Theoretical Challenges of Transitional Reconstruction of National Identities — the case of Vojvodina

Polazeći od Hobsbaumove procene dugovečnih perspektiva ksenofobnog nacionalizma u postsocijalističkim režimima centralne i istočne Evrope, kao i od sličnih procena srpskog reditelja i pisca Živojina Pavlovića o mentalitetu, koji “zajednicu… vraća vekovima u praiskonsko stanje apsolutne amorfije”, autor analizira izazove postkomunističkih identitetskih politika u Vojvodini i Srbiji, posredstvom sledećih tematskih segmenata: 1) “Preporodni” zapleti i “kreativnost” oligarhijske uzurpacije građanske suverenosti; 2) Politika identiteta i evropske perspektive vojvođanske multikulturalnosti; 3) Paradoks pluralizma: otvaranje takmičarske scene – zatvaranje u etnonacionalne zajednice; 4) Šanse za liberalnu alternativu oficijelnoj paradigmi “jedne politične narodnosti”. Zaključak je da decentralizacija ipak nije “potrošena” alternativa, odnosno da lokalni i regionalni okvir upravljanja zajednicom nije izgubio sve šanse da, umesto atutoritarno-centralističkog zaluđivanja “sudbinskim identitetom”, poverujemo u vrline i kapacitete građanstva, snagu zdravog razuma i slobodni izbor plana i smisla života.Taking as a starting point Hobsbaum\u27s estimate of long-time perspective of xenophobic nationalism in post-socialist regimes of the Central and Eastern Europe, as well as similar views of the Serbian director and writer Živojin Pavlović on the mentality “reverting (the community)… centuries back to a primal state of absolute amorphousness”, the author analyses the challenges of post-communist identity policies in Vojvodina and Serbia through the following thematic segments: 1) “Revival” plots and “creativity” of the oligarchic usurpation of civic sovereignty; 2) Policy of identity and European perspective of multiculturality in Vojvodina; 3) A paradox of pluralism: opening a competition stage – closing-up in ethno-national communities; 4) Chances of a liberal alternative to the official paradigm of a “single political ethnicity”. The conclusion is that decentralization is not a “disposed of” alternative, i. e that a local and regional framework community governance has not lost all chances of believing in virtues and capacities of citizenship, power of a common sense and a free choice of a plan and meaning of life instead of authoritarian-centrist delusion of a “predestined identity”