ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL PHENOMENON OF
AUTHORITARIANISM IN THE BALKANS
Miloš Bogdanović, 2Dušan Obradović, 3Lidija Ćuk Jovanović
1
1
3
milos@scnet.rs, 2obradovicdusan@yahoo.com
Neuro-psychiatric Division of Institute “Dr Laza Lazarević”, Belgrade, Serbia
There is a need for a deeper analysis into the causes of the historical phenomenon of authoritarianism in the Balkans, because
the success of the methods that are applied in solving it depend upon the depth of understanding the problem. The mere
critique of the product of authoritarianism – cult of personality, conservatism, disrespect and hatred towards representatives
of different ideology, religion, nation and race – cannot bring expected results unless the actual cause of the authoritarian
manner of thinking is not deciphered and removed in its very root. The tendency towards authoritarian manner of thinking
and behaving always manifests itself as a consequence of relinquishing responsibility for one’s own thoughts and behavior.
Likewise, people will show a tendency towards conflicts, irrespective of what ideals they stand for, if their culture and
tradition burdens them with proudness or guilt as driving motives in their everyday lives. Proudness makes people
vulnerable, while guilt makes them paranoid and thus naturally prone to conflicts. Immature and irresponsible way of
thinking and behavior is deeply entrenched into our culture and tradition, and thus the exit of our persistent backwardness
requires radical changes in our attitude towards life.
HUMANS AS FREE AND RESPONSIBLE BEINGS
In comparison to animals, humans are responsible beings,
responsible for their actions. Reason, conscience, and will
classify us as responsible and accountable beings. When our
reason exposes certain motives as irrational (that is, pointless
towards our own needs, and the needs of others), then our
conscience assigns a moral dimension to these motives – it
classifies them as sin, and requests of us to resist them with
all of our will. If we listen to the voice of our conscience, we
then become human, in the highest sense of that word.
Acting responsibly, we elevate ourselves above our
biological nature, and become free to change ourselves, and
the world around us. On the other hand, we can also decide
to disregard our responsibility, and become a victim of our
weaknesses and external factors (our environment). In that
case, we get into conflict with our own intellectual abilities
that differentiate us from animals. If our will is not utilized to
resist our weaknesses, then we cannot be bothered with using
our reason, since it exposes the irrationality of our own
motives. In that case, we come into conflict, not only with
our own common sense, but also with our conscience, which
is denouncing us for our submission to temptation.
IRRESPONSIBILITY RESULTS WITH
AUTHORITARIANISM
Human society, which is marked by collective
irresponsibility, tries to supersede their problems with reason
and conscience, with a need for an ideological authority that
will think and decide for them. Rational questioning of our
own motives and encountering our own unfulfilled
responsibilities raises unwanted stress. Because such a
principle of prevalent irresponsibility quickly leads to terrible
consequences, there is a need to find a “scapegoat”, to whom
we will shift responsibility for our existing problems.
Generally, we find these scapegoats in ideological, national,
religious, or some other adversaries. Thereafter, the
projection mechanism comes into play, where we project our
own unacknowledged weaknesses to them, which induces
psychological satisfaction of our irresponsible conscience.
This is how an authoritarian consciousness is formed, which
signifies a great curse, not only for a man of middle ages, but
for a man of modern times as well.
AUTHORITARIANISM IN COMMUNISM TIMES
During the communist times, the communist party (with Tito
at its helm), represented the ideological authority. Its
righteousness was blindly implied, and questioning its
responsibility was considered blasphemy. Dissidents were
the scapegoats in those times. People were afraid, either
because of their own interests, or because of their misled
state, that an act of disagreement to the official party politics
would give them the “dissident” label. As such, they rejected
any kind of constructive, friendly criticism that would
represent a remedy to the sick state of society and, and would
stop the deepening of the public crisis.
THE HOPE OF LATE OPPOSITION
Nevertheless, a small front of intellectuals, who used their
own
minds
independently,
fought
against
the
authoritarianism of their time, and hoped that the freedom of
speech and mind would lead to a condition necessary to
defeat the authoritarianism of communism times, and that the
people, now awakened and sober, would create a society of
truly democratic principles.
FALSE REFORMATION
Towards the end of the 80s, and the start of the early 90s,
came the realization of freedom of speech and mind in the
society, and simultaneously, the fall of authority of the
Communist Party. The majority of the people rejected their
compromised communist ideology. However, various public
surveys revealed, not a fall, but a RISE in authoritarian
consciousness, that no longer had a communist form, but an
anti-communist one. One set of idols was replaced with
another set of idols. In people’s consciousness, war heroes
were replaced by Christian saints, and communist leaders,
with leaders of national parties. The scapegoats accused for
various problems in the communist society, the enemies of
revolution – dissidents, were replaced with national,
political, and religious adversaries. To the society, it is still
more important to judge the value of a statement by WHO said
it, as opposed to the MEANING of what is being said. Over
60% of surveyed subjects, in judging the righteousness of
one’s idea, rely on irrational criteria: WHO came up with the
idea, HOW MANY people represent the idea and listen to the
voice of their own FEELINGS, instead of rationally judging the
MEANING of the idea itself. Our research has revealed that the
loss of sound-minded criteria, is in proportion to PROUDNESS
(30.9% of subjects), GUILT (25.5%), and SELFISH SENTIMENT
(23.6%), as a driving motive of the questioned subjects. To
those who are moved by altruistic motives (under 20%), the
ANALYSIS OF THE MEANING is in the first place, and to those
who are moved by proudness, guilt, and selfish sentiment, it
is represented in the last place. Motivation that cannot stand
up to a critique of sound reason results with one’s rejection
of reasonable principles of thought.
Even today, irresponsibility is surrounded by taboo subjects
that should not be touched upon, just like in communist
times, except that evil is no longer committed in the name of
the communist party nor the working class, but in the name
of nation and religion, and in the name of various other
ideological excuses.
As the people did not repent for evil committed under the
influence of communist ideology, and instead shifted
responsibility to the communist leaders, evil stayed in the
hearts of the people, which is why the situation today is
worse than it was during communist times.
2
ATTRIBUTES OF AUTHORITARIAN PERSONA
Tragic consequences of the Nazi ideology during World War
II, generated a need to explain the phenomenon of
authoritarianism. How was it possible for such a civilized
nation, in the heart of Europe, to commit such atrocities,
surprised not only the Jews (who did not immigrate from
Germany while they still could, since they had trust in the
German culture and Enlightenment), but the psychologists
alike, who gave a deeper answer, in the work of Adorno and
his collaborators. During the 1950s, they brought out a
definition of authoritarian persona, which is characterized by
nine elements:
1. Conventionalism - the tendency to accept and obey social
conventions and the rules of authority figures; adherence to
the traditional and accepted
2. Authoritarian Submission - submission to authorities and
authority figures
3. Authoritarian Aggression - an aggressive attitude towards
individuals or groups disliked by authorities; particularly
those who threaten traditional values
4. Anti-Intraception - rejection of the subjective, imaginative
and aesthetic, and avoidance of dealing with own
experiences
5. Power and Toughness - identification with those in power,
excessive emphasis on socially advocated ego qualities
6. Destructiveness and Cynicism - general hostility, putting
others down
7. Projectivity - the tendency to believe in the existence of
evil in the world and to project unconscious emotional
impulses outward (i.e. project own weaknesses outward)
8. Substitution and Stereotypy - superstition, cliché,
categorization and fatalistic determinism
9. Sex - exaggerated concerns with respect to sexual activity
(ADORNO. T.W. FRENKEL-BRUNSWIK, E., LEVINSON. D.J. and
SANFORD, R.N., 1950)
Authoritarianism has been a historical problem for the people
of the Balkans, thus it is necessary to find a deep explanation
for it.
WHY IS THE NATURE OF OUR AUTHORITARIANISM
AN ENIGMA FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS?
AUTHORITARIANISM AND POLITICAL PARTIES
Application of Adorno’s theory in the research of
authoritarianism on our own turf, produced confusion among
our psychologists:
In the publication “Ways of the Research of Authoritarianism”,
the degree of authoritarianism in the followers of various
political parties in Serbia & Montenegro was studied, and the
results were:
“It was shown that most authoritarian were the followers of
Serbian Radical Party – SRS (95,41), Yugoslav Communist
Party – JUL (94,17) and Serbian Socialist Party -SPS
(93,96), followed by Serbian Renewal Movement - SPO
(87.90), while a smaller degree of authoritarianism was
shown by the followers of Democratic Party of Serbia - DSS
(78,29), Democratic Party - DS (73,39), and the followers of
the remaining parties (DPS CG, DA, GSS... - 74.95).” (Dr
Nebojša Petrović, page 80). The voting entity of the
Democratic Party is the least authoritarian due to absence of
authoritarian ideology, but is still quite authoritarian, since in
general, the man of the Balkans is irresponsible and therefore
inclined towards authoritarianism.
“This imposes a discussion of something specific to our
conditions, which hardly fits into any kind of discussion
about authoritarianism.” (Dr Nebojša Petrović, Putevi
istraživanja autoritarnosti, page 48).
Specifically, in certain elements of Adorno’s scale of
authoritarianism, certain investigations showed opposite
results from the ones conducted in the West.
Experiences of one’s own Ego are virtually completely
drowned for Nazi authoritarians (under the pressure from
one’s own conscience and feelings of guilt), while with us,
they are the moving force (while conscience and
consciousness about our own responsibility are virtually
completely drowned). In proportion with the level of
authority (in the majority of our surveyed subjects), instead
of the tendency to hold social conventions, the tendency to
break them rises. For example, Nazi authoritarians show a
tendency to wait for green in front of the traffic light, even
though there are no cars around for kilometers in sight. In
contrast, the common member of “Balkan authoritarian
character” shows a tendency to go through the red light with
particular pleasure, even if there are cars rushing along in
front of the traffic light. Research also showed that with Nazi
authoritarians, aggression is predominant towards the
minorities (e.g. Gypsies), and towards those of lower social
status (e.g. beggars); while with us, hatred is predominant
towards those on high positions of power in society (e.g.
towards bosses, Government, world powers, etc).
3
The same enrooted irresponsible behavior can result with
completely different defensive mechanisms in different
people, depending upon what driving motives they subject
their will to. There is a fundamental difference between
authoritarianism in those people who are moved to zeal by
proudness (extreme pride, “Balkan-African”, or “tribal”
authoritarianism), those who are moved by guilt (“classic
western” or “Nazi” authoritarianism), and those who are
moved by selfishness (“modern western” authoritarianism).
head, they doubt, and those who doubt endanger the
authority and the stability of the system, and they are
considered enemies of faith and order. In addition to the
absence of responsible use of the mind, guilt provokes fear
and paranoia, which represents a continuous source for
feelings of endangerment and a constant urge to look for
enemies and provoke conflicts. Motives buried in the subconsciousness tend to be projected to others, especially those
who are different since they do not accept the same
conventional values. Those burdened by guilt tend to despise
those people who openly behave the same way those
burdened by guilt would like to behave, but cannot because
of their conscience and aroused feelings of guilt. The hatred
with which the Nazis hated the Jews and the Gypsies, or with
which the biblical Pharisees hated the tax collectors, or with
which Inspector Dreyfuss hated Inspector Clouseau are
exactly of that nature. In their cradle countries, Communism
and Nazism were based upon such a type of authoritarianism.
Hatred, as an expression of despicability, cynicism, and
abhorrence towards those that are on the lower social
positions, is the main characteristic of Nazi authoritarianism.
AUTHORITARIANISM OF NAZI TYPE –
CONSEQUENCE OF GUILT
AUTHORITARIANISM OF BALKAN TYPE –
CONSEQUENCE OF PROUDNESS
When we subject our will to the motives that our own
conscience disapproves, we naturally feel guilty, and because
of our unclean consciousness, we have a temptation to bury
those motives in our sub-consciousness (instead of resisting
them). Guilt and fear naturally result with hypocrisy and
formalism. In drastic cases, suppression of Ego can be
recognized by emotional coldness and strictness, as well as
by discipline that is the aim in itself. Today, we can perhaps
most commonly find it in certain religious people, with
uptight stance, and cold facial expression. Due to guilt, the
meaning of behavior for such persons becomes rigid and
irrational. Instead of acting to fulfill realistic life needs, such
a person acts to fulfill the needs of his/her unclean
consciousness. Such a person even shows the tendency to
endanger its own existence by blindly following certain rules
and conventions of behavior, by which he/she is trying to
achieve satisfaction of his/her own unclean consciousness.
Because of their formalism (superficiality), such persons
cannot repent for the cause of their problem, but they repent
for breaking their usual codex of behavior, that generally has
no connections with the actual cause of their guilt. Therefore,
despite them constantly repenting and apologizing, the guilt
still stays as the existing source of rigidness of thought. Such
people no longer think about the meaning of their acts, but
imply that they should behave so and so, in a certain way.
The rules of behavior are the aim in itself. Even though such
persons might look very responsible at first glance, they are
actually quite irresponsible. Responsible use of their own
mind in re-assessing the meaning of their own acts is shut
out, since it would generate stress in the mind, which under
the influence of guilt becomes blocked in its creativity.
Irresponsibility of the mind results with a need to form a cult
towards authority (clerical or ideological authority, leader,
system, codex of rules), which now thinks and makes
decisions instead of that person, and also results in formation
of taboos related to re-assessing the meaning of such
behavior. Those, who in such authority think with their own
It is realistic that a man who behaves irresponsibly (in the
deepest meaning of the word), has an adequate feeling of
guilt that requests a reform of the motives to which he is
submitting his will. The ability of self-critical questioning is
the condition for responsible reasoning and choice that
elevates a man above his biological nature, and above the
temptations of life's circumstances. However, if we submit
our will to conceit, we become haughty, and incapable of
self-critical questioning, because by doing so, we could
endanger our massive Ego. Since a haughty person, because
of lack of self-critique, throughout her life constantly reacts
immaturely, then without the responsible use of the mind,
with time, her character becomes a slave of her own Ego.
Even though she knows that succumbing to the drives of her
own Ego endangers her own existence, and the existence of
others, she does not have control over herself, because she
did not learn to think and act self-critically. Infantile
behavior stays with us, even after turning of mature age.
Immaturity in dealing with the stresses of life becomes a
characteristic by which we can recognize a man of the
Balkans as different from the one from the West. All rational
principles of behavior, any realistic demands of other people
(e.g. abstinence from tobacco), any responsible manner of
behavior, seems like putting on the chains of slavery to the
Balkan authoritarians, in contracts with the Nazi
authoritarians who find the manner of behavior (to which
they blindly adhere to), their source of assurance.
Therefore, in Balkan authoritarianism, we see mechanisms of
thought and behavior contrary to Nazi authoritarianism.
While the guilt associated with Nazi authoritarianism results
with a complex of low self-worth, the conceit of Balkan
authoritarianism results with a complex of higher self-worth.
As opposed to Nazi authoritarianism, where conscience
(guilt) suppresses Ego into the sub-consciousness, here in the
Balkans, our haughty Ego drowns out the consciousness
about our own responsibility, so in essence, the same
irresponsible behavior in its root, results with a completely
opposite reaction – Nazi authoritarianism is characterized by
hypocrisy, formalism and discipline, while the Balkan
authoritarianism is characterized by irresponsibility,
primitivism and barbarism. A constant problem for the man
of the Balkans, is deeply revealed by the words of Pontiff
Petar Petrovic I, spoken about two centuries ago:
“With my utmost sadness, I cry and I see that you are the
biggest enemies, both spiritual and physical, to yourself and
your own children, and that all the demons and all your
enemies in this world could not bring so much evil, so much
damage and shame to you, as you bring to yourselves. You
cannot get enough of your brother’s blood, your festivities,
your fairness, your praise and honor, and your bravery sits
alongside your domestic warfare and disunity, in which you
pursue your happiness and delight. It is not pleasant to you,
that people of the world call you good and fair people, so
when you cross the river, the foreign cities and markets are
open for you, and that you have the same respect from
foreigners as other nations of Europe; no, you are more glad
and pleased when they call you evil, lawless and headstrong
people, and as such that you have no access anywhere, and to
be chased away as haiducks and outlaws.”
THE ORIGIN OF PRIDE AND PROUDNESS
Pride is always proportional to the disrespect of a human
being since pride itself is a consequence of disrespecting
yourself and others. Namely, if a haughty person did not
have an inflated opinion of one’s own superiority, he would
hate himself, as he’s missing elementary respect towards
himself. To save himself from the consequences of his own
disrespect, such a person becomes proud (burdened with his
own values), and subsequently extremely sensitive (easily
offended and confrontational), in regards with his values in
the eyes of himself, and others.
Here, nationalism most commonly represents the projection
of proudness in broad terms. If a haughty person did not have
an inflated opinion about the value of one’s own nation, she
would hate her nation. Since she has so little love towards
her own nation, she has to become a nationalist in order to
love the nation. Therefore, proudness and haughty
nationalism is the defense mechanism of those people that do
not have love towards themselves and their own nation. In
the time of crisis, the real nature of “altruism” in people who
are being driven by proudness is clearly exposed, as then
they’ll show readiness to sacrifice their own national rights,
even the lives of the members of their own nation, in order to
avoid the humbling of their haughty Ego, which exposes that
the aim of their nationalism is not the well-being of their
nation, nor the protection of national and human rights, but
the irrational impulse of their Ego. As haughty people do not
love themselves and other people with true love, but their
values, such people show the readiness to sacrifice
themselves and others because of the reason for which they
love themselves and others. We have probably already heard
those mindless paroles during the war, which expose the
irrational motives of the human heart: “We will fight to the
last man in order to stop the genocide being carried out on
us”. Of course, people do not exist for the sake of values;
4
values exist for the sake of the people. The haughty
sensitivity of a Balkan’s authoritarian results in him being
easily offended and confrontational towards others. That is
why it is hypocritical when our clergy delivers to the people
the divine phrases of the Gospel about love towards your
adversaries and mutual unity, but beforehand poisons the
same people with stories about our roots, nationalism and
tradition. A person who is inflamed by pride, proudness and
pomposity, naturally gives birth to conflicts with all the
people who do not support her inflated and non self-critical
picture about her own superiority. The Church herself is
being handicapped in her efforts to compel the people
towards character reform, because by criticizing the sins of
the people they would hurt the nation’s haughty Ego, and
thus lose the positions that they have built up in the society
thanks to the flattery towards national and religious
proudness. Flattery towards proudness, by misuse of national
feelings and tradition, resulted that the people, in proportion
of their religiousness, show more, not less, intolerance and
disrespect towards others (in accordance with studies of Dr.
N. Petrovic), precisely because of afore-mentioned haughty
sensitiveness and offensiveness. Research conducted by the
Institute of Psychology of the Philosophical Faculty in
Belgrade reveals that "the lowest scores for forgiveness have
been attained by the ones who think of themselves as
´convinced believers of their religion who accept all the
teachings of it and behave according to these teachings´.
They are followed by the believers who do not accept every
single teaching of their religion, who in turn still have a
lower score than the undecided, disinterested and the unreligious." (Dr. Nebojsa Petrovic, Psychological bases of the
reconciliation, 265, 2005).
Notice that the most common source of conflict in us is not,
like in Nazi authoritarianism, the consequence of projection
of suppressed motives towards minority groups who behave
“indecently” and “primitively”, but is a consequence of a
hurt haughty Ego, from the ones who can actually hurt it.
Therefore, Balkan authoritarianism is characterized by open
hatred towards those who are in higher position of power, in
contrast to the Nazi type of authoritarianism, which is prone
to show disdain towards minorities.
PROUDNESS RESULTS WITH A FORMING OF “TRIBAL”
CONSCIOUSNESS
Since a haughty person is dependent upon what others think
of her, she is ready to sacrifice the principles of fairness and
righteousness, in order to sustain acceptance of her
community. If we start from common copying on exams,
then onto nepotism, we’ll even get to the crimes against
humanity committed in the name of religion and nation.
While copying on exams is “excused” by the conscience of a
friend, crimes committed in the name of nation and religion
are excused by the conscience of the entire community. The
notion of a true friendship and justice is being distorted, thus
the one who rejects to be an accomplice in injustice is being
denounced as a traitor, and the fear of such labeling cannot
be endured by someone who conforms to his/her proudness.
Proudness is the basis of forming of tribal relations and tribal
distortion about the notion of good and evil. On the question
“What is evil to you”, a chief of an African tribe answers:
“When a neighboring tribe attacks and robs us”. And on the
question “What is good to you”, he answers: “When we do
the same do them!”
Here, the carriers of such authoritarianism reckon that the
persons from Hague’s list are “national heroes”, regardless of
whether or not they are murderers, because they were
“fighting for the interest of our nation”. Therefore, tribal
consciousness is a characteristic of our psychology as well. It
does not matter what kind of person you are, but for whom
you are. If we would look at WHAT someone is, as opposed
to WHO is he for, then by using that criterion we would
sentence our own bad motives, which in contrast with Nazi
authoritarianism, are not hidden and suppressed. That is why
the Balkan authoritarian rejects absolute criteria of good and
evil (for example, the ones defined by the Ten
Commandments and which look at “what is someone”), and
instead forms a subjective criterion of tribal way of thinking
(“for who is who”, “who is not in our cult, is against us”).
The consequences of such way of thinking are catastrophic.
Those that do not support a cult attitude towards a
community, those that are not ready to sacrifice the
principles of fairness and justice, are being labeled traitors
and enemies, and those who fight for the cult of community,
will be labeled heroes, even if they are murderers.
Consciousness about one’s responsibility does not exist,
everything is “someone else’s fault”. Cult offers an excuse
for any kind of evil committed in its name, since “tribal aims
are sacred”. Of course, tribal aims can be of social class,
political, national, religious, or some other type, but are
always incorporated in the form of the current ideology.
MODERN WESTERN AUTHORITARIANISM –
CONSEQUENCE OF SELFISH SENTIMENT
Contrary to classic western authoritarianism, which is based
on guilt, and Balkan one, which is based on proudness,
modern western (“American”) authoritarianism is based
upon selfish motives, i.e. selfish sentiment. In contrast to the
classic western authoritarianism (Nazi authoritarianism),
which is most common in areas of Catholic countries of
central Europe, modern western authoritarianism is most
common in the regions of the Protestant world. It represents
a defense mechanism of one’s unclean conscience in regards
to moral degradation and spiritual cooling-off of modern
western civilization.
Its rejection of grand moral and enlightened values, as a
characteristic of modern American society, is revealed by Dr.
Benjamin Spock in his piece “Baby and Child Care”:
“We lost our faith about the purpose of human life …
in the USA, it is rare to see a child that is raised to
believe that his purpose is to serve his family, his
country, or God … However, I think that most of our
children would be happier if they were taught in their
childhood that it’s most important for a human to
serve the humanity, and live towards that ideal.”
Rejection of principles of early Protestantism and
Enlightenment, which took the western world out of the
darkness of the Middle Ages, resulted in a recurrence of
5
escalation of evil, and thus there is a need to calm the
irresponsible conscience with a new model of
authoritarianism.
As a defense mechanism of one’s own unclean conscience,
and the coldness of one’s own heart, one is prone to arouse
sentimental feelings. Instead of his acts being driven by
unselfish love, which would require a reform of his motives
and character, he is satisfied with a change that is not deeper
than his feelings. Against and coldness of his own heart, he
fights by being pathetic.
In the Balkan authoritarianism, one’s conscience and
responsibility is being suppressed by extreme proudness,
while in contrast, in the modern western authoritarianism, it
is being suppressed by sentimental feelings, the same way in
which pain tablets do not take away the cause of the illness,
just its unpleasant symptoms. However, while both types of
authoritarianism are manifestations of the same
irresponsibility, why is it that only the Balkan
authoritarianism is called “primitive” and “rough”? The
reason is in the differences of their fundamental motives.
While a haughty person, who is a carrier of Balkan
authoritarianism, is a slave of his mind’s deceit about his
own value and greatness (his proudness), on the other hand, a
selfish person, who is a carrier of modern western
authoritarianism, is a slave of his own feelings. While a
Balkan authoritarian will commit any evil to defend his
inflated Ego, without caring about conflicts where he will
lose his calm and sentimental feelings, a modern western
authoritarian will, out of selfishness, do everything to keep
their sentimental feelings, avoiding any kind of conflict with
others. Anything that could hurt somebody’s feelings, and
therefore endanger the satisfaction of one’s selfishness, even
if it is the voice of one’s own conscience, or a moral rebuke
of a true friend, is being denounced as an enemy that
endangers peace and happiness among people.
Since the carrier of western authoritarianism is a slave of her
feelings, and since it is normal for feelings to depend upon
the external environment, she is prone to shift responsibility
for her immature reactions on unfavorable external factors.
Instead of fighting against the weaknesses of her own heart,
she fights against the external environment. Since she rejects
consciousness about her own responsibility, she depends
upon the state that will provide her with peace and security
through repressive means (which forms authoritarian
consciousness and strengthens the totalitarianism of the
political system).
As a pinnacle of immaturity, she is prone to apply the
defensive mechanism of rationalization and denial, creating
emotions that are not adequate to reality (e.g. a smile on her
that face that is not appropriate to the situation), justifying
evil around herself with mindless excuses. She is trying hard
to understand people around her, not because she loves them,
but because she could love them.
In that kind of authoritarianism, the voice of conscience is
suppressed, and pleasant feelings are being elevated to a
supreme worthiness. The question of good and evil is
relativised and defined in a very shallow manner: “A sin is
not a sin unless it’s manifested in a natural way and if it does
not endanger others.” (Anton Szandor LaVey). Thus, a sin is
not defined by the character of motives that drive somebody,
but it is considered improper only if it endangers others. The
modern western authoritarianism commonly represents a war
against the human conscience, that is excused by the reaction
to the coldness of the classic western authoritarianism of the
Nazi type, and therefore represents a specific negation of
Adorno’s scale of authoritativeness. While the classic
western (Nazi) authoritarianism is based on feelings of guilt,
the modern western authoritarianism is based upon
suppressing the voice of conscience (as if having a
conscience is some kind of a problem). While the first one is
characterized by rigid and blind principles of thought and
behavior, the other one is characterized by the complete loss
of all absolute values and complete relativisation of the
criteria of good and evil. While the Nazi authoritarian will
send homosexuals to a gas chamber, the modern western
authoritarian will legalize homosexuality as something
completely normal simply because it is natural. While the
Nazi authoritarianism is distinguished by intolerance,
strictness and brutality towards a sinner, the other one is
distinguished by the tolerance towards sin itself. The Nazi
authoritarianism is characterized by depression and
suppression of natural motives, the modern western is
characterized by legalizing the natural motives as if they are
all correct and good, simply because they are natural. Of
course, doing so, a man is refusing to use his mind,
conscience and willpower responsibly, as if they are some
kind of a mistake in the creation of man, a step backwards, as
if they did not elevate a man over his natural and
environmental limitations. Rational analysis of selfish
motives would show that aims of selfishness are not good for
oneself, or others. For the sake of pleasure, a selfish person
shows a tendency to sacrifice his own existence, and the
existence of others. For him, it is more important how he
feels, as opposed to whether what he is doing is really good.
That is why the rational analysis of fundamental motives,
and therefore the analysis of the actual state of a man, is
denounced as a taboo subject which no one should touch
upon, while the hollow question “How do you feel?”, is put
in place as a supreme criterion of human well-being and
spiritual realization.
Just as the classic and Balkan authoritarianism have their
expression in religion, so does the modern western
authoritarianism, that has, in the last century and a half,
become a characteristic of modern Protestantism (mostly of
so-called “evangelical” religious communities), here with
Orthodox religion the “God-Prayers” movement, and in
Catholicism the “Charismatic” movement. Showing love as a
meek sentiment that does not differ between good and evil,
devaluing the importance of the Ten Commandments, even
the belief that they have been revoked by Christ’s sacrifice
on the cross represents the decline of modern Christianity to
a spirit of modern western authoritarianism.
NATURE OF AUTHORITARIANISM OF VARIOUS
POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS
Research has shown that the classic western (Nazi) type of
authoritarianism is much less represented than our Balkan
6
(tribal) type of authoritarianism. The Balkan type of
authoritarianism is most common in the voters of Serbian
Radical Party (SRS), which represent a considerable
percentage of our total population, while the Nazi type of
authoritarianism is more common in voters of Democratic
Party of Serbia (DSS), as opposed to the radicals. When the
president of the radicals, Vojislav Seselj, is breaking
microphones in the parliament, it brings joyfulness to the
voters of SRS, while the voters of the former Democratic
Opposition (DOS) are the ones who are the most spooked
about it. Research has also shown that more aggressiveness
towards American and Freemasons is shown by the voters of
SRS than by the voters of DSS, while the voters of DSS
show more aggressiveness towards beggars and Gypsies,
than the radicals do (Dr Nebojša Petrović, Putevi istraživanja
autoritarnosti, Beograd 2001, page 80). Calling onto the
blind rules of behavior (instead of the actual meaning),
formalism and inhibition of emotions are more characterized
in the leadership and voting body of DSS, as opposed to the
voting body of other parties.
The voters of the Democratic Party are least authoritarian (in
comparison to voters of other political parties), but are
characterized by modern western authoritarianism (more so
than the voters of other parties). Thus, for true democratic
ideals, there is a temptation for them not to fight as honestly
and as self-sacrificing as truly enlightened democrats.
Modern western authoritarian will insist that the suspect
from the Hague list should be tried, but not primarily because
they are guilty, but because it is beneficial for the state and
its people. The concept of absolute good is not the supreme
ideal for a modern western authoritarian; it is his selfish
interest.
FUNCTION OF POLITICS AND POLITICIANS IN OUR
AUTHORITARIANISM
Due to our authoritarian consciousness, politics has a wrong
function. From politicians we constantly expect the
impossible. What we should be providing for our
community, we always expect from the state. We are
rejecting our own responsibility, and shifting them onto the
system and the politicians. Politics is not in condition to
solve the character problems of the nation. These problems
have to be solved by the individuals themselves,
individually.
When a majority of people behave irresponsibly, a
totalitarian regime is naturally formed, because the people
themselves look for the power of authority that will take on
the responsibility to secure civil safety. As the people
become worse, their need for the intervention and control of
the government becomes greater, and the system itself
becomes more totalitarian.
With high totalitarianism of the system, that is a by-product
of our sins, the guilt due to the sins results with the
fanaticizing of ideology (very commonly, religion as well).
The amount of fanaticizing rises in proportion with the rising
of needs of the people to excuse their acts in their
conscience.
Applying the principles of western democracies in parts of
the world where people are characterized by distinctively
irresponsible behavior results in a rise of civil conflicts, since
the people are used to somebody else thinking for them and
controlling them, instead of them controlling themselves.
The absence of totalitarianism results with escalation of
conflict and crime, which gives totalitarian leaders an excuse
for the need of totalitarian government. The totalitarian
government itself, to excuse their acts, looks for the support
of the Church (or some other carrier of official ideology),
and the Church, to compensate its lack of spiritual authority
over the people, looks for the backing of the state. The mere
overthrow of such a system, without removing the
foundation of it, which is in the wrong principles of thought
and behavior of its own carriers – the people, does not
represent any kind of deep or long-term solution of the
problem.
HE LEFT, BUT WE ARE STILL HERE
Just as our people hoped, that with the departure of
Milosevic from power on 5th of October 2000, the society
would move onto the path of good reforms, so did the people
believe a century ago, that the murder of king Aleksandar
Obrenovic on 29th of May 1903 would mean a historical
turning point towards a better future.
Writer and satirist Radoje Domanovic, who himself suffered
as a victim of the dictatorship of the Obrenovic regime, did
not have any illusions that the changes in the political
leadership could accomplish the sought ideals:
“What are you going to write now? – many people asked me,
maliciously, after 29th of May - there is no more material for
you!
O, public of Serbia, my goodness, how simple and naive you
did become. The 29th of May has passed, but we stayed. We
are the same, just as we were before.” (Radoje Domanović,
“Stradija”, 1, 1903).
It seems like history simply does not succeed to teach us that
political changes are never able to bring in peace and
prosperity among people. Why? Because as Domanovic
rightly noticed, the dictator left, but we are the same as we
were before. The government has changed, but not the nation
itself. The people stayed the same, with all the same
weaknesses that used to be the foundation of the Obrenovic
totalitarian government, and that stayed as a foundation for
the nation’s future totalitarian regimes. Therefore, it is not
enough for the government to change:
We have to change, as a nation.
7
to motives that the conscience has classified as sin is the
condition of one’s responsible being. Making one aware of
his own responsibility is the foundation for his
enlightenment:
“Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed
immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's
understanding without guidance from another … Laziness
and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of
men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance
(naturaliter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in
lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to
establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be
immature. If I have … a pastor to serve as my conscience …
I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can
pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me.
Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having
carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a
single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed,
these guardians then show them the danger that threatens
them, should they attempt to walk alone.” (Immanuel Kant:
What is Enlightenment? 1784).
Democratic order requires people with a democratic
consciousness. We cannot constantly live like some kind of
parasites at the edge of Western civilization, and scrape upon
their achievements. To enter Europe, we have to go thought
the process of moral and spiritual rebirth that the Western
civilization went through earlier in their history, the one that
we did not experience, which is why we are still languishing
in the dark of our persistent primitivism and backwardness.
For over a thousand years, the western civilization was
languishing under the dark totalitarianism of Middle Ages,
without any cultural, scientific and agricultural prosperity;
and we have to study the processes that took them out from
the Middle Ages, and beware of the ones that are taking them
back. The process of reformation and enlightenment is our
national life-giving necessity.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
Petrović, Nebojša (2001) - Ways of the Research of Authoritarianism
Petrović, Nebojša (2005) - Psychological Bases of the Reconciliation
Kant, Immanuel (1784) - What is Enlightenment?
Adorno, Theodor W. (1950) - The Authoritarian Personality
Spock, Benjamin (1946) - Baby and Child Care
Petrović, Petar Prvi Cetinjski (1993) - Poslanice
Domanovic, Radoje (1903) - Stradija, Issue 1
Bogdanović, Miloš (2004) - The Damnation of The Nation
EXIT OUT OF AUTHORITARIANISM IS IN THE
ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE PEOPLE
***
Since the fear of facing the responsibility for one’s motives
and acts makes one authoritarian, it makes sense that by
taking the responsibility on himself, a man will be freed from
the need for authoritarianism. Rational analysis of the
meaning and motives of one’s own acts and willful resistance
The research, on the basis which this work is done, was presented in Yugoslav
Congress of anthropologists (2004). The research is conducted by anthropologist
Dusan Obradovic, psychiatrist Lidija Cuk-Jovanovic and researcher Milos
Bogdanovic. For material in which the deeper analysis of this phenomenon is
presented, ask on email: milos@scnet.rs, or by telephone +381-11-426-940,
+381-64-15-15-092