Croatian historian and professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb, Hrvoje Klasic He assessed that Montenegrin society is very divided both nationally and religiously, which is always dangerous for the disintegration of the state.
"When we talk about the national sense, it is not a division based on class or something else - so you have poor people and hungry people, but people here are separated by nationality. That always somehow turns out to be a danger for the disintegration of the country, for possible separatism...", Klasić said in an interview for "Vijesti".
He said that he was sorry to have to state this, but that it seemed to him that "Montenegro has problems that it must solve on its own."
"Especially in this situation where you have one current that is not only pro-Serbian, but also pro-Russian, which creates an additional problem if you as a country want to enter the EU, and you have even half of the voters - if we take the voters of the parties that vote for pro-Serbian, and if they are also pro-Russian, then that is a big problem for Montenegro. That reminds me of Serbia. On the one hand, they would like to enter the EU because they would like money from the EU, but in principle we despise the EU and its values, we would rather live like Russians. That cannot be done."
He said that he remains of the previous view that Montenegro has the healthiest relationship with the anti-fascist tradition, stating that the Montenegrin state knows what its true heritage is.
Recently, revisionism has become increasingly topical, not only in Montenegro but also in the region. Why do politicians resort to historical revisionism and changing the narrative of the past?
I must state that I do not understand why people keep saying that he has intensified revisionism. Historical revisionism in this region began and has been moving unstoppably since the 1990s. I would dare to say since the end of the 1980s. The foundations were laid then and all this rest is an extension. It all started at a time when the disintegration of Yugoslavia, among other things, was taking place as the creation of nation states as opposed to an inter-ethnic or multinational community, such as Yugoslavia.
So, if you are creating a national Serbia, a national Croatia, a national Slovenia or anything else, then you don't need a community in which several nations live, in principle, and therefore when you return to the foundations of Socialist Yugoslavia, which is the Second World War, then the partisan movement as an international, as a multinational, does not suit you either, and so the nationalist movements from the Second World War enter through the back door. In the case of the Croats, these are the Ustasha, in the case of the Serbs, these are the Chetniks, in the case of some others, these are others.
So they become desirable. In the case of Croatia, this is of course further complicated by the war itself, because at the very beginning, Dubrovnik, Vukovar, Sisak are being targeted by soldiers with red five-pointed stars, soldiers of the JNA, which is in some way a successor to the partisan movement...
You are now glorifying the Partisans, and here is what their descendants are doing now.
The story is turning. What was black becomes white, what was white becomes black. If nothing else, they try to relativize and equate - "well, the Ustashas and Chetniks did commit crimes, but the Partisans did so too, in Montenegro, Herzegovina, and Serbia."
And then if we have to choose between all those who committed crimes, then we will choose those who fought for the nation-state - Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro or whoever.
Does this mean that revisionism is a consequence of the political need to create a convenient past for current goals?
I would say that it went hand in hand with each other. Historical revisionism - here I have only addressed the issue of World War II, however, we could go back to the Middle Ages and the Nemanjićs and the origins of the Croats and the Battle of Kosovo and you will see, in fact, that the point is to distance oneself from the other and strengthen one's nation, to exclude all others from the historical narrative.
So, we don't need anyone else, we don't need to live with anyone else, we can do it alone, we have to do it alone, we are victims of everyone else, everyone else commits crimes against us, etc. That's the sad story of democracy in this region.
Democracy begins in the late 80s, early 90s, with the founding of parties. However, somehow all the right-wing parties that emerge are not conservative in the sense of Great Britain or Germany, but are exclusively nationalist parties. So, the HDZ when it emerges, then the parties in Serbia that emerge, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. All of these are more or less nationalist parties that count on an electorate that does not know much difference in what distinguishes social democrats from Christian democrats, but in principle is exclusively divided on the issue of the past. It is the tragedy of these areas that we still live in that, that we do not actually know much difference in terms of some foreign policy, tax policy, economic policy, between - specifically in Croatia, the SDP and the HDZ. What distinguishes is the attitude towards the past.
I'm afraid it's a similar thing in Montenegro. In Montenegro, it's even more accentuated with an even higher level of corruption, but in principle, people who vote for one or the other, don't vote because of what those parties offer in the future, but much more because of how those parties and their representatives relate to the past.
Could this in some way mean that nationalism is used as a backup strategy when results in other political areas fail?
I wouldn't say it's a backup strategy, I think it's the main strategy. I've said it several times, only those who have nothing to offer for the future, return to the past.
When you look at the history of Germany, France and Great Britain, all of these are histories that are very fraught with various challenges, great tragedies. However, there is no longer any point in the French, Germans or British talking about events from a hundred years ago in their campaigns. The future is offered, different paths to the future, and in our country, it seems to me, what is offered is not embellishing the future but embellishing the past. This also shows the incompetence of our politicians, while Croatia was lucky enough to join the EU and is currently in the richest and fairest society in the world - the EU society, so we must behave in accordance with the rules of that society, while the other countries in the Western Balkans that have not joined, unfortunately, are shaping their own destiny. Then that destiny looks like what it looks like in Bosnia, Serbia, and I am afraid in Montenegro as well.
Since you mentioned Croatia and the EU, how much do unresolved issues from the past and historical narratives influence today's relations between Montenegro and Croatia? Negotiations are currently underway between the two countries for Croatia to unblock Chapter 31.
Unfortunately, this is not specific to Croatian-Serbian relations. Many other countries, for example Slovenia, have done the same to Croatia due to some territorial relations, etc. Unfortunately, EU accession has often been used in the past, and between other countries, as a "coin for bargaining", in order to achieve certain goals.
I don't think that there are any fundamental problems between Croatia and Montenegro that burden those two societies. I think that these are two friendly countries that have their own problems from the past and have some specific problems regarding that ship (Adriatic)... I think that all of this is solvable.
The French and the Germans, the Germans and the Poles, the French and the British had far bigger problems, much more problems, much more difficult problems throughout their history, so they had wise people who knew how to leave those things to historians, to experts who dealt with them. It did not burden the better future of both countries or the mutual relations between the two countries.
You said earlier that in Montenegro there are people in power who almost deny the state in which they are in power, deny the identity of the people. How do you assess how present this is at the real level, in institutions, in everyday politics?
I don't live in Montenegro, so it's hard for me to say how much of an everyday occurrence this is. I was recently in the north of Montenegro and met very few Montenegrins. It seemed to me that I talked to Serbs and saw Serbian flags more than Montenegrin flags. I have nothing against that, far from it being the case that someone should deny or hide their Serbian identity within Montenegro. However, it reminded me of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where when you come to Republika Srpska, you see more Serbian flags and almost no Bosnian flags. Someone may or may not be angry with me now, but I don't think that's normal. I don't think a country can function in such a way that when one party wins the elections, for example in Montenegro, the voters of that party go out with the flags of another country. The country of Serbia must certainly be a friendly country to Montenegro, but if you are fighting for power in Montenegro, if you live in Montenegro, if you pay taxes there, if you are a citizen of that country, then I guess the first thing you should reach for is the Montenegrin flag, and not the flag of another country, no matter how much you love it. Your homeland is not Serbia, but your homeland is Montenegro, just as the homeland of the Serbs in Croatia is not Serbia, but Croatia, just as the homeland of the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina is Bosnia and Herzegovina, not Serbia. This does not mean that you should have bad relations with Serbia and deny your Serbian identity.
It seems to me that Montenegrin society, looking from the side as a truly well-intentioned citizen of a neighboring country, who loves both Montenegro and Montenegrins, is a very divided society, both in the national sense, and even in the religious sense, unfortunately. When we talk about the national sense, it is not a division by class or some other - so that you have poor people and hungry people, but here people are separated by nationality, and that always somehow turns out to be a danger for the disintegration of the country, for possible separatism, etc.
I'm sorry to have to say this, but it seems to me that Montenegro has problems that it has to solve on its own. The citizens of Montenegro have to solve these. I know that it is difficult because of the interference of other countries - first of all, I mean Serbia, but in this way the stability of Montenegro will always be questionable. Especially, in this situation in which you have one current that is not only pro-Serbian, but also pro-Russian, which creates an additional problem if you as a country want to enter the EU, and you have even half of the voters, if we take the voters of the parties that vote for pro-Serbian, and if they are pro-Russian, then that is a big problem for Montenegro. That reminds me of Serbia. On the one hand, they would like to enter the EU because they would like money from the EU, but in principle we despise the EU and its values, we would rather live like Russians. That cannot be.
Several years ago you stated that Montenegro has the healthiest attitude towards the anti-fascist tradition. Do you still hold that position? Where and how does the state demonstrate this?
In principle, yes. When we talk about the state itself, I would say - it may sound contradictory to you and your readers, but precisely phenomena such as the erection of monuments to some Chetnik dukes show that the Montenegrin state knows what its true heritage is. A showdown with those who provoke and who erect monuments to fascist collaborators - Chetniks, who were without a doubt collaborators with the occupier, the fascists, but also with the Ustashas and the Germans. The Montenegrin state knew how to deal with that and these are truly sporadic events. It surprised me - I was recently near Kolašin, in a monastery where a monument to the partisans from that region is preserved. I cannot imagine that in Croatia. Although there were priests, Catholic Croats who collaborated with the People's Liberation Movement, the Catholic Church is ashamed of that. I am not saying that the Serbian Orthodox Church is mostly proud of the Chetniks, and not the anti-fascists, but such things are also possible. Despite pressure from certain groups to declare the Chetniks as some kind of Montenegrin patriots and anti-fascists, that won't work. Are there any? Of course there are, there are people all over the world who are trying to distort the past.
How do you comment on the fact that the church has moved the statue of Pavle Đurišić to the dormitory of the Đurđevi stupovi Monastery?
That's exactly what I said a moment ago. There are such groups. I would say that when it comes to the relationship towards the past, the Serbian Orthodox Church, like the Catholic Church in Croatia, is mostly on the wrong side. Unfortunately, just as it was on the wrong side from 1941 to 1945. They think they were on the right side. World historians and politicians know that they were not. It is their right to think that, however, when they try to do something, they cannot. And now whether they will hide and put something in their own four walls, I think we cannot influence that, we do not know what people have in their homes. It is important that such things are prohibited in public spaces. I repeat, unfortunately, both the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church cannot boast of their behavior during the Second World War, which does not mean that there were no Serbian and Catholic priests, who were certainly anti-fascist.
Given your concerns about revisionism, nationalist pressures and manipulations, what would you advise Montenegrin intellectuals, historians, and civil society to do to strengthen public discourse based on facts?
It's very difficult. I don't like to give advice and lessons to anyone. I met top intellectuals in Montenegro, but unfortunately we live in a society where facts are no longer enough. As Hegel said: "If the facts don't support the thesis, so much the worse for the facts."
Today we live in a society Donald Trump, Aleksandar Vučić, (Vladimir) Putin, and when you look at their media, this distortion of the truth, it is very difficult then, even when it comes to the past or anything else, to count on the facts.
Britain left the EU, based on, it turned out, false information. Donald Trump puts out, I don't know how much, false information every day. Look at what's happening in the Serbian media space, not to mention Russia.
Dialogue is difficult to establish. In fact, we have never had a real dialogue here, we should just start establishing it. Maybe this is my message, that I have given up on convincing (ed. author) those who think that the Ustashas were not criminals, that Jasenovac did not exist, that Srebrenica did not exist, that Dubrovnik was not shelled. Those who deny this, there is no conversation with such people. Such people are always an extreme minority. Unfortunately, there is a majority of people who tend to listen to both sides, and then side with the stronger. We must become stronger and we must fight for that majority of people who are not evil, who do not hate. We must address such people, not convince those who are unreasonable and simply continue to tell the truth, and as a historian I say - deal with the facts. We need to step out of the usual frameworks such as television, newspapers. We must approach the younger generations in a receptive manner, on social networks, no matter how much they are surprised and laugh at it, sometimes mock it. That's the future. We have to use new media to reach new generations who are, in fact, confused, and who are mostly not haters, who are not mean, but we need to reach them somehow. We're not going to do it the old way of reaching people 30 or 50 years ago.
Bonus video:
