Do Croatian Museums Still Live in Socialism?
Yes
Introduction
Interference of the Party and the state in literally all pores of social life and all activities
is characteristic of socialist totalitarianism. Two other concepts are associated with
socialism: bueraucratism and voluntarism. So, if the state and politics are still meddling
excessively into museum business, if there is bueraucratism and voluntarism in that
respect, then we haven't moved much further from socialism. The ideological phrasing
has of course been changed, but we are interested in the core of it.
In this text the word state will often be related with the word politics. That's because in
Croatia everything is politics, even all state affairs. There have been serious analyses
which establish a general politicization of Croatian society. In this country the state is
simply an instrument of politics, I would dare say daily politics, and is seen as such by
almost all political parties. Hardly anything is left to civil society.
When I say state I mean all the levels of state from the Republic to local government.
My thesis is as follows: Croatian museums still function as if they exist in socialist times.
Argument I.
Full state (political) control over museums' management boards.
By the Law on Museums, museums in Croatia can be public institutions and institutions.
What's the difference? Museums founded by the Republic of Croatia, counties, the City
of Zagreb, towns and municipalities (that is, what we call the state) are public institutions
(we may also call them state institutions), while those founded by a domestic corporation
or individual (Act 16) are institutions.
No foreigners may set up museums in Croatia, so that we would not, God forbid, end up
with a Guggenheim of some sort, as it happened to the Basques. Learning from their
experience, cunning as we are, we put a stop to it before it even happened. It is true
enough that foreigners in Croatia can buy the state telephone company, INA – our oil
company, but setting up foreign museums – no way. If being xenophobic is a sign of
totalitarianism, then at least when this law is concerned we still live in totalitarianism.
Let's now go back to institutions. Out of app. 120 museums in Croatia almost all of them
are public institutions, founded and owned by the state. There are only two exceptions to
this. Managing museums as public institutions is regulated by the Law on Management in
Public Institutions in Culture.
It says that Public institutions in culture are regulated by management councils;
Management councils for public institutions founded or owned by the Republic of
Croatia, consist of seven members four of whom are appointed by the Minister of
Culture, and three of them by the professionals of that institution; Management councils
for public institutions founded or owned by the counties, the City of Zagreb, towns or
municipalities, consist of three or five members, most of whom are appointed by the
representative bodies of the founder or owner … (Act 1).
In socialism everything was public property, and so were museums. During the 90's
everything was turned into state property, and then the state divided its property at will. It
kept some museums for itself (the Republic), and the rest were distributed among
counties, towns and municipalities. No matter which level we consider, the supremacy of
the state (politics) has been secured. This is the way the state protects its interests from
the never-content, insatiable and greedy curators. On the level of the Republic most
management board members are appointed by the minister at his own will. The minister
is a politician in the ruling party or one of the coalition parties. Through his people in
management boards he directly governs the museums founded by the Republic. Lower
levels are less trustworthy. Here most management board members are not appointed
directly by the head of the culture department, but are elected by an assembly. This
assembly consists of politicians from different parties, so the party having more
representatives dictates the structure of the management board. A more direct political
influence can hardly be imagined. And museum management boards have great power in
museums. They make plans for the work and development of a museum, supervise their
realization, decide on the financial plan and the annual statement, issue the statute,
suggest changes in the organization of museum work etc.
The wish of the state as the owner of the museums to have insight and control over them
is understandable and legitimate, but as understandable as this is the wish of the museum
people not to be imposed with an incompetent management. This is not a problem that
cannot be solved. The state (minister, assemblies) could choose most of the management
board members from a list of people set up and given to them by museum experts or the
other way around the experts could choose from a list set up and given to them by the
owner – the state. This would at the same time preserve the interest and influence of both
state and the experts, and the responsibility for museum work would be shared. Yes, but
then the control would not be full, and the enforcing of political will would be made
difficult.
Argument II.
Full state (political) control over museum directors.
The Law on Management in Public Institutions in Culture says: Directors of public
institutions in culture founded or owned by the Republic of Croatia, are appointed and
absolved by the Minister of Culture…; Directors of public institutions in culture founded
or owned by the counties, the City of Zagreb, towns or municipalities, are appointed and
absolved by the founder's or owner's representative bodies on the motion by the
management boards of the institutions and after consulting the expert… personnel of the
institutions in question. Expert opinion on the director, as you might already expect, does
not oblige anyone, neither the management board, nor the minister or the assemblies.
There have been cases when a person was appointed director although all the museum
experts signed against it (Zagreb Museum of Contemporary Art several years ago or quite
recently Sisak City Museum). Expert opinion serves only as decoration.
When appointing a director of a public institution in culture it is necessary to have the
opinion of the cultural council in charge (Act 5). These are of course councils in which
most members are appointed by the minister or at lower levels it is done by local
authorities. If you want to be a member of such a council you would never in your right
mind go opposing the one who appointed you – because the same person can absolve you
of that duty without further explanation. Therefore the control is complete.
What do directors do? The director organizes and conducts all of the museum business,
suggests the work and development program,… is responsible for the museum's expert
work …(Law on Museums, Act 26) So he is the big shot. He's the know-all, he's the
greatest expert and manager. But this ideal exists only in the writing of the Law. In reality
all these talents are assessed by - who else but – the owner, that is, the state, the same
entity that appointed this man museum director in the first place. The objectivity of such
assessment is ridiculous even to discuss. Problems arise only after a change of
government (after an election). Then many directors all of a sudden stop being successful
so they are replaced. For this reason directors in Croatia do not depend on the success of
their museum but on the political situation in the country. They are employees of the state
(politics), because it is the one that appoints and absolves them. People always serve the
one they depend on. This is why in many museums there is tension between experts and
the director. Objectively they depend on two completely different worlds. Every party,
when it gains power in any area, pushes in someone theirs, and the family connections
should not be forgotten either, so in the process of filling in the director personnel
crossword (a socialist term well-known to all countries in transition) we are bound to
meet our very familiar socialist acquaintance – negative selection. Positions are taken by
people who are not up to the job they need to get done. This leads to voluntarism, that is,
incompetent management based on good will and best intentions.
Argument III.
With extensive prescribing of museum work by different laws and regulations –
bureaucratization of work – one falls into the trap of voluntarism.
By citing laws we have already partly pointed to the bureaucrat quality of regulations.
For instance: Why do we need regulations on expert councils in museums if they do not
have any authority over anything whatsoever? Who needs official applying for directors’
jobs when the ones who will really decide on them are the minister or the assembly? But
this is just a small part of the bureaucrat instrumentarium.
Law on Museums orders the making of 6 rulebooks to regulate museum work. Fear not, I
will not specify them all, but I can't help but say a few words about some of them,
because they make good examples of both bueraucratism and voluntarism.
Museums… are to join into a system of museums of the Republic of Croatia in order to
implement a unique professional approach to museum work. The way and the standards
of this joining into a system of museums of the Republic of Croatia is regulated by the
Minster of Culture at the proposal of the Croatian Museum Council (Law on Museums,
Act 6). The all-presence and all-powerfulness of the minister has already been noted. The
question arises: why must all the museums be involved in this system of museums? This
system, popularly called the museum network, has in its mind central and subcentral
museums which help and control their museums, up to the right of inspection and giving
fines. In the guise of a system a parastate apparatus is being introduced. Why would any
museum allow to be pushed around by another, state-chosen museum? Who would be
crazy enough to set up a private museum under these terms? Helping museums is just an
excuse. It can be organized at a voluntary level as it is done in Britain or Bavaria, which
does not require any compulsory network. Central museums must hand in reports on their
museums to the Ministry of Culture. Total control over museums – that's the point of this
network. In the process, in a typically bureaucrat way, a museum hierarchy is being
introduced, and the relations between museums are formalized. Part of the plan is even to
establish special departments at central museums and to employ new experts to work in
the network. So, the network will cost money. Great effort for nothing is typical of
socialist management, and this is exactly what the establishing of a complicated network
produces.
Instead of this network we could have created services from which the museums,
especially the smaller ones, could gain practical benefit or we could have worked a bit on
standards and guidelines for the museum work, for we don't have a single one (I repeat:
not a single one). And they are the tools of the profession.
The rulebook on the content and the way of keeping documentation on museum material,
orders keeping no less than 15 kinds of documentation books for each museum. Among
other things regulated here is the way of keeping the museum inventory books. It has 26
mandatory columns. Demanding such a number of data for each exhibit is surprising if
we take into consideration that up to this moment only 10% (pessimist estimate) or 40%
at the most (optimist estimate), of all museum exhibits have been accessed. Many
museums, among which there are some very important and old ones with extremely
significant collections, haven't yet done their accession work not even by the old system
which demanded much less information. How can a regulation be made if it is
inconsistent with reality? Filling in all of the 26 columns in the inventory will definitely
not speed up the work. The logical thing to do would be to simplify the accession and in
this way try to get back in step. Later when this is accomplished the documentation
demands could gradually be extended. At the same time it says nowhere that each exhibit
should be photographed, though this would be useful because this (or some other visual
medium) is extremely important in the identification of lost or stolen exhibits.
In these rulebooks we can also find some elementary-school nonsense. The Rulebook on
the conditions and ways of insight into museum material and documentation (a cute
bureaucrat name) where it describes the conditions required for the rooms in which
borrowed exhibits will be kept, it says that one should be careful about moisture and
warmth. We are of course interested in the temperature and relative air humidity, not
moisture and warmth. The level of expertise in the rulebooks is indeed low.
How could something like this have happened? The rulebooks were not made based on
the analyses of the present situation, nor were the results attempted to be verified in
practice before introducing these rules. They are in the old socialist fashion actually
wishful planning. They are commission-envisaged perfections. What is prescribed is not
the minimum but the optimum. Typical voluntarism – evil paved with good intentions.
Argument IV.
In Croatia there is only one church museum and one private museum registered. Why?
Because the regulations make it difficult or even impossible to set up a museum outside
state control.
The sole fact of 2 (in letters: two) non-state museums is proof enough that museum work
is standing in the previous system with both legs.
Argument V.
State (Republic, county, town or municipality) is actually the only source of money for
museums. All museum marketing activities, tickets income and all other independent
profit is a mere trifle and museums do not thrive on it. In Croatia there are no foundations
or similar funds which would finance the existing museums, no support to the founding
of new ones, no loans, no financial services, no profit (except for a few honorable
exceptions) – there is nothing besides the state.
Museums justify the funds received from the state by making reports. And reports are
bureaucrat heaven. Everything can be accounted for in a report. This is a relatively
comfortable position in which what matters are not real results but what the report looks
like. This is why some museums simply do not want to worry about making money –
they simply take care of the report. They regularly get small but steady finances and
nobody is asking too many questions. Who cares about visitors, tourists, money, profit. In
the Report on the Work of Zagreb Museums for the year 2001 one museum proudly
reported of its exhibition and stressed that it had 150 visitors. Nobody wondered who the
exhibition was actually for. For the report, of course. Nobody bothered to compare the
money invested and the result accomplished. I even know of a museum which staged no
less than a fake permanent display, because it got money for it (from the state – of
course). There was an opening ceremony, speeches were held and then there was a
cocktail party for all the guests. And a week after that this permanent exhibition was
closed, the exhibits put away and no harm done. The report said the opening of a new
display. Everybody pleased. If this reminds you of Potemkin's villages the feeling is
correct. These are characteristic of all socialist countries.
Exceptions
The status of the museum profession and experts has changed since the socialist times – it
grew worse. In Yugoslavia we used to have workers' self-management. It was devised in
the way that to become a director one had to be elected by the Workers' Assembly or
Workers' Council. The flaw in this system for museums was that in this case the choice of
director was made by everyone, including the cleaners. In worker's organizations (and
museums were also worker’s organizations) there were party cells at work which always
found ways to conduct party will in the end. Self-management was not idyllic and often
turned into a farce, but still the word of experts at experts’ councils and at workers'
council meetings was respected to a certain point at least – the closer to the dissolution of
Yugoslavia, the more. Now we've lost even these scrapes. The expert council functions
solely as decorational advisory of the director. The director can patronizingly take the
advice or reject it with contempt. If he rejects it he does not need to explain his reasons to
anyone ever. This is a truly humiliating position for an expert. This is why today the basic
reaction of the common Croatian curator is - apathy.
I almost forgot. There has been another change. Small county museums, which make the
museum majority, used to have, all of them I believe, collections of National Liberation
Struggle from the Second World War. These are not fashionable any more. Now they
have collections from the Croatian War of Independence in the 90's instead.
Conclusion
Behind all this stands one big (or maybe little, because this is about museums) lie. The
state (politics) does not care about common welfare, nor about museums, but only about
their own power. First it governed protecting the great socialist ideas, and then great
nationalist ideas, from the museum profession, and today it protects nothing but bare
power. Chaos, incompetence, bueraucratism, voluntarism, distrust, xenophobia –they
make the state’s natural environment it then creates in museums. There is little resistance
– curators are mostly afraid for their jobs and not complaining.
So at the core nothing has changed in the museums since socialist times. Instead of public
property we now have state property. However, this is only empty terminology. Both then
and today the state (politics) on all its levels dictates and governs museums, damaging
both the heritage and the profession, and all of us as well.
What's the damage? Great. Our lagging behind the European countries’ museums is
constantly increasing, and this will go on, until the master (state-politics) and servant
(museums) relationship is changed. I am often told, look on the bright side. Of course,
there is a bright side. There are still some museums worthy of attention and admiration,
exhibitions, work with children, actions that warm your heart. There are directors who
take experts’ councils seriously. There is more of this, but a long-term bad rule over
museums and museum work, conceived in socialism and continued until our day, has
generally resulted in a complete standstill, and even deterioration of the museum
movement. In Croatia there is only one ethno park, only one private museum and only
one church museum. Reports say that all the museums in Croatia together have only
about 700 000 visitors (and this data is exaggerated), and there should be at least 2-3
million. In the year 2002 Zagreb museums marked a fall in the number of visitors by 50
000 compared to the previous year. There are no new museums on the horizon. Isn't this
data dreadful? And isn't it time for the museum work to begin its journey out of
socialism? Maybe with the help of others.
Želimir Laszlo