The technology of rule, love and fear

I learned something about Josip Broz Tito's ruling technique on June 25, 1974 from the most authoritative place - from him. I was the interpreter at his first meeting with the newly elected Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Helmut Schmidt. The German insisted that the conversation be held privately. I stopped at the door, not sure if the translators were also turned off, but Tito waved me in, so the conversation was conducted in "eight eyes", Schmidt's associate was also present. The host said that he had just taken office and asked the experienced Yugoslav head of state to tell him how he starts his day, what he does first, how he prepares decisions, how he manages state affairs, how he spends his free time - how he governs. Tito told him to first read the newspaper, not prepared excerpts, but the whole newspaper, then check the daily program with the closest colleagues from his cabinet. He emphasized that he always wants to hear as many opinions as possible, that he never interrupts the interlocutors, that he gives himself time to make decisions. Only after that, state affairs were started.

I dictated the notes of that conversation directly to Tito's typist. Even though he was a member of the delegation, the Federal Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Miloš Minić, did not receive them either, who got angry because of that.

LISTEN AND JUDGE

About a hundred books have been written about Titus, one under the title Tito technology of government by Kosta Čavoški, a fierce opponent of the regime he describes. Among the most important are the works of Blaža Mandić, who was in the president's cabinet for a quarter of a century, had access to, and even the right to linguistically edit, everything that Tito will say publicly and that will be archived. I am writing here exclusively about what I personally learned, which means about the time from the mid-sixties of the last century until Tito's death in 1980. There is no doubt that his way of ruling immediately after the victory in the Second World War was different, far harsher than in the period I am talking about.

I will cite examples that show how Tito calmly made decisions, only when he looked at things from all sides. Due to major student riots in 1968, Tito called a meeting of the highest state and party leadership on June 9, as the rebellion turned into a social crisis. He listened to various presentations all morning, gave the floor to others, said nothing himself and scheduled the continuation of the meeting for the afternoon. At that time, television was working with, by today's terms, outdated means, so RTS journalist Duško Mitević at the time told Tito that he had to record his statement earlier if he wanted it to be broadcast at 19.30:XNUMX in Dnevnik. At four in the afternoon, Tito gave a speech in front of the cameras in which he admitted his mistake, gave the students their rights and asked them to go home. Titus' speech had already been recorded when the meeting resumed; of course, a conclusion was reached that confirms what he had already recorded for television, even though at the morning session there was also a proposal that the militia invade the University and arrest the leaders of the student protest. When Tito's speech was broadcast, the students naively celebrated a great victory. Mitevic later told me that, since the cameras and microphones were turned off, Tito muttered something like: "That's how you do it when you don't get arrested in time."

Another example: Before the Croatian party leadership, which behaved too nationalistically for his taste, forced him to defect - a mass movement from the beginning of the seventies of the last century that is remembered as MASPOK or "Croatian Spring" - he was in Karađorđev on November 30, 1971. allowed twenty hours to Savka Dabčević-Kučar, then chairwoman of the Central Committee of the Union of Communists of Croatia, a Croatian member of the executive committee presidency Union of Communists of Yugoslavia Miki Tripal and others to excuse themselves, patiently listened to them and sent them to sleep. In the morning, he gathered them again and ruled that they should renounce all party and state functions.

for an enlarged image, right click and »view image«

A year later, in 1972, there was a serious disagreement within the Serbian leadership embodied in the president of the Central Committee of the Union of Communists of Serbia, Marko Nikezić, and the secretary of the Union of Communists of Serbia, Latinka Perović, on the one hand, and the Serbian member of the SFRY presidency, Draža Marković, on the other. It was, first of all, about the political opening, then called "liberalism", about the economy, but also about the Serbian national question. A difficult discussion took place from October 9 to 12, 1972. Then Tito said that he had to think about it and that he would call a new meeting. Later, on one occasion, he told Hungarian manager Janos Kadar that his opinion was in the minority in those days. A new meeting is scheduled for October 16. Tito then asked the "liberals" Nikezić and Perović to resign, which they did in a disciplined manner. However, their like-minded colleagues Koča Popović, then Vice President of the Republic, and Federal Secretary for Foreign Affairs Mirko Tepavac also submitted their resignations. Tepavac wrote in his memoirs that Tito held him accountable for that move and finally dismissed him with the words: "Are you leaving me too?"

Tito never cut on the first ball, he gave himself time, but when he made a decision, it was unquestionable. His charisma was so great, his authority so great, that the conclusion he would eventually make would be final. I emphasize that this was based on the then Constitution, in which he, as the president of the SFRY, had the right to decide, and with the rank of marshal, he was also the supreme commander.

An essential feature of his rule was to let others say what they thought, and only then pass judgment. I noticed this style in meetings with foreign statesmen and delegations. He would never be the first to express his opinion. He left the floor to others, if the conversation died down he would ask questions, he was visibly amused when a member of his delegation argued with partners on the other side of the table. However, even at such meetings, if he did speak at the end, it would be a clearly stated conclusion and no one would say anything more, would not even comment, not even his equal or more powerful partners.

FEAR AND LOVE

There are countless important works on the theory of government, the first is important Polite of the Greek philosopher Plato, we usually translate the title as Country. It was written between 431 and 404 BC. According to Plato's ideas, the ideal state should be authoritarian and with a strict hierarchy, it is more important than individual freedoms. The organization is class-based, headed by "wise men" who manage. The second class are the warriors who defend the state not only from the external enemy, but also its order. In third place are farmers and artisans - workers as a concept did not exist yet - and the existence of slaves is natural for Plato.

In the context of how to rule the country, the book is probably the most frequently mentioned The ruler Niccolò Machiavelli published in 1527 in Florence. It was dedicated to Lorenzo de' Medici, at that time practically, although not formally, the ruler of the rich Florentine state. Machiavelli actually wanted to recommend himself for some good public service, but that writing was celebrated much later, when many rulers of the 20th century seemed to act according to his teachings, although I don't know who of them even read the book. We know for sure that Mussolini read it, because he bragged about it.

Tito certainly studied Marx and Marxist philosophers well and liked to discuss the subject, but as far as I know, he never mentioned either Plato or Machiavelli. I would not rule out that he read them at the "Lux" hotel in Moscow. In the House of Flowers, within the Museum of Yugoslavia, Tito's personal library is kept. Someone could check if the works of Plato and Machiavelli exist there, with modern technological methods it would be possible to determine whether he really had them in his hands.

What did Machiavelli advise rulers? "If riots are predicted in advance, it is easier to find a cure, and if you wait for the evil to approach and shake the situation, it will turn into an incurable disease." Meaning: engage the intelligence services, then arrest or kill in time.

Or: "A wise ruler must invent a way of government under which his subjects would always and at all times feel the need for the state and for him." Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

For me, the most important thing is: "Is it better that people love you or fear you?... Both would be best, but since it is difficult to combine these qualities, it is certainly better that they fear you than that they love you." I quoted Machiavelli in B. Janković's translation.

Tito certainly aspired to be loved and feared at the same time.

SPEECH DELIVERY

And the speeches given by persons in a ruling position on various occasions belong to the technique of ruling. Expert teams prepare such speeches for each of them, the final text is proposed by trusted associates, "spirits", that's how the term was born Ghost. I asked Willie Brandt, who was a well-known journalist before turning professionally to politics, how he felt when others wrote him speeches. He replied that he felt bad, but that there was no other way because he didn't have time to write them himself and added that he would at least read the speech before saying it and add some of his own sentences. He couldn't resist adding ironically to his successor in the chancellor position: "And Schmidt doesn't know what he's reading or understand what it's all about..."

I participated in the team that prepared Tito's speech at the Non-Aligned Summit meeting in Havana in 1979. First, I collected all the opinions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and tried to summarize them. Then it was checked by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Budimir Lončar. It was then edited by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jože Vrhovec. In the end, we "defended" the text in front of two members of the SFRY Presidency. None of our ideas made it into the speech that Tito gave.

Tito was a bad speaker. I think he knew that, and I know he hated public speaking and performances. He once said that when meeting the masses he likes to "improvise", that only then he feels good. I once experienced, and heard that it happened several times, that before giving a speech, he would take a look at what was written for him, roll up the papers in his pocket and start improvising in a humorous way, making jokes. On such occasions he would be excellent.

He believed that there should not be too many such speeches in order not to bore people, but protocol constantly urged him to address the public, the organizers of this or that begged him, invited him, and the older he got, the more often he gave in. He preferred to mix with people and talk to them directly.

PRESIDENCY OF THE SFRY

Tito's authority among the highest officials of Yugoslavia was supported by the fact that he was older than them. The only exception was Moša Pijade, but he died relatively early. It is no coincidence that his more intimate associates addressed him directly as "Stari" or "comrade Stari". People's hero and later president of the Federal Executive Council, Petar Stambolić, commented on this: "He was among us like an eagle among chickens." It should be noted that after the showdown with Milovan Đilas, he never again publicly insulted his associates, did not disparage them, because he knew that destroyed and did not increase his authority.

In order for none of the collaborators to gain too much influence, a strict rule was introduced that no position may be held for longer than two terms. This was exaggerated, excellent directors would be replaced, and could only remain as advisors in the company they built. Only Tito could remain in his position for life.

He himself prepared how to continue the continuity of power after his death. The members of the State Presidency, one from each of the six republics, two autonomous provinces and the army, would elect the vice-president for a one-year term, a representative of the army could not become that. In the event of Tito's death, the vice president would automatically assume the presidency. I well remember the moment when, shortly after the news of Tito's death, a meeting of the presidency was broadcast live on television, where Vice President Lazar Koliševski announced in a slightly shaky voice that he would become the president of the Presidency of Yugoslavia. Then I thought: There, it works! It soon became clear how wrong I was.