Search

In recent history the Balkans passed through periods of conflict and violence typical of many post-imperial nation-states that are unable to establish lateral links with their neighbors without or outside the central (imperial) connection. In a way, these states imitated historical path of imperial conquests. In this regard, ethnic conflicts that escalated into wars of the former Yugoslavia can be taken as examples of an erratic transformation of post-imperial into modern nation-states that are eager to build up democracy at home and develop peaceful coexistence with others in international environment. Nevertheless, not all multiethnic areas were caught up in violence (e.g. instances of “peace enclaves” in multiethnic areas in Croatia, Bosnia and Heregovina and in Kosovo). Through such examples, which will be illustrated with results of empirical research, we recognize potentials for building tolerance from below. On the other hand, in most other places peace was a follow up of post-conflict processes. In these cases, local potentials of ethnic tolerance were rather weak. The paper provides some examples illustrating regional differences in this regard within Croatia. Actually, the whole process of normalization of ethnic relations in peaceful terms is far from being linear and is hardly going smoothly. Some parts of national elites foster distance and antagonism against the ”others”. On the other hand, especially following EU accession of Croatia, nationalistic rhetoric significantly receded on the level of the official politics. The question is then whether the impact of policies in institutional sphere, both national and international, i.e. top-down approach, is decisive in shaping inter-ethnic relations. The conclusion is that the institutional, top-down arrangements of peace and tolerance cannot be sustainable without concomitant bottom-up processes on micro level, which theoretically corresponds to a “conformant policy” against “linear policy” or determinism of the center and contingencies in the periphery., U nedavnoj prošlosti Balkan je proživio razdoblja sukoba i nasilja, tipična za mnoge post-imperijalne nacije-države koje su se pokazale nesposobnima u uspostavljanju veza sa susjedima izvan imperijalnog modela centra i periferije. Takve su države imitirale povijesne obrasce imperijalnih osvajanja. U tom se smislu etnički sukobi, koji su eskalirali u ratove na područjima bivše Jugoslavije, predstavljaju primjere pogrešne transformacije postimperijalnih država u moderne nacije-države s demokratskim poretkom i mirnom koegsistencijom sa susjedima. Usprkos takvom razvoju situacije, pokazalo se da nije u svim višeetničkim sredinama došlo do eskalacije etničkog nasilja (npr. slučajevi „enklava mira“ u višeetničkim područjima Hrvatske, Bosne i Hercegovine i Kosova). U takvim primjerima, koji su ilustrirani podatcima empirijskog istraživanja, pronalazi se potencijal za izgradnju tolerancije „odozdo“. S druge strane, u područjima u kojima je mir proizašao iz postkonfliktnih procesa lokalni potencijali za izgradnju etničke tolerancije su se pokazali puno slabijima. U radu su navedeni primjeri koji ukazuju na izrazite regionalne razlike u Hrvatskoj. Rad također pokazuje da se cjelokupan proces normalizacije međuetničkih odnosa u hrvatskom društvu odvija na proturječan način. Dijelovi nacionalnih elita često su skloni naglašavanju socijalne distance i antagonizma spram „drugih“. S druge strane, nakon ulaska Hrvatske u Europsku uniju, nacionalistička retorika na političkoj razini značajno je smanjena. Postavlja se pitanje u kojoj je mjeri službena politika na nacionalnoj ili međunarodnoj razini, koja predstavlja pristup „odozgo“, presudna u oblikovanju međuetničkih odnosa. Zaključak rada je da uspostavljanje etničkog mira i tolerancije nije ostvarivo bez istodobnog odvijanja procesa na mikro razini odnosno ”odozdo”. U teorijskom smislu to odgovara suprotstavljanju ”linearne politike” i ”politike usklađivanja”, odnosno političkog determinizma centra i kontingencijskih procesa koji se odvijaju njegovim periferijama.

This paper is based on preliminary results of a research project on social integration and collective identities in certain multiethnic settings in Croatia. Generally, a distinction is drawn between two main forms of peace in multiethnic settings. The first one relates to the existence of peace in the places that maintained their peace and integrity amid the spread of ethnic violence in their surroundings. The second form of peace is much more frequent, as it relates to the whole scale of post-conflict processes. Next, a typology is proposed, distinguishing multiethnic peace and conflict areas in Croatia, where the former are the areas where no violent conflicts happened in the 1990s, and the latter areas where return of refugees, mostly Serbs, is taking place as an aftermath to the conflict in 1990s. Subsequently, answers given by national experts and certain local leaders of Croatian and Serbian nationality are described in order to pre-test the bottom-line of typology, i.e. the existence of conflict and non-conflict areas inhabited both by Croats and Serbs. In the end, two main conclusions are proposed. The one concerns the relevance of the basic dichotomy of the multiethnic areas, and the other the possible usefulness of the path-dependence approach to the explanation of the difference between conflict and peace areas in the case of Croatia.

Peace is mainly a micro-social phenomenon. The concept of a culture of peace, as well as the concept of liberal peace, is designed for studying peace on nation-state level and internationally. In the first part of this paper micro-social foundations of peace are discussed, primarily to explain why the rising participation of women in parliaments is correlated with a decrease in collective violence in societies. In the second part of the paper, De Rivera’s analytical concept of the culture of peace is adapted for the sake of studying peace at a local level, i.e. Croat-Serb ‘peace enclaves’ in the 1990s, and comparing them with Croat-Serb conflict areas. The empirical findings confirm the relevance of the concept of culture of peace. The most important link between micro-peace and macro-peace is recognised in trends towards gender equality and non-dominance over weak, respectively, which are stronger in the peace than the conflict areas. Such results fit a pluralist approach to culture, which maintains that some non- or pre-liberal communities may also preserve peace as their prominent value.

Different aspects and (dis)advantages of the use of qualitative and quantitative methods in studying ethnic relations will be presented in the analysis of the case of conflict and peace processes in some multiethnic areas in Croatia. The paper starts with a brief overview of the use of different methods, separately or combined, in research aimed at explaining processes and dynamics of phenomena covered by research in historiography and historical sociology. The authors especially focus on the understanding of the importance of studying time as a dynamic process, through time series, i.e. quantitatively, or narrative interviews / oral history, i.e. qualitatively. The central question is: what are (dis)advantages of the both methods in the attempt at explaining of causality of social phenomena such as conflict and peace between different ethnic groups? In the second part of the paper a possible answer to the question will be pursued on the example of research on conflict and peace areas in Croatia in 1990s. A particular attention will be given to how quantitative and how qualitative analysis of the attitudes of respondents elucidates processes predating conflict and peace respectively, and the dynamics of conflict and peace on the whole. Also, is it true that – as claimed by many authors – qualitative analysis is inclined more to theoretical approaches such as ethnomethodology, constructionism, and path dependence, and is less deterministic, while quantitative analysis prefers functionalism, rational choice and similar, i.e. more deterministic, approaches? Does the case-study in Croatia corroborate such theoretical-methodological alignments? If so, what the combination of the use of different methods, as demonstrated in the case-study, elicits theoretically? Just another portion of eclecticism or an opportunity for creating a new theoretical approach?

Peace exists in two main forms in multiethnic milieux. The first, found more rarely, relates to the existence of peace in milieux that have retained their integrity without major changes in the (multiethnic) composition of the population, despite the wave of multiethnic strains, conflicts and violence in their broader surroundings. The second and more frequently found form relates to milieux that have experienced violent conflicts or wars in the more recent or distant past, and can thus be classified being in one of several phases, from peacekeeping through peacebuilding to democratic peace. An indication is given in this respect of the phase in which Croatia currently finds itself as regards its multiethnic milieux that were recently engulfed by war.

The main aspects of Croatian national identity are described in terms of institutions, inventors and historical processes. Also, national identity is related to political and social change. It is indicated what the Croatian nation- state and Croatnessmean mean to different political groups and social strata in Croatia. In the second part of the paper certain dialectic of resentment and identity is explained, namely the dynamics of the popular use of national identity that projects different scapegoats that are blamed for hardship in the war and afterwards, in the process of economic transition (from Serbs to Herzegovinians). Author concludes, however, that the dynamics of the meaning of national identity in Croatia is not completed with that and that it may take more inclusive and more democratic form in the future.