Answering some questions of ADN the Ambassador spoke of the content of the book and its target, linking many topics dealt with in the ‘Critique of the Political Mind’ with the current situation, particularly in the Balkans. Among others he considered Serbia as a threat to the stability of the region because of its ambition to create the Serb World/Greater Serbia. Below follows the interview:  

Albanian Daily News: First of all, congratulations for the publication in Albanian of your book ‘Critique of the Political Mind’. Please Mr. Ambassador could you shed some light on the main pillars of the book because the title of the book is very intriguing, hinting at a wide diapason of its content?

Croatian Ambassador Zlatko Kramaric: First of all, I would like to thank you for your compliments. Writers, perhaps even more than politicians, are very vain people and it is very important to them how the (critical) public judges their texts, the theoretical-political positions they represent. Even by a cursory reading of the contents of 'Critique of the Political Mind', one can see that in this book we dealt with various topics, from the analysis of the 'Serbian world' (one could say that we were a kind of prophets, because we already anticipated the creation seven or eight years ago of "All-Serbian Parliament" (which happened these days in Belgrade and which undoubtedly shows that Serbian political leaders do not intend to just give up on the Greater Serbia project; they are just waiting for a favorable moment, a change in geopolitical relations in the world, the victory of Russia in the imperial war against Ukraine...), because then with that 'innocent' Declaration on the Protection and Preservation of the Serbian People (to avoid any confusion, this is only one of the many variants of the famous Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts/SANU, which appeared at the end of 1986; it is about a document that was the ideological basis for all the wars that were fought on the territory of the former Yugoslavia in the 90s of the last century.) I don't know how well your readers know, but in the 90s of the last century, I actively participated in the promotion of liberal-democratic ideas in Croatian society with the intention of trying to prevent the penetration of cheap, but therefore seductive, populist ideas into the Croatian public space.

There are also our comments on some of the relevant political events in Europe, such as the student movements across Europe in the 60s of the last century, or our reflections on the dramatic changes in political paradigms, which, in turn, are the logical consequence of certain political, economic and cultural processes in European society, the visible influence of modern migrations, which significantly changed the ethnic image/map of Europe. There is also our reference to the phenomenon of camps/gulags, a phenomenon without which it is impossible to think of European/world history of the past century. In the book, among other things, we referred to the delicate relationship between the supposedly independent writer and the power (government/regime)! It's a real shame that our knowledge of the Albanian language is modest, because I feel that it is possible to draw a parallel between the relationship between J. Broz - Tito vs. M. Krleza (the most important Croatian/Yugoslavian writer) and the relationship between E. Hoxha and I. Kadare. When I was ambassador to Kosovo, academician R. Qosja told me about the 'subtle' relationship between Hoxha and Kadare, but those inspiring monologues of his are still insufficient for our more serious analysis of that relationship, so I left that topic for another edition of this book. I must note that both writers, Krleza and Kadare, had state funerals! I want to believe that the will of the writers was respected.

However, it is much better for the readers to judge my book than the author himself, who can hardly be objective.

- Which is the geographic space that the book covers, of course with Croatia as the main topic and incidentally is Albania included in any way in the book? And secondly how much the issues analyzed are similar from one country to another in the texts of the book and, what do they have in common?

- Although in this book I mainly deal with Croatian 'political topics and dilemmas', the speeches of my promoters at the promotion of this book in Tirana showed that Albanians experience many topics in this book as their own. We must note that the promotion of this book was a kind of political-cultural event, a real demonstration of a pure, theoretical approach to serious political topics. More attentive readers will certainly notice that our approach to political phenomena, politics as an idea, is heavily influenced by the Czech writer (and politician) V. Havel, Namely, his views on politics, the role of morality in political life, largely determined our attitude towards it. Admittedly, many will say that, as a rule, politics functions without its moral component. It is often about very successful functioning. However, this still does not mean that such political practices are good practices that should be practiced in all situations.

Therefore, one should not mix pragmatism (real-political thinking about 'politics') and the authentic idea of politics based on disinterested service to the people. Already from the title of the book you can see how important I. Kant, the German philosopher, is to me in a theoretical sense. (Some of my other books also refer to his philosophy. In the meantime, I published the book 'Criticism of the Dark Mind or the Ethics of Guilt').

We think that Albanian readers will also recognize the importance of this introduction of a "moral component" in thinking about everyday politics. Furthermore, we must not forget that both Croatia and Albania belong to those countries that, until the 90s, belonged to countries for which the Soviet Union/Moscow was an ideological ideal. I. Racan in Croatia (leader of the communist party in Croatia at the end of the 80s) and R. Alia in Albania were taken aback by the fall of the Berlin Wall. And this banal fact in the best possible way testifies to the level of democratic consciousness in our countries at that time. Namely, this fact largely determined the speed/slowness of our transitions.

- It is highlighted in the book that nothing has changed in the Balkan countries since the fall of the Berlin Wall. How do you consider such changes like the membership of many countries of the region in the EU, NATO and other organizations as well the change of the overall fabric of the society of the relevant countries?

- This is one of the reasons why I am currently publishing a book under the working title "And after Tito - Tito". And let me say right away that it is not my originality at all. Some other European authors think about the immutability of Balkan societies in a similar way such as Bulgarian philosopher Ivan Krastev, or professor Florian Bieber, or Turkish journalist Ece Temelkuran, or Serbian anthropologist Ivan Colovic...

I think it's my 'mild resignation' that borders on disappointment with the direction of events after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Instead of the triumph of liberal-democratic values, we are facing the strengthening of authoritarian regimes in these regions. And now in this new book, I'm trying to give a reasonable answer to why what happened to us, why these retrograde processes won...

In the book “Critique of the Political Mind" I only noted the existence of these retrograde processes, I made a kind of catalog of these 'bad practices', which create the feeling that Alice in Wonderland had - namely, she was convinced that she was running very fast, but in fact she stood on place. Finally, Ivo Andric, certainly one of the most important writers in this region, had to state that the Balkan peoples are peoples of space and not time. (In this fact, one should look for the reasons for the sick fascination with the idea of 'territory', which should be expanded at any cost, to ensure a larger “living space” (Lebensraum).

And the fact that some of these countries are members of the EU or NATO doesn't really mean anything. We must always keep in mind that regardless of some positive processes in society (and membership in the mentioned organizations is everyone's), this still does not necessarily mean that there has been a total elimination of some old models of political action. These models (mental systems, habits, customs...) are very resistant to all kinds of changes.

- Mr. Ambassador, you raise the issue of the need for the framing of a new identity of Croatia. Please, how do you see this new Croatian identity, and should such a phenomenon happen in all the countries of the Balkans?

- Unlike many other social theorists, I believe that identity politics are very important and that it is not productive to ignore this topic. And the formation of a 'new Croatian identity' is one of my obsessions. Namely, I am looking for an answer that all traditions should participate in the formation of this 'new identity'.  because the current relations in Croatian society - the permanent conflict between the reformed communists and those political forces that in all those tragic events from 1941 to 1945 see nothing wrong; it undoubtedly shows that none of those two (contaminated) traditions, burdened with a whole series of 'bad practices' (crimes, non-respect of basic human and other rights, lack of all kinds of freedoms), cannot be a desirable basis for the formation of that 'new identity', which should be complementary to other completed European identities. This means that the new Croatian identity should inherit all Western European values, that it should be an identity unencumbered by the past, with clear and consistent attitudes about all those 'dark episodes' from its own past, open to diversity, plural in the most beautiful sense. In other words, where 'being tolerant' is a commonplace, something that is presupposed, in everyday political and other relations.

Just the last political processes in the Balkans (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia...) show all the problems we face when dealing with unfinished, uncertain identities, which are constantly wandering in ethnic, religious, and linguistic terms.

And we are convinced that the project of the 'Serbian world' is based precisely on these weaknesses, on this obvious identity insecurity... Namely, neither the Montenegrin nor the Bosnian identities are still in statu nascendi... And that opens up space for those policies that consciously generate the greatest instability in the region, that call into question the further processes of EU-integration... In short: we are talking about par excellence anti-European, retrograde political strategies.

- In what way the issues analyzed in the book are linked with the turbulent Balkan reality, especially with the political thinking of the elites and the people, and how do you see the perspective?

- Mirko Kovac, a great writer and a great friend of Danilo Kis, another relevant European writer, (we are talking about writers who significantly influenced the formation of my political/ideological views) wrote a book about how the elites were far worse in Yugoslavia from the mob, from the masses.

The elites, both political and intellectual, were simply not at the level of the times.  All the events, the political and economic reforms of M. Gorbachev, the collapse of communism, the fall of the Berlin Wall caught them, and they slept through some of these events. Those elites were not able to open a single real topic, so they offered their citizens all those old, worn-out pre-political topics, they substituted the socialist monologue with even older monologue traditions, which were based on a myth, a mythical vision of the world, where the expansion territories, (which means that all energy should be directed towards the conquest of new territories, in order to correct some historical mistakes, such as  the creation of the first Yugoslavia) Furthermore, these elites sincerely despised any modernist vision of society.

And all those who advocated for the practice of an 'open society' (in the way that society was defined by K. Popper, not G. Soros) managed to be stigmatized in public as national traitors, rotten globalists.

Anti-modernist tendencies represent, in addition to authoritarianism, a fundamental characteristic of all post-socialist societies, where the government openly flirts with religious communities, individual religious leaders who actively participate in political life in most of these countries. There is nothing left of the secular state, only a label that does not oblige anyone to anything, so it is completely normal for governments to be formed in monasteries. Hence, the perspectives in these societies are not promising.

Therefore, we do not have to be surprised that the European public is speculating that the Western Balkans could be a new hotbed of conflict.

And the recent incident, the terrorist action in Kosovo, the armed incursion of Serbian paramilitary units into the north of Kosovo, proves that this is indeed the case... result; still no one was held accountable for that action, moreover, the main actor of that action moves freely around Serbia, has the status of a hero.

- The texts in the book touch upon the ‘silent majority’. In what way has it influenced in the progress or not of the countries and people’s behavior towards the changes, and as a follow will apparently this broad segment of the societies change from ‘spectators’ into actors giving a new physiognomy of the relevant countries?

- I still remember one of my first public appearances as mayor of Osijek, when I announced, urbi et orbi, that the fight against any form of indifference would be one of my political priorities. Namely, I considered that precisely such a psychological-political condition is the biggest obstacle for any changes in society. Indifferent people give up on activities and instead of any action they choose inaction. They take a passive approach to serious social challenges, they believe that their possible contribution will not change anything and that any activity is a wasted and unnecessary effort.

Defeatism is the favorite view of the world for the 'silent majority'; The 'silent majority' promotes a negative attitude towards any political engagement, this majority in the public space creates the impression that in politics everyone is equal, that there is no difference between different political options.

- How does Zlatko Kramaric reflect on the experience now from the first non-Communist mayor of Osijek after 1945, charismatic leader of the fight against the local Serbs backed by Yugoslav People's Army, active in Croatian politics, Ambassador of Croatia to some countries like Kosovo, North Macedonia and Albania?  

- As things stand, I have to finally write a book of memories of all those days, to describe "our people and regions". That's the title of the text of A.G. Matos, probably one of the best Croatian writers, who unfortunately died young, just before the start of the First World War, so we were deprived of his brilliant and sharp comments about the events after the end of the war, the most important of which was the formation of a new (jugo) Slavic state. I am convinced that A.G. Matos would be one of the harshest critics of that new political community.

Finally, I have demonstrated this 'pedagogical optimism' in all my roles, both as a politician, and as a member of parliament, and as a diplomat, and as a professor, but also as an ordinary citizen/outsider who simply cannot stand stupidity, primitivism, and injustice, inaction. Some wiser people than me said that human stupidity is more dangerous than a toothache, because it does not hurt and it is not possible to treat it just like that.