Many people who watched the documentary entitled “Leaving Belgrade” on the national media outlet RTV Slovenia a few days ago were quite bothered by the impression that the actions of the League of Communists of Slovenia (ZKS) were an act of independence. The former vice-president of the DEMOS coalition, Dr Dimitrij Rupel, pointed out that this is far from the truth, while the columnist Igor Omerza, MSc, noted that this congress did not open up alternatives to independence.
The screening of the documentary prompted the first President of the Slovenian Democratic Alliance (Slovenska demokratična zveza – SDZ), Vice-President of the Democratic Opposition of Slovenia (DEMOS) coalition and Foreign Minister in several mandates, Dr Dimitrij Rupel, to address some criticism to RTV Slovenia, as well as a proposal to ensure that all parties are represented equally in terms of their actions before the 1990 elections and that their contribution to Slovenian statehood is correctly assessed.
In the introduction to the note, which was addressed to members of the management team and staff of the national media outlet, Radio-Television Slovenia (RTVS), which was also published on Požar’s X social network profile, Dr Rupel explained that friends had pointed him to a broadcast about the departure of the delegation of the League of Communists of Slovenia from the party congress in Belgrade on the 22nd of January 1990. According to Dr Rupel, the statements and comments in the programme revealed the Slovenian delegates’ disillusionment with Yugoslavian and Serbian party politics, “while in reality, they were acting in contradiction to the rules and principles they had voluntarily accepted when they came to the congress.”
Rupel explained that “the actions of the Slovenian communists at that time (after the famous showdown with Ceausescu, after the May Day Declaration, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, after the Polish and other events of 1989 that heralded the end of communism in Europe) were in the function of the upcoming Slovenian elections.”
Referring to the decision of national television to “broadcast the congress of a party which no longer exists and which has (at least formally) left Yugoslavian and Slovenian politics,” Rupel stressed that “this is contrary to the current constitutional and legal order in Slovenia.” This is because “in its presentation of Slovenian state history, the national media outlet has not ensured any balance between the conduct of the League of Communists of Slovenia and the congresses of the new Slovenian parties in 1989 (which included the following: SKZ, SDZ, SDSS, SKD, Zeleni)”. With regard to these parties, he pointed out that even before the communists left Slovenia for Belgrade, they had been predicting independence, democracy and a Slovenian nation state. “The broadcast gives the impression that the actions of the League of Communists of Slovenia in Belgrade were actions of independence, which is, of course, far from the facts,” Rupel stressed.
“(1) the National Liberation Movement (NOB) as independence, (2) the film recently shown on RTV Slovenia about the almost “independence” congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, and (3) the destruction of the Museum of Independence are the three main elements of the ideological coup d’état of the actual independence. Unfortunately, the entire ruling elite is participating in this!” pointed out the publicist Igor Omerza, MSc.
This Congress did not open up alternatives to independence
We decided to ask Omerza for further commentary on the documentary. In the very beginning of his response, he took issue with Milan Kučan‘s comment that new alternatives, including independence, started to open up immediately. He pointed out that this alternative had been open since 1941 and that this Congress did not open up any alternatives to independence.
“Let’s say we go back in time. Let’s look at the May Day Declaration, which demanded an independent Slovenia, a Slovenian state. This was in May 1989, which, of course, was long before the Congress. It didn’t open up any alternatives – because they were already open. In February, for example, Janez Stanovnik in Belgrade, when asked by American diplomats what the Slovenian political leadership thought about secession, replied that it was not their alternative,” Omerza went on to say, concluding that it was obvious that these alternatives to independence were not opening to the Communist Party at the time.
“This whole film somehow gives the impression that this meant the end of Yugoslavia. The League of Communists continued to fight for Yugoslavia. I don’t see it as treasonous, but as a wrong policy at the time, which was then ultimately reversed. They supported the independence referendum. But that was only in December 1991. So, this congress did not yet have the independence potential, as it seems from the comments of those who were part of the documentary,” he stated, adding that it was even a good pre-election move by the League of Communists of Slovenia, who practically continued to insist on Yugoslavia until the independence referendum.
Ž. N.
