This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Francisco]On: 02 December 2014, At: 19:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cambridge Journal of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccje20

Visions, Provisions and Reality: Politicalchanges and education for democraticcitizenship in CroatiaVEDRANA SPAJIC´-VRKAS# aa University of Zagreb , CroatiaPublished online: 01 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: VEDRANA SPAJIC´-VRKAS# (2003) Visions, Provisions and Reality: Politicalchanges and education for democratic citizenship in Croatia, Cambridge Journal of Education, 33:1,33-51, DOI: 10.1080/0305764032000056711

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000056711

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2003

Visions, Provisions and Reality:political changes and education fordemocratic citizenship in CroatiaVEDRANA SPAJIC-VRKASUniversity of Zagreb, Croatia

ABSTRACT This paper is an attempt to describe and critically analyse the emergence anddevelopment of education that is directed at promoting citizens’ empowerment and responsibilityin the framework of political changes and democratic challenges that Croatia faces as apost-Communist and post-war country within a prospect of European integration. In thebeginning, a short reference to a politically unstable, economically extremely unfavourable andculturally complex context of education for democratic citizenship is given. Following thevision/provision/implementation/evaluation rationale for achieving the expected results, theauthor addresses three main issues: the changes in the government’s priorities for the period1991–2001, with special emphasis on education; the implementation measures that supporteducational changes pertinent to the quest for citizens’ empowerment; and their actual outcomes.The gap that exists between the visions and reality is explained as resulting from number ofstructural and psychological barriers that may be resolved through a more pronounced, coherentand co-ordinated development-oriented policy and implementation strategy based on consensusand commitment.

The Republic of Croatia was established as a sovereign and independentparliamentary democracy in 1991 following the demise of communism inEurope and the dissolving of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.Geographically, it is situated on what is recognised as the crossroads of Central,Eastern and Southern Europe, between Continental and Mediterranean Europeas well as between ‘Europe’ and the Balkans. Politically Croatia is a democracy-in-the-making, a ‘transitional country’ caught somewhere between a vision ofWestern European democracy and a past of Eastern European Socialist/Com-munist totalitarianism, and driven by an internal imperative for strengtheningthe nation-state. Economically it straddles a ‘haunted bridge’ that preventssmooth crossing from a system of state planned economy and social ownershipto one based on the principles of private ownership, competition and risksthat, up to now, have led to mass unemployment and sharp social inequalities.

ISSN 0305-764X print; ISSN 1469-3577 online/03/010033-19 2003 University of Cambridge Faculty of Education

DOI: 10.1080/0305764032000056711

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

34 V. Spajic-Vrkas

Similarly, on a social maturity continuum, Croatia is at a point betweena society in which an all-pervading state maintains cohesion by leaving littlespace for privacy and a society which is structured through an interplay ofpublic, civil and private sectors in which cohesion depends on mutual respectand dialogue. Culturally it is a mosaic of rich traditions that are the offspring notonly of Western-Catholic influences but also of contacts with other culturesthrough a continuous process of emigration, immigration and remigration, aswell as decades of ‘permanent socialist revolution’; throughout which aworking-class avant-garde style of living was kept ideologically constructed anddeconstructed.

The process of transition to democracy in Croatia was heavily burdened bySerbian military aggression. The first attacks started shortly after the procla-mation of sovereignty and independence. A few months later almost all majorCroatian cities had suffered some damage while one third of the territory wasoccupied, resulting in ethnic cleansing and displacement of nearly half a millionpeople. Almost 300,000 further refugees sought accommodation once the warspread to Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992 (Bilandzic et al., 1991). Thisaggression strengthened the position of the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ),an authoritarian party that in 1990 won a majority of seats in Parliament on thebasis of a political programme that pronounced national independence, culturalhomogeneity and spiritual renewal. In particular, it gave strength to the rulingparty’s nationalistic rhetoric in which there was little space for true democraticchanges.

By the end of the 1990s when the state’s authority was extended to allformerly occupied territories, it became evident that not only due to the war butalso because of an autocratic political regime, Croatia’s transition to democracywas lagging behind compared with the relatively continuous progress in mostpost-communist countries emerging from a similar position at the beginning ofthat decade. Attempts at parliamentary democracy were unable to balancenational interests with the principles of democratic development and, especially,with the protection of citizens from the risks of political and economic tran-sition. Instead of promoting civil society, the rule of law and accountability, thenew political elite exercised arbitrariness and turned to populism. Moreover, byadvocating the need for national homogenisation at the expense of human rightsand freedoms, it furthered the divisions of Croatian society on ideological,ethnic and religious grounds. Further, nepotism and loyalty to the leaders of theruling party became the key mechanisms of an extremely restricted system ofsocial promotion.

Legally an ill-defined and non-transparent partnership between politicalleadership and a managerial elite, both the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ one (Sekulic &Sporer, 2000), led to the transformation of social ownership and to privatisa-tion—formally a conditio sine qua non of democratic changes—that in realitydeprived the majority of citizens of their right to have a share in the distributionof society’s resources, which they themselves had augmented during socialism.Since national control as well as international monitoring mechanisms were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Political Changes and Education in Croatia 35

largely absent, in only a few years the country’s social structure changeddramatically. The middle class that had formerly enjoyed relatively solid andstable living standards, especially in education, health and social care, almostdisappeared. In terms of income, wealth and power, two opposing groupsemerged—a minority of ‘nouveau riches’ also labelled ‘mafiocracy’ (Letica, 1997),on the one side, and a large majority of impoverished citizens, on the other side.

Impoverishment and the lack of a clear perspective were probably the mainreasons why the majority of Croatian citizens lost their trust in the nation-state-centred rhetoric and why, in the general election of 2000, they shifted their votesto the opposition parties whose political rhetoric was more Europe-centred, withstrong emphasis on the rule of law and justice (Lamza Posavec, 2001). How-ever, the change in the country’s political leadership in 2000 happened less asan outcome of political maturation of Croatian citizens and more as a result ofpeople’s disillusionment with government. Their votes were primarily votesagainst pre-2000 political leadership and not votes for new programmes offeredby the opposition, which had important implications for the years to come(Katunaric, 2001).

The general election of 2000 brought victory to two opposition blocks, tothe Social Democratic Party of Croatia and the Croatian Social Liberal Party(SDP-HSLS) that secured 40% of the total vote, on the one side, and to theCroatian Peasant Party, Croatian People’s Party, Istrian Democratic Parliament andLiberal Party (HSS-LS-HNS-IDS) with 16% of all the votes, on the other side.Shortly afterwards, these two blocs formed a six-party coalition that launched ademanding Working Programme of the Government of the Republic of Croatia for thePeriod 2000–2004. The Programme was based on the electoral programmes ofthe SDP-HSLS and HSS-LS-HNS-IDS blocks, as well as on the Six-PartyCoalition Agreement on forming legislative and executive power in the state. Itannounced a series of comprehensive changes geared towards economic andsocial recovery and towards further development of the country in compliancewith the basic principles of international community and European integration.

It became obvious in the course of the implementation of the Programmethat these blocks were the result of pre-electoral ‘political arithmetic’ based onthe presumption that the majority of Croatian citizens would be guided by a‘vote-against’ principle and, thus, at least in the beginning, rather uninterestedin their internal political differences. The process was, and still is, accompaniedby a number of political crises caused by in-coalition battles not only over thecourse of, and measures for, change, but also over the partners’ share of powerin the administration, economy and financing sectors. This shift from ‘politicalarithmetic’ to ‘coalition-partner-position arithmetic’ was a clear sign that thecoalition priorities and strategies were not fully attuned with the individualinterests of the partners. This made IDS leave the coalition over the regionalautonomy issue. Soon, HSLS also left because of disputes with SDP, includingdisagreement over power-sharing and the need to redefine Croatian co-oper-ation with The Hague. This almost brought the coalition to an end.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

36 V. Spajic-Vrkas

However, the biggest challenge for the coalition government was not whatto do but how to accomplish the task of pulling the country out of a deepeconomic and social crisis that was the outcome of both war devastation and adecade of ill-governed transition. Of primary concern was the cost of war. Atotal of HRK 236.4 billion (US$ 37.4 billion) of war damages remained aburden to the central budget and to economic recovery. This burden wasexacerbated by the low rate of investment despite the fact that by 2001 nearlytwo thirds of the economy had become privatised and more than three quartersof banking assets were in private hands. In addition, a considerable part ofeconomic activity remained underground and detracted from public growth.Foreign investment was problematic, while industry and tourism were reducedto one third prior to the outbreak of hostilities and GDP dropped to less thanhalf of the pre-1990s period. These factors had the effect of increasing totalpublic debt to the astonishing level of 43% of GDP, while the unemploymentrate had risen to an equally astounding 22%, or the level of a major depression,and the living conditions, especially of the young, had steadily deteriorated(World Bank Country Office Zagreb, 2001).

Secondly, it turned out that political changes and the beginning of econ-omic recovery and stabilisation (downward trends in government expendituresand taxes, and upward trends in industrial output, exports, retail trade, salariesand tourism) did not bring Croatia much closer to the European Union as hadbeen anticipated in 2000. Despite the fact that the Stabilisation and AssociationAgreement between the European Communities and Its Member States and theRepublic of Croatia was signed in 2001, prospects for integration remain largelyunclear and Croatia was not one of the recent states given approval to join theEU in the near future. Most disturbing for the average citizen is that despiterecent developments the country has not qualified for individual treatment but,rather contrarily, has been seemingly fixed in the framework of a ‘regionalapproach’ to the EU integration processes. In the ‘new European regional order’Croatia is located in the Balkans, a region that is, despite diplomatic rhetoricand post-Communist-open-market optimism, still perceived as the EuropeanOther.

This new European territorialisation is received with disappointment in thecountry. For many Croats it is not only underdevelopment and politicalinstability of the Balkans that is disturbing, but also the concept of the Balkansas a symbol of national and religious suffering. In their view the Balkansprimarily mean Yugoslavia—a phoenix-like political construction that failed tofulfil Croatian national interests. It emerged first in the post-Habsburg Monar-chy period when it was justified on the ground of the nineteenth-century theoryabout Balkan Slavs (Bulgarians, Croats, Serbs, Slovenes) as the descendants ofa single race—the Illyrians. This attempt at primordial unity based on biologywas in the post-WW2 period replaced by the notion of ‘brotherhood and unity’based on Communist ideology. If the newest non-differentiated regional inte-gration based on ‘rational interests’ means in reality ‘a new closing’ instead of‘a new opening’ for Croatia, the present government would be highly unlikely to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Political Changes and Education in Croatia 37

maintain voter support in the next general elections should it comply with thissolution.

DISPUTES OVER NATIONAL CULTURAL IDENTITY

The changes outlined above have had a detrimental impact on education inCroatia, particularly in terms of the failure of educational policy-makers toconceptualise and implement a comprehensive and sustainable reform that ispertinent to the social, economic, political and cultural needs of the country intransition. About the only sustained feature of the Croatian education systemsince the beginning of the 1990s has been the gap between declared prioritiesand their actual implementation. This has been exacerbated by an on-goingdiscontinuity in determining the aims, contents and organisation of teaching andlearning in schools. Since the former will be discussed in detail below, let usbriefly explain what is meant by discontinuity in this context and why it isimportant for the analysis of educational changes in Croatia, including theintroduction of citizenship education.

We have argued elsewhere (Spajic-Vrkas, 1997) that one important dimen-sion of the problems permeating the post-1990s definition of social priorities inCroatia, including education, derives from the existence of two opposingapproaches to national cultural identity (Smith, 1991). The first model definesidentity almost exclusively in terms of the nation-state building priorities. Itstresses the need for national integration and homogenisation by overcomingin-country regional cultural differences (e.g. by renaming of Dalmatia intoSouthern Croatia) and by giving weight to the voices of the Croatian diasporain that process. In this context, the following issues are particularly stressed: thestandardisation of the Croatian language (ranging from a more rigid version ofCroatisation, in terms of the exclusion of all ‘foreign’ words, especially Serbian,to a softer version of ‘language purification’) and national symbols; spiritual andmoral, as well as demographic ‘renewal’; the revaluation and reinterpretation ofnational history that was diverted by the Yugoslav regime; the Croatian CentralEuropean and Mediterranean heritage and detachment from Eastern andBalkan cultural influences; the return to traditional cultural values such asCatholicism, family, and authority, as well as to traditional Croatian customsembedded in social ceremonies. Proponents of this model prefer an ethnicallysimple state and often oppose liberal, multicultural and civic ideas. Whilespeaking of the continuation of Croatian national culture they often refer to the1941–1945 Ustasha regime, either as the basis for contemporary culturaldevelopment or as the subject of ‘objective’ revaluation and reinterpretation. Atthe same time, they explicitly refuse to attribute any value to the 1945–1990socialist period.

The second approach to national cultural identity formation that may betermed the ‘civil’ model is less homogeneous and therefore more difficult toanalyse. In Croatia it mostly functions in opposition to the nation-state-orientedmodel, since it does not advocate any of the characteristics of that model though

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

38 V. Spajic-Vrkas

it does explicitly reject some of them. The proponents of the civil model seenational cultural identity in terms of respecting cultural differences, and sup-porting democracy, civil society and the rule of law. They strongly refute anyconnection to the 1941–1945 period but do not speak in favour of the 1945–1990 period, either, although some do refer to the socialist period in terms ofthe need for its revaluation and reinterpretation.

This dualism has been a stumbling block in consolidating educationpriorities since Croatian independence. It was particularly apparent in the firsthalf of the 1990s when, under pressure from many sources such as theinternational community, from Croatian civil society and from the politicalopposition, the government that had supported the first model was forced tobalance national priorities between the quest for democratisation and the questfor nation-building. In response to these demands, the Ministry of Educationand Sport issued a document with long-term and short-term objectives foreducation reform. The long-term objectives focused on the promotion oflifelong learning, the extension of compulsory schooling, the application of newinformation-communication technologies and the innovation of pre-graduateand post-graduate teacher training programmes. The short-term objectivesencompassed the following issues:

• de-ideologisation and depoliticisation of schools, curricula and textbooks;• introduction of education legislation to implement change;• shift from Yugoslav patriotism to national identity;• development of new curricula for all forms and levels of education in line

with the developed countries;• the re-establishment of grammar schools;• the reintegration of religious classes and religious schools into the formal

system; and• the introduction of private schools.

Such a combination of priorities posed a serious problem to educationalauthorities for at least three reasons: a) the principle of ethnic and religiouspluralism in education appeared problematic in the context of a Croato-centricnational integration and a Catholicism-centric spiritual renewal that were seenas the conditio sine qua non for the stabilisation of the state; b) the waradditionally strengthened nationalistic and ethnocentric forces in both govern-ment and society since it actually threatened national security and indepen-dence; and c) international pressures on the government towards fastertransition, in such circumstances, were seen as unfair by a considerable numberof citizens who demanded that the international community differentiate be-tween the victims and the perpetrators of aggression. The outcome of theinterplay of these contextual factors was that the principle of Croatocentrismwas mainstreamed into all aspects of education policy and practice, especiallyinto curricula and textbooks, while the democracy principle remained vague andat the margins of national education implementation strategies (Katunaric,1997).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Political Changes and Education in Croatia 39

When the proponents of the civil model won national elections in 2000 theyoverturned the priorities of the former government. The Working Programme ofthe Government of the Republic of Croatia for the Period 2000–2004 defines a seriesof national objectives with a view to stabilising the country and facilitate itsaccession and integration into the European Union. In particular, these includepromotion of democracy and the rule of law, as well as of the privatisationprocesses and open-market economy. Among the tasks pertinent to the strength-ening of democracy and the rule of law, the new political commitments weredirected towards the following:

• changes in the political system (abrogating the elements of autocraticgovernance and the para-state centres of power by strengthening thedivision of power, especially of the parliamentary democracy, and byreducing the power of the president);

• the development of democracy and building of civil society (promotion ofhuman rights and freedoms, in particular freedom of worship and equal-ity of religious communities, including interfaith dialogue and tolerance);

• freedom of the media (promoting media self-regulation, independenceand pluralism in production and distribution of information);

• return of displaced persons and refugees (assistance to the areas devas-tated by war by providing for the reconstruction of housing as well as forprogrammes of economic recovery and development);

• non-governmental organisations and civil society (promoting citizens’right to free association and providing support to non-governmentalorganisations and civil initiatives).

In the context of promoting democracy and the rule of law, particularattention is given in the document to the protection of minority rights and thepromotion of the status of persons belonging to minority groups, as ‘one of thefundamental political tasks of the Government’. It is stated that the promotionof inter-ethnic confidence is the basis for democratic stability and thus animportant dimension of Croatian national interests. Consequently, the govern-ment commits itself to:

• take all the required steps to eliminate inequality for Croatian citizenswho are members of national minority groups (communities);

• provide for the full enforcement of laws regulating the rights of personsbelonging to national minority groups in order to ensure their libertiesand equality, as well as the preservation and recognition of their identityand their participation in public life;

• remove all the obstacles that hinder full integration of persons belongingto national minority groups into Croatian society, and

• propose, inter alia, solutions for promoting positive discrimination inelectoral legislation so as to, along with general civil rights, provide forthe special rights of persons belonging to national minority groups.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

40 V. Spajic-Vrkas

Educational priorities are outlined in the context of social welfare policy andsocial ‘activities’. The government recognises education as ‘a strategic develop-mental priority for the overall development of Croatian society’. It announcesthe promotion of a more efficient school system that is comparable with‘European systems’. Change should be based on a review of existing practicesand the introduction of new teaching and learning concepts that are expected toemerge from extensive professional and public debates. These concepts wouldthen be used for drafting new education laws and for innovative educationalpractice. Specific objectives of educational reform are defined in the followingway:

• promotion of democratic principles (in particular, freedom, humanrights, openness, innovation, tolerance and diversity) throughout theeducation system;

• decentralisation of administration (ownership rights, administration andmanagement of primary and secondary schools will gradually be trans-ferred to local government and self-government);

• pluralisation of curricula;• gradual increase of funds allocated to education from the state budget to

approach the European standards;• strengthening co-operation with institutions in other fields, trade unions,

NGOs and international organisations;• enhancing the computerisation of schools; and• promoting education of children of Croatian expatriates and of children

belonging to national minority groups.

EDUCATIONAL PROVISION

Educational priorities determined in the new government Working Programmewere further developed through a series of strategic papers on changes to theeducation system that were almost simultaneously developed by two non-relatedgroups of experts. The government’s reason for having two groups to carry outthe same task still remains unclear.

In 2000, the first group of experts, the Education Advisory Council thatworks under the auspices of the Ministry of Education and Sport, prepared adraft entitled Basis for Restructuring of Educational System of the Republic of Croatiato serve as a framework for public discussion (Ministry of Education and Sport,2000). The aim of the document was to analyse the on-going situation ineducation and to define priorities for developing a ‘21st century Croatianschool’ in the context of European integration. It is a loosely structured paperwith sections on purposes, objectives and principles of educational reform,including the principles of human rights, pluralism and democracy. The seconddocument produced by this Council, which is more strategy-oriented, is theConcept of Changes in the Education System of the Republic of Croatia. (Ministry ofEducation and Sport, 2000b). This is much more consistent paper, applying a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Political Changes and Education in Croatia 41

comprehensive approach to change in the education system. It identified aimsand objectives as well as the ‘paths’ of change at different levels of the systemin relation to six premises, namely, the democratic approach, decentralisation,autonomy, pluralism, globalisation, and international standards and co-oper-ation. However, apart from a general recognition of democracy, human rights,pluralism and tolerance as strategic priorities and key objectives, little is said onhow these priorities and objectives may be achieved at particular levels andwhether education for democratic citizenship or a similar programme should beintroduced into schools.

A second group of experts was working under the auspices of the centralgovernment Office for the Strategy of the Development of the Republic ofCroatia. In September 2001 this group finalised the White Paper on CroatianEducation as part of a comprehensive Strategy for the Development of the Republicof Croatia ‘Croatia in the 21st Century’ (Office for the Strategy of the Develop-ment of the Republic of Croatia, 2000). The purpose of the paper was toconceptualise education as a component of national development by relying on‘the European developed countries, our educational tradition, the present-daystate of the Croatian educational system and the estimation of the existing andconceivable developmental limitations’ (p. 5) as well as on the concepts oflifelong learning (comprising formal, non-formal and informal education) and a‘learning society’. The main purpose of education is defined in the paper interms of improvement of life quality for both society and the individual. It isargued further that Croatian school and out-of-school education does not meetthe developmental needs of the transitional society, that primary and compul-sory education are, in terms of structure and content, incompatible withEuropean standards and that the system lacks in-built mechanisms for structuralchange. Thus, three groups of basic principles and directions of educationaldevelopment were outlined:

• curricular subsystem development (knowledge and skills with the biggesttransferable value; interdisciplinary and innovative approach to educa-tional programmes; curriculum that is open, democratic, inclusive, bal-anced and with a European dimension);

• technological systems development (diversified learning that ensuresunderstanding; non-authoritarian and supportive school climate; im-provement of professional information and guidance; improvement ofteacher education and status; development of a system of recognition ofcompetencies);

• links between education and the broader environment (partnership be-tween schools and out-of-school organisations and interest groups; de-centralisation and deregulation of the school system; promotion of asystem that is equitable, accessible, passable and flexible, co-ordinatedand financially adequately supported).

This document creates a solid base for systemic structural and educationalchanges pertinent to the idea of lifelong learning in a challenging world.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

42 V. Spajic-Vrkas

However, as with the strategic papers of the Ministry of Education mentionedabove, it lacks clarification on the implementation of the principles of democ-racy, human rights, equality, pluralism and civil society, all of which arerecognised in the text as the foundations for the improvement of the quality oflife. To reach the objective of developing ‘competence for active citizenship’(2000, p. 18) in a lifelong perspective, structural and organisational changes areinsufficient. For the success of transition it is more important to clarify theprinciples and implementation measures for substantive changes, including thecontent of learning and a new educational culture for democratic citizenship(Naval et al., 2000). This is the issue that neither of the Croatian strategicdocuments addresses satisfactorily and is also the reason for neglecting edu-cation for democratic citizenship.

LEGAL PROVISION

Another important source of information for the analysis of provisions forpromoting democratic values through education are national legal standards, inparticular the constitution, the law(s) on education and, eventually, the bills ofrights and/or other laws that establish the rights of specific groups. As with othersectors, the Croatian legal system is now passing through profound changes tocomply with the requirements of the Stabilisation and Association Agreementbetween the European Communities and Its Member States and the Republic ofCroatia. The current legal system is, therefore, internally inconsistent, redun-dant and unco-ordinated in many aspects.

However, the content of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, asamended in 2001, establishes basic legal standards for promoting democraticvalues through education. It determines (Art. 3), inter alia, that freedom,equality, social justice, respect for human rights and the rule of law are thehighest values of the constitutional order of the Republic of Croatia whichshould be enjoyed by all, ‘regardless of race, colour, sex, language, religion,political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, education,social status or other characteristics’ (Art. 14). Consequently, the constitutionguarantees equality to all persons belonging to minority groups and establishesspecial minority rights, including free expression of their nationality and free useof their language and script (Art. 15), issues that are further developed in theConstitutional Law on Human Rights. With reference to freedom of conscienceand belief, the Constitution stipulates that ‘all religious communities are equalbefore the law and separated from the state’ and all enjoy ‘the protection of, andassistance from the state’ (Art. 41). The Constitution further establishes thefreedom of the media and the prohibition of censorship (Art. 38), and stipulates,that ‘any call for the incitement to national, racial or religious hatred or any formof intolerance shall be prohibited and punishable’ (Art. 39). When referring toeducation, the Constitution establishes only three principles (Arts. 65–66):compulsory and free primary schooling, equal access to secondary and higher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Political Changes and Education in Croatia 43

education according to one’s abilities and the right of citizens to open privateschools and teaching institutions.

No explicit statement referring to the promotion of democracy throughschooling can be found in the laws on education. The Law on the Changes andthe Amendments of the Law on Primary Schooling and the Law on the Changes andthe Amendments of the Law on Secondary Schooling, both adopted in 2001, mainlyregulate issues of decentralisation in financing and school autonomy (e.g. thestructure and role of school committees; the right of parents and students tochoose the type, form and method of learning, including alternative pro-grammes, etc.). The law on secondary schooling additionally determines thatthe representatives of the students’ council may participate in the work of theschool committee, but they are not guaranteed the right to vote.

The dimension of democratic citizenship is also absent from the Law onEducation in Languages and Scripts of National Minorities. The law stipulates thatchildren who belong to national minorities may be taught in their language andscript from pre-school to university level in minority schools/programmes thatconsist of a common core and a set of specific courses (minority language andliterature, history, geography and culture). The law further sets standards for thepreparation of teachers in minority school/programmes, textbooks, documen-tation, governing bodies, headmasters, advisers and financing.

The only analysis, that we know of, on the legal provisions for education fordemocratic citizenship and human rights education in Croatia has recently beenprovided by Djordje Gardasevic (2002). His analysis confirms that no laws oneducation contain explicit regulations on human rights education, despite thefact that human rights are established by the Constitution as one of the highestvalues of Croatian society. These gaps between the Constitution and the lawsand between the Constitution and strategic documents on education changesmay be addressed, at least for a short period, by drafting executive by-laws thatwould be issued by the Ministry of Education and Sports in which the Ministrywould explicitly determine human rights education or similar approaches as anintegral part of the school system.

HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION PROGRAMME

Croatia is one of few countries in the world with a National Human RightsEducation Programme (National Human Rights Education Programme, 1999).It was developed at the end of 1990s by a group of experts under the auspicesof the National Human Rights Education Committee of the Government ofCroatia, as the Croatian contribution to the UN Decade for Human RightsEducation (1995–2004). Its conceptual approach had been previously definedby the UNESCO-Netherlands Government’s sponsored project on Peace andHuman Rights for Croatian Primary Schools (Spajic-Vrkas, 2000) while its contentwas also influenced by the Project Citizen and the Constitution—Foundations ofDemocracy of the Centre for Civic Education from Calabasas, USA. Theprogramme consists of seven sub-programmes. Four of them (pre-school, lower

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

44 V. Spajic-Vrkas

primary, upper primary and secondary) were finalised and published in 1999. In2000 an adult education programme was also devised, while the university andmedia programmes are yet to be developed.

According to its conceptual framework, which is not fully respected in allits constituent parts, the programme is based on an integral, multifaceted,trans-disciplinary and experiential approach to learning about, for and in humanrights throughout one’s life. Its aim is to assist children, young people and adultsin learning the basic principles and values of a democratic and plural society, aswell as to develop their intellectual and social skills for an active and productiveparticipation in their environment. It sees human rights education as a synergicand a lifelong process in the acquisition of knowledge, skills, values andperspectives that are indispensable for the promotion of personal dignity andsocial well-being. On the other hand, it relates the effectiveness of human rightseducation to contextual and structural prerequisites, in particular to democraticinstitutions and processes. Apart from human rights and freedoms, democracyand pluralism, the programme’s constituent concepts include learning aboutequality, social justice, inclusion, responsibility, tolerance, respect for differ-ences, non-violence and co-operation.

In line with the notions of synergy and comprehensiveness, the structure ofthe programme comprises dimensions of national and international humanrights standards; pedagogical and psychological foundations of human rightseducation; aims and objectives; lesson plans; implementation strategies; assess-ment and evaluation approaches; teachers’ role and preconditions for thesustainability of implementation. At least two dimensions of the programmeshould be mentioned here. One refers to the content of learning and/or teachingwhich is a combination of five fields linked together through the concept ofhuman rights and freedoms:

• self-awareness, identity and personal responsibility;• cultural pluralism and intercultural dialogue;• democracy and civil society;• peace and non-violent conflict resolution, and• interdependency of the society, culture and nature.

Another dimension refers to the methods of learning and/or teaching forhuman rights, which appear in the programme as the ‘PIRA multi-methodapproach’, where PIRA stands for participation, interaction, reflection andanticipation.

The development, implementation and review of the National HumanRights Education Programme, as well as teachers’ preparation for its implemen-tation, are co-ordinated by the Human Rights Education Committee, nowunder the Ministry of Education and Sport. In 1999 the Ministry decided toinclude the Primary School Human Rights Sub-programme into the (national)Framework Plan and Programme for Primary Schools under a new title—Edu-cation for Human Rights and Democratic Citizenship Education. The documentstates that human rights education is an integral part of the elementary school

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Political Changes and Education in Croatia 45

curricula and that it may be implemented across the curriculum, as an optionalsubject or as an extra-curricular activity. In order to promote the implemen-tation of the national programme, the Ministry began to organise teachertraining seminars as early as in 1999, and a year later it went further andnominated 21 regional human rights education co-ordinators.

CIVIL SOCIETY INITIATIVES

Croatian civil society is another important resource for the development andimplementation of educational programmes that promote human rights andrelated values. Although it dates back to the nineteenth century, modern civilsociety initiatives emerged in the mist of war when thousands of people beganto organise spontaneously in order to provide humanitarian and psychologicalassistance to the displaced, the refugees as well as to those that had beenimprisoned, tortured and raped. Although at the beginning of the 1990s someNGOs were already organising workshops and seminars in tolerance, peacefulconflict resolution, intercultural understanding and human rights, mostly underthe influence of organisations from abroad, it was only after the war that theybegan to direct their programmes more explicitly towards the needs for demo-cratic change. In the beginning they were segregated from the formal educationsector and unrecognised by the state administration.

However, their introduction of new topics (human rights, responsibility,tolerance, non-violence), new teaching/learning methods (teamwork, role-play,peer-mediation, facilitation, networking) and new learning environments (work-shops, small groups, informal settings) soon became appealing to more andmore educators that belonged to the formal system. Several civil education/training projects, in particular the ones that were implemented under theauspices of intergovernmental organisations, were even carried out with thepermission from the Ministry of Education and Sport within the framework ofinternational assistance programmes to Croatia, but very few, until recently,were officially said to contribute to school and curricula improvement.

In the years between 1997 and 2000 the number of NGO-organisedseminars and workshops in the field of human rights or democratic citizenshipeducation were substantial across all parts of Croatia. Civil society activistsshowed remarkable knowledge and skills in developing non-formal educationprogrammes; using active learning approaches; creating a non-authoritarian andresponsive learning environment; strengthening co-operation and partnership atlocal, national and international levels; education campaigning and setting upeducation networks. Unfortunately, most of them went unrecorded and since nosystemic analysis has ever been carried out, because of the lack of interest fromboth researchers and NGOs, it is difficult to draw any conclusion on the impactof civil initiatives in general on schools, teachers, students or a local community(Baranovic, 1999; Spajic-Vrkas, 2001)

Nevertheless, there are many NGOs whose impact is a reflection of thequality and duration of their work. Among them are the Centre for Peace,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

46 V. Spajic-Vrkas

Non-violence and Human Rights from Osijek (programmes in human rightseducation, non-violence, intercultural understanding, and civil participation);the Small Step (peer mediation in non-violent conflict resolution and humanrights education); the Centre for Peace Studies (adult training programmes innon-violent conflict resolution, non-discrimination and equality); Forum for theFreedom of Education (development of critical thinking skills for civil partici-pation, legal literacy and education for democracy); Amnesty International—Croatia (programmes in human rights awareness raising, active approaches tohuman rights education and children’s drawing); Europe Youth Club Pro-grammes (programmes on learning active and facilitative civil strategies), andthe Centre for a Direct Human Rights Protection (dissemination of valuablelearning materials).

An important step in promoting confidence and co-operation between thecivil and public sectors that is beginning to have an impact on formal education,was made in 1998 when the Office of the Government of the Republic ofCroatia for Non-governmental Organisations was established. In the same yearthe Office developed a Model of Governmental Support to NGOs’ programmesin social welfare, human rights, education and active participation of youngpeople, with a total budget (in 1999) of HRK 28.316.522,47, of which 12.92%were allocated to programmes in the field of human rights education andthe development of civil society. Throughout 2001 the Office worked in co-operation with NGOs on drafting the Programme of Co-operation of theGovernment of Croatia with Non-governmental Non-profit Sector in the Republic ofCroatia. The paper recognises NGOs as an integral part of social and politicallife in Croatia and as partners with the government in defining public interests(Vidacak, 2001).

OBSTACLES

Croatian policy-makers, as well as citizens in general, are well aware today of thegoals and challenges of transition to democracy. They are equally certain aboutwhat generally should be done to meet national needs and international stan-dards in this process. Many of them are more or less actively involved infulfilling the imperatives for change, though large numbers are still waiting toengage themselves in a time of challenge. Some fear instability and lament the‘good old days’ and, yet, a great majority feel that things are not as they shouldbe despite the clarity of goals and actual potential for change.

Such a background helps explain the many obstacles to progress withineducation in Croatia. It also applies to the status of education for democraticcitizenship or any other programme that is directed towards the empowermentof the individual and of democratic society. Such programmes still occur on themargins of the school system and are implemented in practice sporadicallydepending on the motivation of an individual teacher or a school principal.A positive systemic response to education for democratic citizenship is stilllacking.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Political Changes and Education in Croatia 47

Having in mind what was described above, one should ask how it is possiblethat the government proclaims the promotion of democratic principles (humanrights, openness, tolerance and diversity) throughout the school system as itspriority; that it officially supports the National Human Rights Education Pro-gramme and pays for the training of teachers in its implementation; that itofficially supports the Council of Europe’s policy on education for democraticcitizenship, and that, in the end, no policy for the implementation of suchprogrammes has yet been devised by the government. Schools have no obli-gation to include them in the curricula, and many NGOs that could assist intheir implementation cannot enter schools as they are not recognised by theMinistry of Education and Sport. Moreover, neither the National Programmefor Human Rights Education nor education for democratic citizenship are inany way included in the contemporary strategic papers on education change.

These questions were posed to Croation teachers of all school levels,educational researchers, civil activists and policy-makers in a focus-group dis-cussion held in 1991 at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb. Thediscussion was organised as part of the Council of Europe’s StocktakingResearch on Policy for Democratic Citizenship and Management of Diversity inSoutheast Europe. The results point to two of the main obstacles to an efficientschool change in Croatia: discontinuity in education policy-making and the gapbetween policy and its implementation (Spajic-Vrkas, 2001; Harrison & Baum-gartl, 2001).

Referring to the problem of discontinuity in policy-making, the participantsoften stressed the lack of a rational, comprehensive, well-balanced and consist-ent educational policy with clearly stated priorities in the context of lifelonglearning, economic well-being, promotion of human rights, pluralism, the ruleof law, social cohesion, and so forth. Two comments were particularly express-ive. One participant explained the problem in the following way: ‘Our educa-tional system is a “patchwork” of hundreds of disconnected or looselyconnected regulations, initiatives, practices. There is the need for an urgentbalancing of its parts’ (Spajic-Vrkas, 2001, p. 44) Another participant was evenmore direct: ‘It is still unclear to practitioners and probably to policy-makers,what personal and social goals should be achieved by education. Educationalpriorities are easily and frequently changed dependent on “daily politics” withno necessary explanation’ (p. 46).

With reference to the perceived imbalance between policy and practice inthis field, the participants pointed out that an efficient and consistent implemen-tation strategy, with clearly defined measures and mechanisms for ensuringeducational objectives, was non-existent. Such a situation inevitably strengthensvoluntarism in decision-making at all levels of the education system. It is alsoresponsible for feelings of insecurity among practitioners as to what and howeducational tasks should be fulfilled. Some criticised policy documents as ‘toomany papers lacking rational implementation strategies and measures, as well asnecessary political will’ (p. 41), while others described the situation in terms of‘inconsistent policy priorities, weak implementation policy, ad hoc implemen-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

48 V. Spajic-Vrkas

tation measures and no standards for quality assessment, all of which result involuntary practice accompanied by the lack of responsibility at all levels’ (p. 41).There were some voices that linked the problem to the communist past. Oneparticipant argued that ‘the communist technology of governing and managingis still around us’, deeply rooted in our everyday practice which makes usincompetent in devising and implementing efficient democratic strategies toreplace older ones (p. 41). However, many agreed that such a state-of-play ineducation is not a Croatian specificum since ‘the world knows very little on howthe transition should be led to ensure the desired end’ (p. 41).

A complete list of obstacles identified by the participants of the studyincludes 27 broad factors (21 of which were structural or institutional and sixpsychological or individual) that may be used as a supplement to the OECDThematic Review (2001). A brief description of some of the factors include:

• education in general is understood in terms of schooling; learning interms of memorising the facts, and students in terms of knowledge-receivers; centralist policy-making with input but not with output control;

• promotion of decentralisation is solely in terms of financing;• an underdeveloped system of quality control;• disconnected laws on schooling that are inadequate for the promotion of

life-long learning;• curricula and textbooks are still fact-oriented instead of skill and compe-

tency-oriented;• teacher education and in-service training are still more content-oriented

than method-oriented;• marginalisation of the role of analysis and R&D in educational change;• non-existent systems of dissemination and exchange of information;• low level of organisational capacity and an authoritarian style of manage-

ment in schools;• unprepared public and school administration for resuming a democratic

role;• non-existent intra-sector and inter-sector co-operation in public adminis-

tration and elsewhere;• lack of co-operation of schools with the local community and civil

organisations;• marginalisation of professional associations (teachers, researchers in edu-

cation, etc.);• low level of international co-operation and exchange;• low level of state expenditures for education;• lack of school provisions for active learning;• low level and inadequate media coverage of education.

One important obstacle that appeared in the course of discussion was related tothe differences in using the term ‘education for democratic citizenship’. Theparticipants operated with three categories of meaning:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Political Changes and Education in Croatia 49

• education for democratic citizenship as a comprehensive theoretical con-cept that refers to all educational policies and practices which aim atpreparing the citizens of different ages for their active and responsiblerole in promoting democracy;

• education for democratic citizenship as a policy concept primarily relatedto a government’s education strategies for promoting democratic pro-cesses in a given state, either as a means of complying with broaderinternational policies or with national needs;

• education for democratic citizenship as a practical concept that emerges‘from below’, i.e. from an active participation of citizens and is a sign of‘a genuine civic ideology’ that has an in-built power to influence policiesand theories.

Finally, there are also school- and teacher-related obstacles that appear wheneducational programmes of this type are implemented in practice. These issueswere identified by a representative from the Varazdin secondary school which isfunctioning as a citizenship site in the Council of Europe’s Project on Educationfor Democratic Citizenship. This project has been elaborated elsewhere (Navalet al., 2002). The obstacles were identified when a group of teachers decided tointroduce education for democratic citizenship into curricula in a rigid schoolatmosphere. It is worthwhile giving a full account of the participants’ comments(Spajic-Vrkas, 2001, p. 44): ‘The main issue is not of having the guts tochallenge the Ministry but to change school practice when you encounterhostility and opposition from the side of your colleagues because you ‘give toomuch freedom to students’. In such a situation you may either give up ordevelop a step-by-step strategy for school change.

Education for democratic citizenship is not a matter of one class. It affectsthe school as a whole once it is introduced in a single classroom. One needs tobe aware of its expanding potential and be prepared for confrontation. Thestrategy should respect the existing school structures and approaches, as well asinternal power relations, and involve practice of permanent lobbying. Studentsneed to know how authoritarian structures and persons function and beequipped with skills to change it for the benefit of all. This is a difficult andresponsible process.

If education for democratic citizenship is practised solely at the level of agame or ‘imagine it’ discussions, students soon become uninterested, as edu-cation for democratic citizenship is then only ‘another school task’ alienatedfrom real problems. On the other hand, if they learn how to participate andexpress their opinion, the question remains on what to do with their knowledge.

In order to be convincing schools should create real opportunities forstudents to use their civil knowledge and skills in reforming school organisationand curricula. School authorities should also open the institution in order toenable their students to co-operate with local forces in changing the communityas a whole.’

The results of this strategy are outstanding: ‘Teachers now pay more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

50 V. Spajic-Vrkas

attention to their own words and behaviour towards students. Everybody isaware that human rights watch is at work concerning fair treatment and thefulfilment of individual responsibility. Both teachers and students are more opento the opinions of the other side. This has created an atmosphere of mutual care,support and partnership that begins to influence the local community. Butauthoritarian structures are still there and much more remains to be done.’

CONCLUSION

As a post-Communist and a post-war transitional country that seeks to berecognised by the international and European family of democratic societies,Croatia is faced with a number of political, economic and social problems.While the solution of some depends on how the country addresses its past, it isthe projection of its future that is most instrumental in this respect. The task ishighly demanding. Firstly, it presupposes a clear, comprehensive and achievablevision of democratic development in line with international and Europeanagendas for change. Secondly, it requires effective development-orientednational policies and implementation strategies. Thirdly, and most importantly,it needs the active participation, consensus and commitment to change of allCroatian citizens, including the government and the private sector.

The role of education in general, and education for democratic citizenshipin particular, is pivotal in this process. Unfortunately, as the above analysisshows, Croatian policy-makers still fail to recognise education as the pillar oftransition. Attempts to reform the educational system in the last 12 years havebeen largely cosmetic and discontinuous. The gap between political rhetoric andpolitical will leads to the instability of professional standards, which is detrimen-tal to educational practice and school outcomes. The inconsistency between thecontent of the curriculum and the need for change is the reason why manynon-formal and civil society education resources are left outside the schoolsystem. If Croatia is to achieve the goals of democratic change in the nearfuture, its government must recognise the importance of education and strive toprepare young people for active and responsible citizenship. As a powerfulmeans of transmission that will facilitate wider changes through dialogue andpartnership of all social forces, learning for democratic citizenship must inCroatia become a framework for citizen- and democracy-oriented educationpolicies and practices.

Correspondence: Vedrana Spajic-Vrkas, Faculty of Philosophy, University ofZagreb, Ivana Lucica 3, Croatia.

REFERENCES

BARANOVIC, B. (1999) Peace education in Croatia, Sociologija, 37(1), pp. 111–147.BILANDZIC, D. et al. (1991) Croatia between the War and Independence (Zagreb, Croatian University

Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Political Changes and Education in Croatia 51

EDUCATION ADVISORY COUNCIL (2000) Concept of Changes in the Education System of the Republicof Croatia (Zagreb, Ministry of Education and Sport).

GARDASEVIC, D. (2002) Pravne pretpostavke suradnje izmeuskola i nevladinih udruga u obrazo-vanju za ljudska prava u Hrvatskoj, paper presented at the Seminar on International Standards,National Policies and Local Resources in Promoting Education for Human Rights, Petrcane, Zadar,17–19 October, p. 11 (available at http://www.ffzg.hr/hre-edc).

HARRISON, C. & BAUMGARTL, B. (2001) Stocktaking Research on Policies for Education forDemocratic Citizenship in Southeast Europe: regional analysis and intervention proposals (Stras-bourg, Council of Europe) Doc. DGIV/EDU/CIT (2001) 45.

KATUNARIC, V. (Ed.) (1997) Multicultural Reality and Perspectives in Croatia (Zagreb, Intercultra).KATUNARIC, V. (2001) Nove elite, nacionalni konsensus i razvoj, in: D. CENGIC & I. ROGIC (Eds)

Upravljacke elite i modernizacija (Zagreb, Institut drustvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar).LAMZA POSAVEC, V. (2000) Sto je prethodilo neuspjehu HDZ-a na izborima 2000: Rezultati

istrazivanja javnoga mnijenja u razdoblju od 1991. do 1999. godine. Drustvena istrazivanja,9 (4–5), pp. 433–471.

LETICA, S. (1997) Post-post-communism in Central and Eastern Europe, in: M. KUKOC & V.POLOKHALO (Eds) Ukraine and Croatia: problems of post-communist societies (Zagreb, CroatianCommission for UNESCO).

MINISTARSTVO PROSVJETE I SPORTA (2000) Osnove za ustroj skolstva Republike Hrvatske (Zagreb,Prosvjetno vijece, lipanj).

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORT (2000b) Concept of Changes in the Education System of theRepublic of Croatia (Zagreb, Ministry of Education and Sport).

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORT (2000) Basis for Restructuring of the Educational System of theRepublic of Croatia (Zagreb, Ministry of Education and Sport).

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION PROGRAMME (1999) Volume 1: Preschool, ElementarySchool, Secondary School (Zagreb, Vlada Republike Hrvatske).

NAVAL, C., PRINT, M. & VELDHUIS, R. (2002) Education for democratic citizenship in the newEurope: context and reform, European Journal of Education, 37(2), pp. 107–128.

OECD (2001) Thematic Review of National Policies for Education: Croatia (Paris, OECD).OFFICE FOR THE STRATEGY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA (2000) Strategy for

the Development of the Republic of Croatia ‘Croatia in the 21st Century’ (Zagreb, Government ofthe Republic of Croatia).

SEKULIC, D. & SPORER, Z. (2000) Formiranje poduzetnicke elite u Hrvatsko, Revija za sociologiju,31, pp. 1–2, 1–20.

SMITH, A. (1991) National Identity (Reno, NV, University of Nevada Press).SPAJIC-VRKAS, V. (1999) Cultural discontinuity and search for identity: The case of post-commu-

nist Croatia, in: M. KUKOC & V. POLOKHALO (Eds) Ukraine and Croatia: problems ofpost-Communist societies (Zagreb, Croatian Commission for UNESCO).

SPAJIC-VRKAS, V. (2000) Peace and human rights for Croatian primary schools (Zagreb, CroatianCommission for UNESCO).

SPAJIC-VRKAS, V. (2001) Stocktaking research on policies in education for democratic citizenshipin southeast Europe—country report: Croatia (Strasbourg, Council of Europe) Doc. GIV/EDU/CIT (2001) 45 Croatia.

VIDACAK, I. (Ed.) (2001) NGOs and Public Administration: perspectives of partnership in the processof European integration (Zagreb, Institute for International Relations).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

19:

00 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014