Miljenko Jergovic of the Zagreb weekly 'Tjednik' examines in detail the situation among the Croatian opposition parties in the December 12, 1997, issue of that magazine.
The question might sound like a paradox, but it seems to contain the essence of things: how to remain a relevant opposition, and never threaten the authority at the same time ? Giving an answer to it were, each in their own manner, Ante Djapic, Zlatko Tomcic, Drazen Budisa, and tens of other politicians who, getting closer to HDZ, were further away from gaining power, constantly losing voters, but their 'oppositionary' esteem rose in the eyes of the regime. All of them will say today that they are in opposition, which they probably are, but in a specific Croatian sense of the word opposition, as the 'constructive critics of the regime', who resemble those small birds who nibble the dirt of the hippopotamus and help him in that manner to stay alive.
As an oppositionary, Djapic is like Ante Pavelic with a human face. Tomcic denounced the SDP as a communist party, while Budisa showed what should be national liberalism. The regime needs Pavelic as a national icon, but it needs somebody outside of the HDZ who will rehabilitate him; the regime needs to scare the people with communism, but it is not right anymore when the HDZ members do it; the regime needs national liberalism, because the new, out of peasants shoes just arrived HDZ rich men are in their nature national liberals.
It seems in recent times that it is the SDP's turn, that is more precisely, the persons of Ivica Racan and Zdravko Tomac. The first one stated that while he was in Germany, among the Socialdemocrats there, he found himself in a situation to defend president Tudjman from "not argumented attacks' , while the latter started giving strange statements about the 'Spanish model' of transition from Tudman's into democratic society. In his interview to 'Radio 101' , Racan added that he will alway defend Tudjman if somebody remarks to the President from abroad which does not stand, but that he will not defend him if the remarks are correct.
The president of the SDP is attempting to persuade the public that his intentions are of patriotic nature, at the line of the defence of national interests, but since the regime structured things in a manner that the state, as in any non - democratic society is a replica or photocopy of the party in power, defending Tudjman from (no matter what kind of) attacks, it is actually defending the HDZ and its irreplacability from power.
Along with everything else, Ivica Racan did not find it necessary to this day to say which unfounded remarks the German Socialdemocrats placed onto Tudjman's account, so that the public could estimate whether these remarks were really unfounded.
The story about the 'Spanish model', should, again, show that the fight for power does not have to be the foundation of the opposition's strategy, but what has to be utilized is the experience of the state which, after Franco's death, switched from fascism to democracy through a form of social evolution. So, it is essential to co-operate with HDZ, that is, with 'healthy forces' within the party in power, and hope that this co-operation will, through some alchemy, lead to democracy.
Unfortunately, Zdravko Tomac forgot just a few small things: the Spanish problem was the problem of freedom and democracy, while the Croatian one also includes the problem of transition, theft, and sacralisation of the state as an institution.
A while ago, a co-operation group, comprising Socialdemocrats Tomac and Snjezana Biga Friganovic, as well as national liberals Drazen Budisa and Jozo Rados, attempted in Brussels to prevent the European Parliament to pass resolutions against the attack of the regime on the 'Open Society Institute - Croatia', 'Feral Tribune', Ivan Zvonimir Cicak and the freedom of free speech in Croatia.
The attack on the 'Open Society Institute - Croatia' passed without any reaction from the opposition, and a similar thing happened with 'Feral' and Cicak. SDP did not react either to the introduction of fascist elements into current Croatian society, and particularly the past, nor were its leaders particularly visible in criticisms of the stifling of free speech. True, they did express some positions in principle, but they did become concrete when the regime was to be protected from the resolutions of the European parliament.
Defending Tudjman's regime in the eyes of Europe, the opposition undertakes the responsibility for some events which will, most probably, happen in the future. The terror against the freedom of speech, non - governmental institutions, civic forums and those protecting human rights will not cease, and if there is less pressure on the regime, the terror will be greater. But, whatever will happen in the future with 'Feral', 'Soros Foundation', for example, will become a part of the responsibility of Tomac Racan, Budisa and Rados. If Tomac does not allow Tudjman's decisions to be brought to their utmost consequences in front of the international public, there is no further reason to consider him Tudjman?s opponent.
The sense of the answer to the question how to remain relevant as opposition and never threaten the regime, has been only understood, unfortunately, by Croatian voters. As a rule, they rejected everybody who accepted to play the role of parliamentary decoration, ikebana of young democracy and the opposition which do not want to win power. That is why parties like HSP, HSLS and HSS have sunk or are still sinking, while the SDP started leaking too.
The Croatian electoral body is smarter than the political parties. It is not divided into some right, some center and some left. It either votes for the HDZ, or for the opposition. It distributes its votes among the opposition only in the case that there is a choice of really anti-HDZ parties. If there is no choice, then they will choose one, the reliable one.