Tito and Titoism: A Reassessment

最近关于南斯拉夫解体的许多工作都集中在结构性因素上--例如其种族结构、国际关系、经济和文化政策或意识形态。我自己的书(Jugola vija-drzava Koja je odumria，2003)提倡对这种崩溃的原因进行多因素分析--其中既包括意识形态，也包括个性的作用。现在，我想更进一步，看看约西普·布罗兹·铁托--1945-1980年期间的核心政治人物--在保持南斯拉夫团结方面所发挥的作用。我还要根据南斯拉夫和南斯拉夫后历史和政治的新发展，重新评估铁托的政策和意识形态。该项目考察了“铁托因素”(包括作为一种政治学说的“铁托主义因素”)在确保南斯拉夫在1945-1980年期间的稳定以及--在后铁托时期--未能维持其统一方面的作用。这项研究将有以下具体目标：1.评估铁托的个性及其在1945-1980年期间对南斯拉夫国家发展和维护的政策的重要性；2.根据铁托的政治遗产及其政治意愿的各种延续或终止的各种尝试，评估后铁托主义十年(1980-1990年)；3.研究铁托的遗产与-1992年南斯拉夫实际解体之间的关系；4.分析铁托和铁托的南斯拉夫在崩溃后的官方和非官方陈述，包括官方记忆(或缺乏官方记忆)，以及新的后南斯拉夫精英的政治纲领与铁托主义遗产之间的任何最终联系；L 5.重新评估铁托去世25年后的遗产；6.加强我们对威权政权(特别是那些在冷战期间在东欧发展起来的政权)以及领导人在这些政权中的作用的理解；7.为研究从威权政权过渡做出贡献。在追求这些主要目标的过程中，将讨论以下具体问题：1.铁托对马克思主义的解释--以及他的社会主义自我管理政治思想的起源？2.哪些问题尚未得到妥善解决--与他上台、行使权力和/或统治国家有关？3.铁托对南斯拉夫的统一有多重要--因此，他死于南斯拉夫的分裂进程？4.他使用了什么机制来推进他的政治和意识形态目标？5.他的种族背景对他为南斯拉夫制定的民族问题政策有多重要？6.他在多大程度上是一个独裁者--他是否总是能够将自己的意愿强加给其他相关的政治参与者？7.对他在国内的角色来说，铁托在国际舞台上的地位有多重要？8.铁托的官方代表权是如何构思出来的，它成功了吗？9.后南斯拉夫国家的新尺子在多大程度上将自己塑造为“新铁托”--还是“反铁托”？10.铁托在思想和政治上的成功有没有持续下去？如果是的话，哪个？11.铁托和铁托主义的正面形象最近复兴的来源和解释是什么？12.他和他的时代将如何被历史地看待？

Much of the recent work on the collapse of Yugoslavia focuses on structural, factors - such as its ethnic structure, international relations, economic and cultural policy, or ideology. My own book (Jugoslavija - drzava koja je odumria, 2003) promotes multi-factored analysis of the reasons for this collapse - which includes both ideology and the role of personalities. I would now like to take a step further by looking at the role that Josip Broz Tito, the central political personality of the 1945-1980 periods played in keeping Yugoslavia together. I would also like to offer a reassessment of ¦ Tito's policy and ideology in light of new developments in Yugoslav and post-Yugoslav history and politics. The project examines the role of the Tito factor' (including the 'factor of Titoism' as a political doctrine) in both securing stability of Yugoslavia in the period of 1945 -1980, and - in the post-Tito period - failing to preserve its unity. The research will have following specific objectives: 1. To assess the importance of Tito's personality and his policies for the development and preservation of the Yugoslav state from 1945-1980; 2. To assess the post-Titoist decade (1980 - 1990) in light of the various attempts to continue or discontinue Tito's political legacy and his political will; 3. To examine the relationship between the Titoist legacy and the actual collapse of Yugoslavia in 1989-1992; 4. To analyse official and unofficial representations of Tito and Tito's Yugoslavia in the aftermath of the collapse including official memories (or the lack of them), and any eventual link between the political programs of new post Yugoslav elites and Titoist legacy; L 5. To offer a reassessment of Tito's legacy from a distance of 25 years since his death; 6. To enhance our understanding of authoritarian regimes (especially those which developed in Eastern Europe in the Cold--War), and of the role of the leading personalities in these regimes; 7. To contribute to studies of transition from authoritarian regimes. In pursuing these main objectives, the following specific questions will be addressed: 1. What were the origins of Tito's interpretation of Marxism - and of his political ideology of socialist self-management? 2. What issues have not yet been properly addressed - related to his accession to power, exercising power, and/or ruling of the country? 3. How important was Tito for the unity of Yugoslavia - and, consequently, his death for disintegrative processes in Yugoslavia? 4. What mechanisms did he use to further his political and ideological objectives? 5. How important was his ethnic background for the policies on the national question he developed for Yugoslavia? 6. To what extent was he an autocrat - and was he always in position to impose his will to other relevant political participants? 7. How important for his role domestically was Tito's position in the international arena? 8. How was the official representation of Tito conceived and was it successful? 9. To what extent did the new rulers of post-Yugoslav states model themselves as 'new Titos' - or as 'anti-Titos'? 10. Have any of Tito's ideological and political successes been sustained - and if so, which? 11. What is the source and explanation of the recent revival of positive images of Tito and Titoism? 12. How will he and his time be viewed historically?