English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In 1993 the Hungarian-born historian John Lukacs wrote that the twentieth century was, by then, over. In his opinion it started with the outbreak of World War I in 1914 and ended with the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1989. Lukacs’ ‘short century’ was also the period which saw the emergence and demise of Yugoslavia. The forces unleashed by the outbreak of World War I led to the birth of Yugoslavia in 1918. Similarly, the forces unleashed by the end of the Cold War contributed significantly to the wars that, from 1991 onwards, destroyed Yugoslavia. The historical forces that dominated the twentieth century – war or the threat of war and nationalism – also dominated Yugoslavia’s history. The Yugoslavia created in 1918 – officially known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes until 1929 – was a multi-national state with the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes its three constituent national groups. Yugoslavia’s major problem was to find a means of attracting and maintaining the continued loyalty of its multi-national population. In trying to solve this ‘national question’ Yugoslavia’s various political elites experimented with several structural administrative arrangements ranging from highly centralised-unitary to quasi-federal systems. Thus, attempts to resolve the national question focused on Yugoslavia’s constitutional law and on whether Yugoslavia should have a centralised-unitary or decentralised-federal constitutional structure. This article will detail the course of Yugoslavia’s constitutional experimentation during the period between the two world wars of the twentieth century, that is, from Yugoslavia’s formation in 1918 through to its temporary dismemberment at the hands of the Axis powers in 1941. The birth of Yugoslavia saw its political elites embark on what Alex Dragnich aptly labelled a ‘Search for a Viable Political System’. The attempt to establish such a system during the interwar 1 J Lukacs, The End of the Twentieth Century and the End of the Modern Age, Ticknor & Fields, 1993. 2 A N Dragnich, The First Yugoslavia, Search For a Viable Political System, Hoover Institution Press, 1983. Peter Radan Istorija 20. veka, 3/2011 26 period underwent four distinct phases, each involving a different approach. However, before these phases can be analysed, the formation of Yugoslavia and the political environment in which it arose must be first briefly detailed. This is because much of the debate that ensued during the interwar years was a consequence, not only of the absence at Yugoslavia’s creation of any agreement as to its constitutional form and structure, but also the international setting in which this new multi-national state found itself at the time of its creation. 1918: The Creation of Yugoslavia The decisions leading to Yugoslavia’s creation on 1 December 1918 were made by politicians. The question of unification was never directly put to the populations of the various territorial entities which constituted Yugoslavia. Some degree of popular support for unification could be seen in Montenegro where, on 26 November 1918, an elected National Assembly dethroned King Nikola I and the Petrović dynasty and voted for Montenegro’s unification with Serbia under the Karađorđević dynasty. This assembly was elected in the month before the assembly vote was taken in an election in which the major issue was unification. The election of pro-unification delegates can be seen as evidence of popular support for unification. However, voters did not have details of the terms upon which unification was to take place. This was left to the elected assembly. The assembly revealed delegates opposed to the terms eventually adopted, even though these delegates were not opposed to unification in principle. The only direct popular vote concerning unification was in the Carinthia region on 10 October 1920. This plebiscite was a product of the Versailles Conference after World War I. The result of the vote was against unification with Yugoslavia and for incorporation into Austria. Carinthia had a two-thirds majority population of Slovenes, but only 41% of the population voted for unification with Yugoslavia. The voting patterns in Carinthia suggest that popular support for unification with Serbia was less than overwhelming amongst the Dual Monarchy’s Slovenes. It is possible that similar sentiments were felt by the Croats of the former Dual Monarchy. During all the political negotiations leading to the formation of Yugoslavia, there was no agreement reached as to the constitutional structure of the multi-national state. This fundamental question was left to be resolved once the state was formed. On this constitutional question the major point of contention was whether Yugoslavia should have a centralised-unitary or decentralised-federal 3 ’Odluka Velike Narodne Skupštine Srpskog naroda u Crnoj Gori’, 13. novembra 1918, in B Petranović & M Zečević, Jugoslavija 1918–1984,’Rad’, 1985, at 113–115. 4 T M Barker, The Slovene Minority in Carinthia, East European Monographs, 1984, at 111–171. 5 Barker, note 4, at 164–165. Constitutional Experimentation and the National Question in Interwar Yugoslavia 27 constitutional structure. The major impulse for centralism came from the leaders of pre-World War I Serbia which was the largest and most politically powerful component of the new Yugoslav state. Federalism was championed by the new Croat political leaders that emerged once Yugoslavia was created. It was the struggle between these competing visions of the state that dominated the interwar period. The other major national groups, the Slovenes and Slavic Muslims, did not feature prominently in the political struggle between the Serbs and Croats. The Slovenes, who largely supported the Slovene People’s Party, were able to obtain a favourable arrangement with the central government in Belgrade. Possessed with a cohesive and compact political base and political and administrative skills, the Slovenes exploited Serbo-Croat tensions to achieve virtual self-administration for their region. The language difference between the Slovenes and the Serbs and Croats effectively prevented penetration of the local bureaucracy by non-Slovene elements. On the other hand the usually bi-lingual Slovenes could, and did, progress to the central government’s bureaucracy. As a result the Slovenes were over-privileged both politically and administratively. The less numerous Slavic Muslims, located primarily in Bosnia, gathered around the Yugoslav Muslim Organisation, were generally prepared to trade their parliamentary weight for economic and cultural favours, and as such tended to be represented in most central governments of the interwar period. They too were politically overprivileged in the interwar period. Indeed it was Slavic Muslim support that enabled Serb parties to pass the centralist Constitution of 1921. The aspirations of other national groups were either suppressed or of marginal interest to central state authorities. Into this category fell the Magyars of the Vojvodina region and the Albanians in Kosovo. The Macedonians were of some concern in that Macedonian separatism was advocated by the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO) which was funded and supported by Bulgaria who saw the Macedonians as Bulgarians. However, the Macedonian problem was largely an international matter concerned with resisting Bulgarian irredentism. The problems with the Macedonians points to a salient feature of Yugoslavia’s efforts to resolve the Serbo-Croat conflict. Yugoslavia’s internal political problems of this period occurred against an international background in which Hungary, Bulgaria and Italy harboured territorial ambitions which threatened Yugoslavia’s territorial integrity. Although international borders between Yugoslavia and these states were determined by the mid-1920s, none of these Yugoslav neighbours abandoned irredentist claims against Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia’s 6 J Rothschild, East Central Europe Between the Two World Wars, University of Washington Press, 1974, at 208–209. 7 N Malcolm, Bosnia, A Short History, Macmillan, 1994, at 172. 8 L R Godtfredsen, Federalism and Yugoslav Political Integration, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Tufts University, 1974, at 123. Peter Radan Istorija 20. veka, 3/2011 28 entry into the Little Entente and Balkan Pact was inspired by the need to protect its territorial integrity against its irredentist neighbours. The most significant external threat to Yugoslavia was posed by Italy under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Mussolini’s policy towards Yugoslavia aspired to gaining Yugoslav territory along the Adriatic coast which had been promised to Italy by the Treaty of London of 1915. Yugoslavia’s internal conflict can only be properly understood with an appreciation of the impact of Yugoslavia’s international position. The threat posed by Italy acted as a moderating influence on Croat demands in particular. The Croats sought a federal Yugoslavia, rather than seriously embracing separatist policies, because an independent Croat state would itself run the risk of being the victim of imperialist Italian ambitions. 1921–1929: The 1921 Constitution and the Period of Parliamentary Democracy The first phase of the effort to resolve the Serbo-Croat conflict was the period of parliamentary democracy which ended with the proclamation of King Aleksandar’s personal rule in January 1929. In the period between the proclamation of Yugoslavia, on 1 December 1918, and the proclamation of the state’s first constitution on 28 June 1921, Yugoslavia was governed and administered by seven appointed governments. Representatives to all of them came from the prewar states of Serbia and Montenegro and politicians from areas formerly under the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Serbia’s pre-war state constitution was adapted to apply across the new Kingdom. A provisional legislature was also appointed, with its com

Constitutional experimentation and the national question in interwar Yugoslavia