СРПСКАТА ДРЖАВА ВО ПРОГРАМИТЕ НА ПОЛИТИЧКИТЕ ПАРТИИ ВО СРБИЈА ДО ДЕЈТОНСКАТА С - Part 02

This stream of thought had emphasized and affirmed ethnic and ethnolinguistic determination as well as the “organic” and ethno-genetic nature of nations as a ground for “voluntaristic” and “organicistic” definitions of nation and nationalism, proјected even in modernity. The cult of the past and historical past of “predecessors and heroes” as well as that of collective “political will” of the nation is the focus of that notion, having often dramatic effects even nowadays.

Marxism was and still is another source of understanding and defining the pattern of nation and ethnicity, despite of its “cosmopolitan and universalist” ideology and criticism of nationalism as an expression of “capitalist slavery” and prevention of “liberation of labour”.

Nevertheless, communism had to conceptually and practically as wellsolve the issues of “world revolution” which was taking place within “nation states”, јust like communist policies to be implemented in nation-states’ framework. In this connection, at the beginning of the 20th century, one of the Marxist schools, the

Austro-Marxism of O. Bauer, defined the nation as “entity of people, associated by a common destiny and common communication, which mediator is the language, creating so- a cultural community”. This definition is not far from contemporary understandings of the nature of ethnic/national communities.

However, later on, Marxism, in the course of the rise of the Soviet political and imperial power, had reinterpreted the nation in the words of Stalin- as “a historically established stable community of people, based upon a communion of language, territory, economic life and political constitution, manifested in a community of culture”. These features had been founded and strengthened by capitalism, implanting in such communities class inequalities, contrasts, exploitation, hegemony.

This definition has not been forgotten even today, sometimes is fully utilized and instrumentalized as in the case of the Balkans. It particularly involves the component of the “class and labor liberation”, which now, like in the recent history comprises a variety of forms of political intervention in “national and ethnic issues”. The additional product of this concept is the “historical” gradation of national “growth”, from ethno-tribes and states through ethnic grouped population and ethnicities to- nations establishing their own states on their own, ethnically determined territories.

Under Yugoslav circumstances, E. Kardelј, in the late 1950-s would determine the nation as “specific people’s community, formed on the basis of the division of labor in the epochs of capitalism, on a compact territory, in the framework of common language, having altogether close ethnic and cultural communications”. Capitalism was a creator of differences among nations, while the labor liberation would give a rise to full equity and cultural equality of all nations…

By Marxist/Stalinist interpretation, nationhood is a real community, historical, linguistic, economic, territorial, cultural etc., while inequalities among nations are a product of capitalist reproduction, which would be resolved by the revolution, even “world’s revolution”, overcoming all social groups’ inequalities. However, at the same time, Stalinism had introduced severe instruments of

intervention and “political engineering” in resolving national/ethnic issues. Nevertheless, the Macedonian national issue was not affected by such methods of resolution.

Modern thought and notions of nations and nationalism are primarily considering the dilemma weather nations are primogenial, eternal, historically determined creations, or creations of modern era, society, political development. The primordialist stream in theory defines nations as almost bio-social groups, having ethno-genetic, race, organic and even blood-relation character. That is the basis of formation and existence of cultural, language, religious and other “natural” group features and self-perception of a nation or ethnicity. As Shils, Gertz and others, explained, such groups are a root of social organization as they have organic and organic-evolutionary nature. Political and state institutions are mainly civil and secular coverage and protectors of nations… Ethnic territory is a natural space of free expression of nations and ethnicities and is protected by state apparatus.

The Modernist stream in theory of nation, although one cannot speak of homogeneous theory, generally considers that nations are not creations rooted in ancient or antique times but are a fruit of modern history and not so distant past. Most of nations in the world have been encompassed only recently and there is no sociological or historical evidence that they have been “pre-modern” collectivities. Most of the evidence indicates that their history was mainly based upon mythology and myths, not on bio-genetic, ethno-genetic or natural linkages. They are even “invented or imagined” communities and a result of modern socio-political developments which created prerequisites for rational sometimes “scheduled” activities of nation-building. These processes have been particularly visible during and after the French revolution and other civil revolutions. Authors like R. Bendix, L. Pie, E. Hobsbaum, D. Lerner, G. Allmond, E. Gellner, E. Kedourie, B. Anderson and many others have offered a deep insight in the essence of these developments, explaining in the first instance the knot correlation of the nation-building, the role of the state and politics and the requirements of industrialism and capitalism: large and single markets, mass production, massive education and application of common standards, cultural and linguistic patterns.

Exchange and mobility of capital, labour force and goods require these common standards and destroy the traditional forms of association of populations on feudal, local, religious, ethnic, even family and primary groups’ levels. States and political institutions greatly facilitate this dynamics. However, it is pointed out that building of modern nations and nation-states is also connected to and implemented by the advancements of human rights, civil liberties and democratic order, something which is not considered as relevant in many newly established states introducing allegedly modern nation-building models.

Balkan countries, at least many of them, belong to this group of “democratic” systems. In some national doctrines of Macedonian neighbors, nationalism is defined as good (nationalism of “Western” type) and bad (of primitive type, repudiating the rights of others).

In fact, this is a distinction of nationalism perceived as patriotism and nationalism as a form of depriving “others”, ethnic minorities first of all of their natural and legal rights of self-expression. The distinction of civic patriotism and ethnic nationalism is a relevant problem in policies of many Balkan states. Even when Balkan nationalisms declare themselves as nationalism of Western type, when they refer to “citizenship of a nation-state”, they are in fact ethnic nationalisms.

It is interesting how this type of nationalism penetrates into politics and mass consciousness. The author quotes here the well known German sociologist H. Kohn, who, writing 60 years ago, said that intellectuals play a pillar role in the periphery, in East-European countries, where the petty bourgeoisie lacks the necessary confidence to pave its road to self-sustained growth. Instead, intellectuals should provide the mythical feeling of different destiny of the entire community, by nourishing a national culture based upon folklore elements and mobilization of masses. This is where the source of power of idealistic and subјectivist components of peripheral nationalisms, derives from.

Much later, in the mid 80s of the last century, the Czeck sociologist M. Hroch would conclude his research on nationalism in Eastern

Europe, detecting the common matrix of nationalistic movements in the region; they usually begin with small caucuses of intellectuals, writers, artists who elaborate the idea of a threatened nation, then that idea is spreading into larger circles of patriots-agitators, teachers and јournalists, to comes to an end in a largest body of lower and middle strata as well as to- massive movement.

Ethno-symbolist school of thought, represented in the book through analysis of the works of A. Smith, Hutchinson, Burt, Gounot, Held and McGrew and others, is close to the modernists; nevertheless it is not burdened by rigid definitions, requirements and categorical determinations of what an ethnos or nation is or is not. To say in simplified words, it assumes that if a part or a group of a population feels differently from the others, particularly from the maјority, if it declares itself as an ethnically or in terms of nationhood –distinctive, it has the right to do it so.

What remains as essence of this doctrine, as Kedourie would formulate, is the fact that people have the right to endure on differences that distinct then from others, no matter whether differences are real or imagined, important or not; they have the right to make these differences their first political principle…

Moreover, such a group or entity of the population does not have any obligation or duty to prove why it so feels or self-identify as a distinctive group. Identity, self-identity and self-identification are basic concepts of theorizing in this context. The well known Croatian cultural theoretician Z. Kramaric, develops further this way of thinking, elaborating in more details the issues of group identification, particularly in situations of unfavourable conditions for nation-building, absence of own state or political forces as well as in presence of what is usually called “dual identity”, a phenomenon often seen in Balkan cultures. Kramaric applies this analysis to the phenomenon visible in Macedonian literature and nation-genesis.

At this point, the author tries to relate this theory to the international legal order and already adopted and functioning acts and treaties, providing human rights and civil liberties relating to ethnic and minorities’ rights as a substantial part of this order. Both at

individual level and subsequently at collective level, ethnic self-identification and self-determination have been incorporated in the corpus of international law and legal order. As a matter of fact, the right of selfidentification is an inclusive part of the new generation of human rights and liberties. Not everywhere this has been understood and respected.

Conceptual analysis gives a ground for a presentation and critical examination of the texts of modern national doctrines of Macedonian neighbors. The author comes to a set of analytical observations relating to most of these doctrinal documents. First of all, they present a continuation of the lines of reasoning, demands, ambitions and aspirations of their founders and ideological fathers in the mid-19th century. That was a period of national “Risorgimento” of many Balkan ethnicities, a period of ethno-romanticism, of creation of new statehoods, nationhoods, a period of formation of policies of expansion, conquests, enlargements of influence, claims to neighboring territories and populations.

In most texts, ethno-romanticism and ethno-centric interpretations of history are present nowadays, together with complains that “their” nation was a historical victim or obјect of victimization, of suffering and being deprived of some historical rights, first of all of living to the gether in one single state. This was, allegedly due to the interferences and interventions of great powers and their interests in Balkan affairs, due to specific balance of forces in the Balkan politics and inter-state affairs, not less because of domestic and internal weaknesses of the “national forces”.

The analysis of the author indicates that theoretically, the doctrines are a product of ecclesiastic methods of thinking and concluding, of a combination and discriminative selection of arguments and theses of Ethno-romanticism, Primordialism, Marxism and to certain measure Modernism. As a matter of fact, many of them draw out from these concepts- the most rigid and for them- rather instrumental definitions and conceptions of nation and ethnicity. Consequently, they try to shape the imagined paradigm of a “great nation”, historically and ethno-genetically rooted in ancient times, a nation historically deprived of its natural rights, reduced in its ethnic territory and population by its neighbors, a nation suffering of space

and resources’ limitations, a nation rich of its geno-funds and intellect but denied in rights by the present political arrangements. The claims for expanding to the entire mentally determined ethnic territory is present in most doctrinal texts, sometimes even clearly and programmatically.

Most of the doctrines deny the existence of any ethnic diversity in their own states, deny the existence of ethnic minorities and declare one-nation states; if, because of international acts and obligations they should recognize some undisputable ethnicities, they recognize their ethnic rights on individual basis only; even this is followed by active stimulation of members of these ethnicities to јoin the citizenship of the nation-state and become nationals of that state, preserving their language or group identity “for home and family”.

Most of the documents also emphasize the right of expansion to and appropriation of Macedonian territory and other territories in the neighborhood. This is on “ethno-historical”, ethno-genetic, economic, linguistic and cultural basis. An enormous and carefully selected evidence of statistical, historiographic, economic, demographic etc., basis, has been utilized to prove these claims and hypotheses. Several documents openly deny the existence of the Macedonian nation, of Macedonian minorities in their countries, of Macedonian national identity, language, history and culture. Selected lists of geographical maps, statistical censuses evidence from the past are attached to demonstrate that Macedonians are јust an invented nation, an amorphous mass of population ethnically belonging to other nations. Consequently, Macedonian ethnic communities in neighboring countries do not exist, with exception of small groups of individuals conducting “destructively”.

Another approach in the documents is the criticism of the present day authorities of Macedonia for repression of ethnic rights of minorities, despite the fact that the country is well known by its full respect and practical implementation of inter-ethnic democracy and human rights. At this point, some documents not only appeal to European standards but also formulate policies offered to their governments for how to press upon the country to abandon its own national identity and sovereignty. Dreams are converted into

ideology, ideology into policies, policies into conflicts, concludes the author.

ВиГ ЗЕНИЦА Видое Смилевски - Бато 85/1-14 Скопје e-mail: stoјkovski2010@yahoo.com Facebook: ViG Zenica__