yugoslavias implosion

88
ChApter 1
prominent members of Milošević’s Socialist Party of Serbia (sps).
Nonetheless, sources quote Milošević as saying at closed meetings at
the Security Institute:
The development of nationalism in a multinational community is the
greatest poison both the internal and the external enemy is trying to
bring into our country. … [W]hat other than dark nationalism is the
appearance of the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy, which suggests
the breaking up of Yugoslavia? This means the liquidation of the
existing system of government of our country, a break-up after which
no nation or nationality can survive. … They criticize Tito’s policy of
“brotherhood and unity” on which alone Yugoslavia can survive. …
[I]t is not a question of a sentimental attitude, an attitude towards the
historic personality who created this country; the point is that at this
moment this country can survive as Socialist, as federal, only on the
principles of Tito’s policy. 96
The Memorandum proposed a political and economic model
and developed a thesis about a nonparty pluralism. This was precisely
what Milošević was doing: he advocated a nonparty pluralism
that contained a “pluralism of forces with Socialist leanings,” whose
ideologue was philosopher Mihajlo Marković. Milošević was backed
by his wife, hard-line Communist Mira Marković, who formulated
her faith in a Socialist future: “Mobilization of that majority, on the
basis of science, and within the framework of politics, is the space in
which Socialism wins its battle easily, and then continues along its
historic, civilized path leading towards a community of free people,
towards Communism.” 97
Milošević pointed out that the historic role of Tito was of enormous
importance for the Yugoslav peoples: “The revolutionary
movement and the Communist Party of Yugoslavia brought forth
96 Slavojub Đukić, Između slave i anateme, p . 47 .
97 Slavoljub Đukić, Kraj srpske bajke, (Beograd: FreeB92, 1999) p .62 .