parties and Democratic Consolidation in Post in Consolidation Democratic and Parties “Political 2007. S. White, and I. , Way, “The L. 2002. of Rise CompetitiveAuthoritarianism

.Washingt Democracy

13(2), pp 51- 13(2),

and Electoral Politics in Croatia 1990- Politics andElectoral kih znanosti [Transformation of Political Systems. Theories and Communist

Postnacionalna konstelacija Otkrivenje,, Beograd rnfraia oiikh utv. erj i analize i Teorije sustava. političkih Transformacija Hrvatska 1990. politika 65 Eastern E Eastern Europe. . Beograd: Edicija Reč Edicija Beograd: 2007. on on Politička misao 26 (2) pp 223 misaopp (2)Politička 26

DC. The German Marshal Fund of the United United the of Fund Marshal German The DC. London. Routledge London.

13 (197), pp 13 (197), 197- urope." 68

1(2) [Politicalin Greek] Ancient ns. PoliticsInternational and Society (2): -

2000- .:15 Serbia”. In Fotbig, J, Demeš, P. (ed): (ed): Demeš, P. J, In Fotbig, Serbia”.

Cambridge. Polity Press Polity Cambridge. .

i diktature. Politička tranzicija u tranzicija Politička idiktature. Cambridge. Polity Cambridge. 2000] 216

35 [

Democratic

ieth Century - 230 ”. Journal of ”.

2000”

Zagreb:

- CEU eTD Collection 1998 . S. Tarrow Croatia: inDevelopment Contemporary “Aspects Community of 2006.: Stubbs, P. Schneider, 2009. C. Democratic Comparing consolidation: Europe andLatin America ______Schmi Democracy Journal of is Consolidation”, “What Democratic A. 1998: Schedler, ______2010. Rahmet, S. 2005. about Thinking Yugoslavia. American of Revival and Collapse The Alone: 2000. D. BowlingPutnam, Robert Pusic, 1998. V. Demokracije idiktature Samizdat B92 [Non ViolentStruggle – Popović 2009. V. Pavlović, Antonic,Pavlovic, D., S. 2007. Konsolidacija demokratskih ustanova uSrbiji posle 2000. O'Donnell, GuillermoPhilippe A./Schmitter, (eds.) C. (1986): Transitions From Mungiu Ri Cambridge edel, M. 1991. „Društvo, građansko“. InZoran. Pokrovac državadruštvo Građanskoed. i ,

tter, P. 1993. tter, Revitalizing Communities As Gate Globalization, andNew York Chu Civilic] [Society, Naprijed. Zagreb. Community andDemocracy] Baltimore: Authoritarian Rule. Some Tentative Conclusions Uncertain About Democracies. Studies Policy European for Centre Bruxelles. Emerson. Michael ed. the European, Neighbourhood after 2000] after godine. - Perspectives Democracy”. S, iioei, . Dnvć S 2007. S. Dinović, A., Milivojević, S., , Pippidi, A. “EU 2005. Enlargem Pippidi,

University Press University 1997. “Civil Society: East and West,” in L. Diamond, M. Plattner, Y. Plattner, in M. andDiamond, L. West,” East “Civil1997. Society: and H. Tien (eds.), Consolidating Third Wave Democracies: Themes and

Beograd: Sluzbeni [Konsolidationof glasnik democraticinstitutions in Serbia PowerMovement in

Johns Johns Central and Southeast European Politics since 1989. since Politics Central European andSoutheast .

“Some Propositions about Civil Society and the Consolidation of Sluzbeni glasnik. [Civil Society Society [Civil glasnik. Sluzbeni Civilno drustvo Beograd. demokratija i , New York. Simon&Schuster .

Baltimore: Baltimore: Reihe Politikwissenschaft London: Routledge London: Neo

Hopkins -

liberalization and NGO and liberalization Johns Johns University Press University

. Hopkins New York : New 50 CrucialPoints] . Zagreb: Durieux [Democracies and dict and [Democracies Zagreb: Durieux Democratisation in In Democratisation in Progress” andDemocracy ent

69 N

Cambridge ew Cambridge York:

University 239- Press.

. 50tacaka borbaNenasilna u Cambridge Cambridge - isation”

Univ. Press 2nd . ed. in in Dominelli, Dominelli, University Press University 262

9(2) atorships]

New York. York. New Lena

Beograd. Beograd.

. .

(ed.)

CEU eTD Collection (accessed April 2011) 17, Globalin trends 1800- governance, presentat http://www.ned.org/about/board/meet Gersh www. and Croatia for Results House Freedom 2011) 16, CIVICUS factbook/geos/hr.html CIA http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/749469.stm Milosevic to challenge Otpor's BBC. Analysis: 2000. Web pages: Democratization,______2008. S Hrvatske sustav Politički 2002. N. Zakošek, vlasti. PakiranjeHrvatskoj 1995. ______1999. Izbori u glasače. na 1995.Vrcan, Pohod S. Tusalem, 2007. R. “A Boon a Bane?or The Role ofin Civil Society Third- 1996. Franjo. Tuđman, Europe”. Central inEast Consolidation Democratic and Parties “Political 1997. G. Toka, Rev Annual politics”. Comparative in Institutionalism “Historical 1999. K. Thelen, Press. University ______–

man, C. 2004. The relationship of Political Parties and Civil Society. Society. Civil and Parties Political of relationship The 2004. C. man, .org/uploads/fiw/FIWAllScores.xls freedomhouse The Croatia factbook: World Croatia. Democratization pp588 15(3) System] Croatiain 1995. Elections governance. the Croatiain 1990- Elections voters. yellow, green devils] Studies Public in Policy Political Science Democracies”. Democracies”. ions/031704

– 2010.

definition of civil society - society civil of definition

Frontiers SocialMovement in Theory

(accessed March2011) 29, [accessed May 2011] 6th, International Political Science Review Crveni, žuti, zeleni vragovi zeleni žuti, Crveni, . Pp. 369- .

279 404 2008

Izb -

- https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the our ori uHrvatskoj 1990.

http://www.civicus.org/who tate Serbia Serbia 1993] -

- http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity1.htm president/archived - building and War: The Cases of Serbia and and Serbia of Cases The War: and building 70

[accessed 2010] December 11, -

. - 610

Zagreb. Politička misao [Croatian Political Political [Croatian misao Politička Zagreb.

- 1997.]

(speech at Airport Zag Airport at (speech

New Haven and and Haven New (accessed April(accessed 2011) 25,

- 1997. 1997. - - 1993. . remarks 28 (3), pp.28 (3), 361- Zagreb. AlineZagreb. - Split. Puls [Campaign for for [Campaign Puls Split. we - and - London. London. are -

reb in 1996) [Red,

and Fourth (accessed April (accessed

386 a. [Wraping of of [Wraping a. Yale Yale

- iew of of iew world - Wave Wave -

CEU eTD Collection Of Documents: Official Vijesnik. www.vijesnik.hr 1999. [accessed 2010] December 11, April 202011) Croatia] of in democratization the Tuđmana. Veljak Ulogacivilnog L. 2001. drustva udemokratizaciji Hrvatske [The role of civilsociety Franje BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorL dana https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1194609&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=9999CC& 40 non of status legal CM/Rec(200 Recommendation Poslijednjih 2010. April 202011) B. http://globus.jutarnji.hr/hrvatska/posljednjih- Orešić, ﬁ cial Gazette cialof Gazette vol. the FRY, no.55, IX, October 10, 2000, p.1.

- governmental organizations in in organizations governmental

7)14 -

of the Committee of Ministers to member states to of Ministers Committee of the http://www.zamirzine.net/spip.php?article734 ogged=FFAC75 40- 71

dana Europe. Europe. - franje

(accessed April 2011) 16, - tudmana?onepage=1

(acces (acces Globus.

on the the on s s ed ed ed