No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Hrvatska politička elita na početku demokratske tranzicije
Abstract
The paper presents an overview of the emergence and shaping of the Croatian political elite at the beginning of the democratic transition over the period from spring 1989 to late August 1990, when the first Government (Executive Council of the (Socialist) Republic of Croatia) was dissolved. The introductory section defines the concept of the political elite and the fundamentals of examining its recruitment. Thereafter, the formation and the mode of recruitment of political elites in transitional countries is discussed. The main part of the paper examines the particular Croatian experience of the formation and recruitment of the political elite. The electoral winners in the first multi-party and founding election held in spring 1990 were elected based on legal rules and procedures introduced by the former, Communist government. The legislative branch of government was institutionalised through three Councils to which 351 representatives were elected from among more than 1.600 candidates. On the other hand, the executive was divided between the Executive Council (Government), Stjepan Mesić being the first Prime Minister, and the Presidency of the (Socialist) Republic of Croatia, as a collective body, presided by Franjo Tuđman elected to the post by a majority of votes of MPs.
... If you are an excellent lawyer, then you are considered a member of the legal elite, etc.... When it comes to Croatian politicians, they do not have any knowledge, almost no education (in interview January 2021; see also Budimir 2011). ...
Looking back at thirty years since the founding of the sovereign Republic of Croatia, this article asks to what extent Croatia's electoral process has succeeded or failed in guaranteeing the democratic rights of citizens in a free, healthy, transparent and productive society. Through frank, revealing interviews conducted with noted Croatian political and humanitarian leaders, legal experts, and scholars, this article examines whether the electoral process serves to select leaders who act in the best interests of the people or of politicians with deep roots in the country’s troubled communist past. Does the law confront corruption, wrest control of the government from privileged elites, and result in policies that win public support and create a mandate that officials implement? Are political leaders and parties held accountable for their actions? The answers to these questions demonstrate the key role that electoral law plays in Croatia’s pursuit of its rightful destiny -- a democratic future.
The external and internal causes, elite‐mass dynamics, and elite‐level changes that appear, respectively, to have preceded, accompanied, and followed the revolutionary upheavals in Eastern Europe between 1989–1991 are examined comparatively. Particular attention is paid to the possible emergence of national elites that share a consensus on rules of the game and that are unified in defence of democratic institutions. Prospects for such elites are judged to be best in Poland and Hungary, less good in Czechoslovakia, poor in Romania, Bulgaria and Albania, and virtually nonexistent in the Yugoslav republics.
This article identifies three central tenets of democratic elitism as developed by various authors. It then traces the fate of these ideas within democratic theory. Surprisingly, I find almost universal, if unacknowledged, acceptance of democratic elitism's principles in contemporary theories of democracy. In the public, however, there is still a strong yearning for a democracy that is closer to the ideal and more open to public participation. This is reflected in public criticisms of "detached" professional politicians. I argue that a conceptual solution to the tension between the state of democratic theory and the public's expectations may ironically be provided by one strand within the theory of democratic elitism, namely Robert Dahl's theory of polyarchy.