TITO: harizma kao politika legitimacija - viak seanja Titov uinak jo traje, danas u obliku aktivnog uticaja njegove preraene slike. Todor Kulji Josip Broz nikad nije bio uo za Maksa Vebera. Ili moda jeste. Moda je ak i znao, moda poznavao teoriju o drutvu ovog "buroaskog Marksa"? Obe mogunosti i da je znao i da nije podjednako su i verovatne i neverovatne. I podjednako su nevane, danas. Ali govore reito da mi o Josipu Brozu ne znamo gotovo nita, a ini nam se da znamo sve do najsitnijih detalja. Ili da se ne krijem iza imaginarnog kolektiviteta ja o Brozu ne znam nita, a ini mi se da znam sve. Za Maksa Vebera, pak, moe se sa sigurnou rei da nije znao za Josipa Broza. Postoji, dodue, mala verovatnoa da su se njih dvojica sluajno mimoila u nekoj od ulica Minhena ili Manhajma pred Veliki rat u vreme kad je Broz lutao Nemakom traei posla, ali mogunosti za to su tek literarne. Veber e od 1918. biti konsultant Nemake delegacije na Versajskoj mirovnoj konferenciji onoj istoj na kojoj se Kraljevstvo Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca, tj. budua Jugoslavija, tretira kao "drava u nastajanju", a potom je bio angaovan i na pisanju Ustava "vajmarske" Nemake. Umro je od posledica panske groznice, 14. juna 1920, u Minhenu. Imao je 56 godina. (Fotografija 1): Drug Tito u selu Veliko Trojstvo ispred mlina Samuela Polaka, 1922 ili 1923 godine. Drug Tito ima seljaki eir na glavi (fotografija i potpis iz knjige Vladimira Dedijera, Josip Broz Tito prilozi za biografiju, Beograd, 1955) U maju 1920, Josip Broz puni 28 godina. I ima poprilino sindikalnog, politikog, vojnikog, ratnog, revolucionarnog i dakako ivotnog iskustva. "Crno odelo" jo nije bio stekao (fotografija govori suprotno), a ono je ve postalo malo: simbol naivne elje iz rane mladosti. Neostvarena, anegdotalna prolost. Moe se pretpostaviti da bi bilo isto i da je Broz tu svoju

TITO: Charisma as political legitimacy - an excess of memory

Titos results still endure, today in the shape of the active impact of his revised picture.

- Todor Kulji Josip Broz never heard of Max Weber. Or perhaps he did. Perhaps he even knew, perhaps he was acquainted with the social theory of this Marx of the bourgeoisie. Both possibilities that he knew and that he didnt are equally likely and unlikely. And equally insignificant today. But they speak eloquently of the fact that we know virtually nothing about Josip Broz while we feel that we know everything down to the smallest detail. Or not to hide myself behind an imaginary collective identity I know nothing about Broz while I feel that I know everything. As for Max Weber, however, it can be said with certainty that he was not aware of Josip Broz. In fact, there is some slight possibility that the two of them may have passed each other by chance in the streets of Munich or Mannheim before the Great War in the period when Broz was wandering around Germany looking for a job, but this is merely a literary possibility. In 1918, Weber would become a consultant to the German delegation at the Versailles Peace Conference the same one at which the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians, the future Yugoslavia, was dealt with as a state in progress. He was then involved in drafting the Constitution of the Weimar Republic. He died of the consequences of the Spanish Flu on June 14, 1920, in Munich. He was 56. (Photograph 1): Comrade Tito in the village of Veliko Trojstvo, outside Samuel Polaks mill in 1922 or 1923. Comrade Tito is wearing a villagers hat on his head. (photograph and caption from Vladimir Dedijers book Josip Broz Tito prilozi za biografiju, Belgrade, 1955) (Josip Tito Broz Appendices to a Biography) In May 1920, Josip Broz turns 28. And has a fair amount of union, political, military, war, revolution and most certainly life experience. The black waiters suit of which, as a teenager, he dreamed has not yet materialised (dont let the photograph fool you), and yet it has already become too small. The symbol of a nave desire from early youth; an unrealised, anecdotal past. It may be assumed that it

elju na vreme ostvario, ali nikad neemo saznati kako bi izgledala istorija meunarodnog radnikog pokreta, istorija komunistikog pokreta, istorija II svetskog rata i istorija "druge" Jugoslavije da je Broz 1922. proitao Veberovu posthumno objavljenu knjigu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Bar treu glavu o tipovima vlasti. Moda bi i tada sve bilo isto, a moda i ne bi. Obe mogunosti i da bi i da ne bi podjednako su i verovatne i neverovatne. I podjednako su nevane, danas. Osim... ako nisu nevane. Beogradska Prosveta je 1976. objavila Veberovu knjigu, u prevodu Olge i Tihomira Kostreevia, pod naslovom Privreda i drutvo. Tito je tada imao 84 godine. Knjiga je tampana u dva toma, u tirau od 5.000 primeraka, u biblioteci Karijatide. U treoj glavi, Tipovi vlasti, izmeu ostalog pie: Postoje tri ista tipa legitimne vlasti. Punovanost njihove legitimnosti moe imati prvenstveno: 1. racionalan karakter: moe se zasnivati na veri u legalnost zakonski zasnovanih poredaka i prava osoba koje su na osnovu njih pozvane da vre vlast (legalna vlast) ili 2. tradicionalan karakter: moe se zasnivati na uobiajenom verovanju u svetost tradicija koje postoje odvajkada i na verovanju u legitimnost osoba koje su na osnovu njih pozvane da uivaju autoritet (tradicionalna vlast) ili najzad 3. harizmatski karakter: moe se zasnivati na izuzetnoj predanosti svetosti ili heroizmu, ili uzornim osobinama neke osobe u poretku koji je ova otkrila ili stvorila (harizmatska vlast). (...) U sluaju harizmatske vlasti postoji pokoravanje harizmatski kvalifikovanom voi kao takvom, na osnovu line vere u njegovo otkrivenje, junatvo ili njegove uzorne osobine u granicama vere u tu njegovu harizmu... Svejedno je... danas je svejedno kako bi bilo jer bilo je kako jeste bilo, ali mislim... u stvari verujem da bi bilo drugaije da je Josip Broz

would have been no different even if Broz had fulfilled this wish of his in time, but we will never know what the history of the international workers movement, the history of the communist movement, the history of World War Two or the history of the second Yugoslavia might have been had Broz read, in 1922, Webers posthumously published book Wirtschaft und Gessellschaft (Economy and Society), at least the third chapter on types of domination. Perhaps even if he had, everything would have been the same, and perhaps it would not have. Both possibilities that it would have and that it wouldnt have are equally likely and unlikely. And equally insignificant today. Unless they are not insignificant. In 1976, Belgrade publishing house Prosveta published Webers book in a translation by Olga and Tihomir Kostreevi under the title Privreda i drutvo. Tito was 84 at the time. The book was published in two volumes, in a print run of 5,000, as part of the series Karijatide (Caryatids). The third chapter, Types of Domination includes the followingF1F: There are three pure types of legitimate domination. The validity of the claims to legitimacy may be based on: 1. rational grounds: resting on a belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands (legal authority) or 2. traditional grounds: resting on an established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of those exercising authority under them (traditional authority) or finally, 3. charismatic grounds: resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him (charismatic authority). (...) In the case of charismatic authority, it is the charismatically qualified leader as such who is obeyed by virtue of personal trust in his revelation, his heroism or his exemplary qualities so far as they fall within the scope of the individuals belief in his charisma It doesnt matter... today it doesnt matter how it would have been because it was how it was, but I think ... in fact I believe that it would have been different had

1 Here in English translation from Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, University of California Press, 1978

proitao Veberovu knjigu. Da ju je proitao "na vreme", negde odmah po prvom objavljivanju dvadesetih godina prolog veka. Posle je ve bilo kasno, posle: kad je mehanizam istorije uhvatio Tita, kad je krenula borba, kad je poeo rat, kad je "dola" vlast... Verujem da bi sve bilo drugaije, jer verujem u prosvetiteljstvo. I pored svega... I verujem da je Josip Broz bio ozbiljan ovek. A ne mogu da zamislim ozbiljnog oveka koji bi "pristao" na neki drugi oblik legitimne vlasti osim onog zasnovanog na racionalnom karakteru... I tu sam uhvaen u zamku, jer evidentno je da je Tito svoju vlast umnogome zasnivao na harizmatskom karakteru. To i ova izloba dobro pokazuje... Pa kako sad izai na kraj sa tom protivrenou? Neto tu ne tima. S obzirom na to da se vere u prosvetiteljstvo niti elim niti mogu odrei, ostaje mi da se zamislim nad ovim drugim: nad ozbiljnou Josipa Broza. Zbilja, zato verujem da je re o ozbiljnom oveku? Zato jer mislim... jer znam da je projekat na ijem elu je bio koji je kao Tito simbolizovao (bio) veoma ozbiljan projekat ekonomske, nacionalne, klasne, rodne, individualne i svake druge emancipacije. Oslobodilaki, modernizatorski... jednom reju prosvetiteljski. I tu je, dakle, ponovo re o veri: znam da je neto dobro i verujem da se za to zalau samo ozbiljni ljudi. Mogu je tu i dadaistiki obrat koji mi je inae u umetnikoj praksi veoma drag, ali se ovaj put kladim u dvostruko verovanje. Iz paskalovskih razloga ali posle smrti Boga... U protivnom, mogao bih vam odmah rei zbogom! Jer, ako ne verujem u tu naalost malo izglednu kombinaciju ta dalje da traim na kugli zemaljskoj? Verujem, dakle, u prosvetiteljstvo i u to da je Josip Broz bio ozbiljan ovek. I ne znam kako da objasnim evidentni moda ak i dominantni harizmatski karakter Titove vlasti? Pa u se onda jo jednom posluiti upravo prosvetiteljstvom u koje verujem i pretpostaviti da bi sve bilo drugaije da je Josip Broz na vreme proitao knjigu Maksa Vebera. Onda bi znao... i nastojao bi da svoju buduu vlast nikako ne bazira na harizmatskom karakteru. Verujem da bi nastojao, jer poto verujem u prosvetiteljstvo

Josip Broz read Weber's book. If he had read it in time, soon after it was first published, in the twenties of the last century. Later, it would have been too late, later: when Tito was already caught up in the machinery of history, when the battle had begun, when the war had begun, when domination had arrived I believe that it all would have been different, because I believe in enlightenment. In spite of everything. And I believe that Josip Broz was a serious man. And I cannot imagine a serious man who would agree to any type of legitimate authority other than that based on rational grounds. And here I am caught in a trap, because it is evident that Tito based his authority to a large extent on charismatic grounds. The present exhibition demonstrates this well. So how can this contradiction be resolved. Something here does not add up. Because I am neither willing nor able to relinquish my faith in enlightenment, I am left with no choice but to consider this other matter: the seriousness of Josip Broz. Why, in fact, do I believe that at issue here is a serious man. Because I think because I know that the project at whose helm he stood which, as Tito, he symbolised was a very serious project of economic, national, class, native, individual and every other kind of emancipation. Liberational, modernisational in one word, enlightenmental. And so here, once again, its a matter of faith. I know that something is good and I believe that only serious people stand behind it. There is also a Dadaist twist possible here and this, by the way, is something very dear to me in artistic practice, but this time Im betting on dual belief. For Pascalian reasons but after the death of God. Otherwise I could bid you farewell immediately! Because if I didnt believe in this unfortunately unlikely combination what else would there be for me on Planet Earth? So I believe in enlightenment and that Josip Broz was a serious man. And I dont know how to explain the apparent perhaps even the dominant charismatic grounds for Titos domination. So once again I shall resort to nothing other than the enlightenment in which I believe and assume that everything would have been different had Josip Broz read Max Webers book in time. Then he would have known and he would have endeavoured not to base his domination on charismatic grounds at all. I believe that he would have made this endeavour because given that I

verujem u znanje i ozbiljnost onoga ko simbolizuje jedan vaan projekat. Moda bi proitavi Veberovu knjigu Josip Broz ve negde 1923. otiao u Ameriku i u Holivudu napravio veliku glumaku karijeru zasnovanu na harizmi. Moda, ali to je opet samo literarna mogunost. Pravo pitanje jeste: da li je ono to je bilo ovde bilo mogue bez harizmatskog karaktera Titove vlasti? A to je istorijski nemogue pitanje, jer znamo dobro sve je meusobno uvezano. Ali teorijski: da li je u drutvu kakvo je bilo jugoslovensko posle II svetskog rata bilo mogue sprovoditi bilo koji emancipatorski projekat vlau koja ne bi bila zasnovana na harizmatskom karakteru? To je teko pitanje i miljenja su podeljena. U drugom izdanju socioloko-istorijske studije TITO, objavljene u Zrenjaninu 2005, Todor Kulji izvodi ovu definiciju: Pretpostavka modernizacije je racionalizacija, a u politici, kao i ostalim delatnostima, to je odvajanje od religije, a zatim prihvatanje tehnolokih i ekonomskih novina, podsticanje horizontalne i vertikalne pokretljivosti, jaanje zakonitosti, sticanje ire podrke stanovnitva i manje korienje prinude. Pa, ako je pretpostavka modernizacije racionalizacija, koherentno bi bilo sprovoditi je vlau zasnovanom na racionalnom karakteru (legalna vlast). No, ve u sledeem pasusu, Kulji pie: S obzirom na to da modernizacija ne poiva uvek na manje ili vie dobrovoljnom prihvatanju novih iskustava (usled otpora tradicije ili nedostatka institucionalnih kanala), ona nije uvek ni skopana sa jaanjem podeljene vlasti (izuzetak je evropski liberalizam 19. veka). ei su primeri nametanja modernizacije autoritarnom praksom nepodeljene vlasti koja se oslanja na tradicionalnu politiku kulturu (jednopartijski socijalistiki reimi i autoritarna vlast u nerazvijenim zemljama) ili surovo uvrenje kapitalizma uz pomo klasinog ropstva kao u SAD 19. veka. Dakle, stvari se dalje komplikuju. Bez harizmatskog karaktera Titove ili neije druge vlasti tj. na osnovu racionalnog karaktera legitimnosti ili legalnom vlau u Jugoslaviji se posle II svetskog rata projekat ubrzane

believe in enlightenment I believe in knowledge and in the seriousness of the person who symbolises an important project. Perhaps having read Max Webers book Josip Broz would have headed to America by sometime in 1923 and forged a great acting career based on charisma. Perhaps, but this again is only a literary possibility. The real question is: would what we had here have been possible without the charismatic grounds for Titos domination? But this is a historically impossible question because as we well know everything is mutually interwoven. But theoretically: was it possible in a society such as Yugoslavia after World War Two, to implement any emancipatory project through domination which wasnt based on charismatic grounds? This is a difficult question and opinions are divided. In the second edition of the sociological-historical study TITO, published in Zrenjanin in 2005, Todor Kulji introduces the following definition: The presumption of modernisation is rationalisation and, in politics, as in other activities, this is separation from religion and then the acceptance of technological and economic novelties, the encouragement of horizontal and vertical mobility, the strengthening of legality, the canvassing of broad popular support and the lessened use of compulsion. So, if modernisation presumes rationalisation, it would be coherent for it to be implemented by domination based on rational grounds (legal authority). However, in the very next paragraph, Kulji writes: Because modernisation is not always based on a less or more voluntary acceptance of new experiences (because of the resistance of tradition or the lack of institutional channels, it is thus not always linked with the strengthening of divided domination (nineteenth-century European liberalism is an exception). There are more frequently examples of imposing modernisation through the authoritarian exercise of undivided power which relies on traditional political culture (one-party socialist regimes and authoritarian power in undeveloped countries) or the cruel consolidation of capitalism with the help of classical slavery, as in the U.S in the nineteenth century. So things get more complicated. Without the charismatic grounds for domination by Tito or someone else that is, on the basis of the rational grounds of legitimacy or by means of legal authority the project of rapid modernisation could have been

modernizacije mogao sprovoditi tek uz malo verovatnu pretpostavku da e se ba ovde ponoviti istorijski izuzetak evropskog liberalizma 19. veka. Bie da Josip Broz nije verovao u takvo udo. No Kulji dalje pie: Premda autoritarne mere mogu podsticati modernizaciju, ipak neprevladana tradicija autoritarne politike kulture omoguava tek nepotpunu modernizaciju. to sad, retrospektivno, ukazuje na dilemu pred kojom graani Jugoslavije politiki nikad nisu bili: spora modernizacija sa tradicionalnom vlau, ili nepotpuna modernizacija sa harizmatskim voom? Naalost, istorijskih i kulturolokih uslova za teu varijantu za onu racionalnu nije bilo. Sa brzom ili sporom modernizacijom, svejedno. A dilema: spora ili nepotpuna modernizacija, jeste u biti lana u Jugoslaviji se na celom prostoru nikad bez velike sile nije mogla uspostaviti samo jedna tradicionalna vlast. Pa se ini da nikakvog izbora zapravo nije bilo: Josip Broz je iz rata izaao kao pobednik, kao heroj, imao je sve uslove da postane harizmatski voa Jugoslavije, pa je to kao Tito i postao. (Fotografija 2): Fotografija Druga Tita iz decembra 1937, dok je ilegalno boravio u Austriji. Kurirka koja je pratila Druga Tita uinila je ovaj snimak u mestu Biofshafen (fotografija i potpis iz knjige Vladimira Dedijera, Josip Broz Tito prilozi za biografiju, Beograd, 1955) Za blizu etrdeset godina Titove vlasti, Jugoslavija je bila postala respektabilna zemlja. I na ekonomskom, i na vojnom, i na meunarodnom planu. Nije se tako inilo iznutra slobda, hleba i igara nikada dosta, ali se ini danas kad te zemlje odavno vie nema. Pa kako su onda bili mogui krvavi ratovi devedesetih? I svi ti nacionalizmi, populizmi... posle 35 godina ubrzane makar i nepotpune modernizacije? Da li vas predmeti izloeni u Muzeju "25. maj" zabavljaju ili plae? Te hiljade vezova, maketa, arapa, tafeta? I ta mislite: koliko "autora" bi se danas odreklo tih svojih rukotvorina, koliko ih se naknadno stidi? Koliko njih bi da sakrije da su oni ti koji su to slali Titu, poklanjali, trali sa

carried out in Yugoslavia after World War Two only on the very unlikely presumption that it would be exactly here that the historic exception of nineteenth-century European liberalism would be repeated. The chances are that Josip Broz did not believe in such miracles. However, continues Kulji: Although authoritarian measures can encourage modernisation, the undefeated tradition of authoritarian political culture permits only incomplete modernisation. Which now, in hindsight, indicates the dilemma which the citizens of Yugoslavia never faced politically: slow modernisation with traditional authority or incomplete modernisation with a charismatic leader. Unfortunately the historical and cultural conditions for the third option the rational one did not exist. With either rapid or slow modernisation, it wouldnt matter. And the dilemma, that of slow or incomplete modernisation, is essentially false it was never possible to establish just one traditional authority in Yugoslavia, over the entire territory, without great force. So it seems that there was in fact no choice: Josip Broz came out of the war as a winner, as a hero, he had all the prerequisites to become a charismatic leader of Yugoslavia, so that is what as Tito he became. (photograph 2): A photograph of Comrade Tito from December 1937, while he was illegally in Austria. The courier who accompanied Comrade Tito took this photograph in a place called Bischofshofen (photograph and caption from Vladimir Dedijers book Josip Broz Tito prilozi za biografiju, Belgrade, 1955) (Josip Tito Broz Appendices to a Biography) Over the almost forty years of Titos domination, Yugoslavia became a respectable country. Economically, militarily and internationally. It didnt seem that way from the inside one can never have enough freedom, bread and circuses but it does seem that way now, when that country is long gone. So how were the bloody wars of the nineties possible? And all those nationalisms, populisms after 35 years of rapid even if incomplete modernisation? Do the items on display at the May 25 Museum entertain you or frighten you? Those thousands of embroideries, models, socks and batons? And what do you think, how many of the people who made them would today disown their handicrafts? How many of them, subsequently, are ashamed? How many of them

tafetama, pisali pisma i pesme? Koliko nas je uestvovalo, podravalo i odravalo harizmatski karakter Titove vlasti? U knjizi Privreda i drutvo, Maks Veber pie: Po svojoj sutini, harizmatski autoritet je specifino labilan: nosilac moe da izgubi harizmu, da osea kao da ga je "njegov bog napustio", da se osea kao Isus na raspeu, njegove pristalice mogu misliti da je "lien svoje moi": tada je njegova misija zavrena, i nada oekuje i trai novog nosioca. A njega naputaju njegovi sledbenici, jer ista harizma ne poznaje nikakvu drugu "legitimnost" do one koja proizilazi iz line stalno iznova osvedoene moi. Harizmatski junak ne izvodi svoj autoritet iz poredaka i propisa, kao neku slubenu "kompetenciju", niti iz starih obiaja ili feudalnog obeanja odanosti, kao to to ini patrimonijalna vlast, nego on taj autoritet stie i zadrava samo potvrivanjem svojih moi u ivotu. teta to Josip Broz ovo nije bio proitao, tamo negde dvadesetih godina prolog veka pre nego to se pokrenuo istorijski mehanizam sa Titom. Posle je bilo kasno, ali je i posle morao da dopusti ak da inicira raspravu o harizmatskom karakteru sopstvene vlasti. Morao je sam da radi na dekonstrukciji sopstvene harizme to bi se dalo oekivati od ozbiljnog oveka na elu ozbiljnog projekta. Ali ne Tito je bio ljut kad god bi se ta pitanja otvarala. Re harizma je grkog porekla () i oznaava dar boansku milost. U jednom dosad neobjavljenom intervjuu o Titu, iz 2007, Neboja Popov kae: Harizmatska linost se obino pojavljuje kako je to Veber pisao u vreme neke duboke krize, ak katastrofe. Tada se, u takvim okolnostima, ta osoba pojavljuje kao spasilac, jer poseduje izuzetne darove posebne sposobnosti. Tako se i ovde, u situaciji kakva je bila u nedvosmisleno dramatinim istorijskim okolnostima, traginim, u uslovima ne samo duboke krize ve i stravinog svetskog i graanskog rata pojavila linost koja je dobila ulogu spasioca. I, kako je vreme odmicalo, ta uloga se sve vie uvrivala.

would like to hide the fact that they were the ones who sent things to Tito, gave gifts, ran with batons, wrote songs and poems? How many of us took part in, encouraged and kept alive the charismatic grounds of Titos domination? In his book Economy and Society, Max Weber writes: By its very nature, the existence of charismatic authority is specifically unstable. The holder may forego his charisma; he may feel forsaken by his God, as Jesus did at the cross; he may prove to his followers that virtue is gone out of him. It is then that his mission is extinguished, and hope waits and searches for a new holder of charisma. The charismatic holder is deserted by his following, (only) because pure charisma does not know any legitimacy other than that flowing from personal strength, that is, one which is constantly being proved. The charismatic hero does not deduce his authority from codes and statutes, as is the case with the jurisdiction of office, nor does he deduce his authority from traditional custom or feudal vows of faith, as is the case with patrimonial power. The charismatic leader gains and maintains authority solely by proving his strength in life. Its a shame that Josip Broz didnt read this, sometime in the twenties of the last century, before the historic machinery of Tito was set in motion. Later, it was too late, but even later he ought to have permitted even initiated a debate on the charismatic grounds of his own domination. He ought to have worked himself on the deconstruction of his own charisma this could be expected of a serious man at the helm of a serious project. But no Tito became angry whenever these issues were raised. The word charisma is of Greek origin () and means a gift a divine favour. I an as yet unpublished interview on Tito, from 2007, Neboja Popov says: A charismatic figure appears as Weber wrote in times of grave crisis, even catastrophe. Then, under such circumstances, this person appears as a saviour, because he possesses extraordinary gifts special abilities. And so, here too, in the situation which existed in unambiguously dramatic historic circumstances, tragic, in the circumstances of not only a grave crisis but also a horrendous global and civil war a figure appeared which was given the role of saviour. And as time went by, this role was increasingly expanded.

Svetozar Stojanovi je 1971. na Korulanskoj letnjoj koli imao jedno vrlo ozbiljno izlaganje, referat ja sam sticajem okolnosti ba predsedavao tom sesijom kojim je ukazao ne samo na ve poznatu dimenziju pojma Maksa Vebera, nego i na jednu relaciju kojom se Veber nije bavio. A to je da harizmatska linost koja legitimie odreeni poredak istovremeno moe biti i jedan od inilaca stvaranja nove krizne situacije, ak katastrofe... Ne treba dalje da obrazlaem, mi smo to upravo doiveli. I sad, verovatno zbog nove duboke krize dramatine i tragine situacije na rubu katastrofe obnavlja se kult oveka s posebnim darom koji spasava narod i zemlju. To se javlja kao nostalgija ne uzima se u obzir zatvoreni krug hartizmatskih legitimacija i katastrofa i raspravlja se o tome je li neko simpatian ili nije, da li je ova katastrofa vea od one, jesu li ove linosti manjeg formata od onih drugih... A Svetozar Stojanovi, takoe u dosad neobjavljenom intervjuu o Titu, 2007, kae: 1971, u Tuzli, branio sam nekog nesrenika, borca, koji je bio optuen da je psovao Tita. Neka ljubavnica ga je bila prijavila. Tamo sam odrao jedan govor, pred sudijom, i taj ovek je u prvom stepenu bio osloboen... Kasnije je taj sluaj doao i na vii sud... Tada je Tito dao onu svoju uvenu izjavu da se "neke sudije dre prava k'o pijan plota". Potom sam na Koruli odrao referat o harizmi i harizmarhiji... uo sam kasnije od Ljube Dimia, istoriara on je bio doao do kopije tog mog teksta iz Praksisa, da su na marginama zabeleene Titove line opaske i komentari... Hajde i ja polako da zatvaram krug, da se nekako izvuem iz ove beskrajne prie. Zakljuio bih da je Josip Broz-Tito bio ozbiljan ovek na elu ozbiljnog projekta ali da nije bio dovoljno ozbiljan. Morao je dok je jo bio samo Josip Broz znati vie. ak i kada su ili: ba kada su ta nedostajua znanja dolazila iz "buroaskih" izvora. Morao je, recimo, na vreme saznati za Maksa Vebera i njegova znanja uzeti u obzir...

In 1971, at the Korula Summer School, Svetozar Stojanovi gave a very serious presentation, a report I myself, by coincidence, chaired this session in which he drew attention not only to the familiar aspects of Max Webers idea, but also to one relationship which Weber did not address. And this is that a charismatic personality which gives legitimacy to a particular order may also, at the same time, be a factor in the creation of a new crisis situation, a catastrophe even. There is no need to elaborate any further: we have just lived through this. And now, probably because of a new, grave crisis a dramatic and tragic situation bordering on catastrophe there is a renewal of the cult of a man with a special gift who saves the people and the country. This takes the form of nostalgia what is not being taken into account is the closed circle of charismatic legitimatisations and catastrophes and the debate is about whether someone is nice or not, whether this catastrophe is bigger than that one, whether these figures have greater stature than those others. And Svetozar Stojanovi, also in an unpublished interview on Tito in 2007 says: In 1971, in Tuzla, I defended a poor wretch, a fighter who had been charged with swearing about Tito. Some girlfriend of his had reported him. There I addressed the judge and this man was acquitted by the court. Later the case also came before higher court. Tito then made his famous statement saying that Some judges cling to the law as a drunk clings to a fence. Then, on Korula, I presented a paper on charisma and charismarchy. Later I heard from the historian Ljuba Dimi, that he had acquired a copy of this paper of mine from Praksis with Titos personal remarks and comments in the margins. So I too should slowly begin to close the circle, to somehow escape from this never-ending story. I could conclude that Josip Tito Broz was a serious man at the helm of a serious project but he wasnt serious enough. He ought while he was still just Josip Broz to have known more. Even when or precisely when that missing knowledge came from bourgeois sources. For example, he ought to have learnt about Max Weber in time and ought to have taken his knowledge into account.

A posle, kad je postao Tito pa ak i ako se nije mogla u socijalistikoj Jugoslaviji drugaije sprovoditi modernizacija nego harizmatskom vlau morao je (bar) pokazati da je svestan dominantnog karaktera legitimnosti sopstvene vlasti. Da je pokazao tu svest, pokazao bi i da je svestan prinuenosti na taj oblik vladanja kao na nuno zlo. I tada bi, verujem, sve bilo drugaije. Moda ne odmah, moda ne u praksi, ali bi posledice bile drugaije. Ili: mogle bi mogle su da budu drugaije. Jer sam Tito bi shvatajui da je harizmatski oblik vlasti zlo i kad je nuno radio na dekonstrukciji sopstvene harizme. Pa bio je on ozbiljan ovek. Ne bi tad spreavao, ne bi zabranjivao ve bi ak podsticao razgovore o tome. A naa intelektualna javnost bi, zajedno sa svetskom, za 35 godina Titove vladavine pronala valjda "leka" njegovoj harizmi. Uz pomo Tita samog. Odnosno: smislilo bi se valjda kako da se Titova harizmatska vlast pretvori u legalnu te kako i u ta da se transformie energija harizme u najiroj javnosti. Meutim, Tito je bio to bi rekao Todor Kulji "vet dravnik koji je i greio". Pa se ljutio kad su se otvarale diskusije o karakteru legitimnosti njegove vlasti i nije dozvoljavao rasprave o tome. I njegova harizma je ostala neokrnjena, do smrti. Politiki naslednici su pokuali da je odre "I posle Tita Tito" ali nije ilo. Smrt je pokazala da je on kao to je Veber pisao "lien svoje moi": tada je njegova misija zavrena, i nada oekuje i trai novog nosioca. Dalju priu znamo. Sa novim nosiocem, sa novim nosiocima... Do krika alim to Josip Broz nije na vreme proitao knjigu Maksa Vebera.

And later, when he had become Tito even if modernisation could not be implemented in socialist Yugoslavia through any means other than charismatic domination he ought (at least) to have shown that he was aware of the principal grounds of legitimacy of his own domination. Had he demonstrated this awareness he would also have demonstrated that he was aware of the compelling nature of this form of domination as a necessary evil. And in that case, I believe, it would all have been different. Because Tito himself realising that the charismatic type of domination is, even when necessary, still an evil would have worked towards the deconstruction of his own charisma. He was, after all, a serious man. He would not have stopped it, he would not have banned it instead he would have encouraged debate about it. And the intellectual public, at home and abroad, over the course of Titos 35 years of rule, would likely have found a cure for his charisma. With the help of Tito himself. That is, a way would probably have been found to turn Titos charismatic domination into legal domination along with resolving how to transfer the energy of charisma to the broadest public. However, as Todor Kulji would say Tito was a skilful statesman who also made mistakes. So he would be incensed when discussion arose on the nature of the legitimacy of his domination and did not allow debate on this. And so his charisma remained intact until his death. His political successors tried to preserve it After Tito, Tito but this did not succeed. Death showed that as Weber wrote virtue is gone out of him: it is then that his mission is extinguished, and hope waits and searches for a new holder. We know how the story ends. With a new holder, with new holders. When I think about Josip Broz not having read Max Webers book in time, I could scream.