The Yugoslavia established in 1918 and reconstructed along federal
lines in 1943 is gone. The circle is closed. It was a long journey from
positive to negative utopia (dystopia): from a nonexistent place to a
bad, grim one. Dystopia is a common designation for the postcommunist
chaos and the post-Yugoslav chaos. With the collapse of the Titoist
regime, the federal state also collapsed (because it was an
ideological, party-based and not the legal state). The ideology was
utopian; thus Yugoslavia (un)justifiably(?) shared its destiny.
Would the destiny of the second Yugoslavia have been the same
independently of this? In other words, was the first Yugoslavia utopian
as well? It was also an ideological state, based on an idea of an
integral Yugoslavism. Therefore, it also was a forced community, an
"amalgam"produced primarily by ideological coercion. Yugoslavia as an
unforced community could, in principle, be established as a community
of interests, of probably loosely connected parts: democracy within it
could work, because, as Kielmansegg argues, it can only endure a
plurality of interests, to a lesser extent a plurality of values, but
almost to no extent a plurality of identities.25 Can Yugoslavia survive as a
voluntary spiritual community? A positive answer presupposes the
existence of a Yugoslav nation, that is a Yugoslav national (spiritual)
identity, since experience tells us that only a nation is a spiritual
community.
Was there a Yugoslav "we"-consciousness? It is evident that since
1918 there have been different perceptions (and different projections)
of Yugoslavia: it turned out that some nations saw Yugoslavia (and
subsequently communism) only as a vehicle for achieving some other
(national-strategic) goals, whereas for other nations Yugoslavia was a
utopian ideal. The fall of communism in Eastern Europe provided the
former with an opportunity to implement their strategic ideas (a
sovereign state and national independence), while the latter saw
Yugoslavia as the "final"solution.
Was the break-up of Yugoslavia chiefly caused by external factors,
or should most of the blame for Yugoslavia's exit from the historical
stage be laid on internal factors? There are those who argue that
"Yugoslavia was created by Europe"(Milorad Ekme˙ci«c), implying that
Europe can also destroy it if it so chooses, and others who find that
internal events have played the crucial role. According to the latter,
all that happened in Yugoslavia from 1918, to 1929, 1934, 1937, 1941,
1943, 1945, 1964, 1968, 1971 to 1974... inevitably (?) led to what
happened in 1990, 1991 and 1992. This article is not designed to
analyze either the underlying or the immediate causes of current events
on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. But, despite the absence of
a "historical distance,"it seems that the thesis proposed at the
beginning of this article about the importance of the regional problem
has been confirmed: the regional problem was dramatically interrelated
with the major issues of a multinational, federal, socialist community;
thus, the study of the former has undoubtedly provided a clearer
perception, explanation and understanding of the latter.
The Yugoslav pendulum swung ever closer to the point of
disintegration, built-in "destabilizers"were activated, the (un)planned
collapse of the state took place. This break-up was significantly
facilitated by the regional policy, particularly by the formulation and
operationalization of regional development goals. But the regional
policy itself (and the way in which its goals were set) undoubtfully
was a result of the action of other, deeper and more powerful forces.
Yugoslavia has disintegrated into several smaller states. Many
problems of the former state will be passed on to the newly emerged
states. And these also are now faced or will be faced with problems of
regional development, federalism, interethnic relationships...