Andrej Plenković, the president of HDZ, spoke out at a celebration marking the 35th anniversary of the party’s founding. He emphasized the importance of respecting historical truth and honoring the symbols of the Croatian state. In particular, he warned against efforts to minimize the work of Dr. Tuđman or cast a negative light on the 1990s, which the HDZ firmly opposes.
Plenković’s stance as a Tuđmanist marks a departure from the de-Demanization policy initiated by Ivo Sanader when he led the HDZ. Sanader’s policies enabled the HDZ to cooperate with national minorities, move towards the center, and engage with European institutions and organizations. However, Plenković has positioned himself as a defender of Tuđman’s legacy, resisting attempts to revise history and downplay Tuđman’s contributions.
Plenković’s embrace of Tuđmanism has provoked questions about his political motivations and the direction of the HDZ. His alliance with the Homeland Movement and formation of a right-wing government raises concerns about issues such as corruption and minority rights. Plenković’s references to Tuđman and rejection of de-Tudmanization may serve as a political strategy to solidify his position within the party and appeal to a broader base of supporters.
Overall, Plenković’s shift towards Tuđmanism reflects a complex political landscape in Croatia where historical legacies and ideological positions continue to shape political discourse and decision-making. The debate over de-Tudmanization, legacy of 1990s, and Croatia’s future direction remain central themes in Croatia’s political landscape.
However, it’s important to note that not all Croats support this viewpoint, many are calling for accountability for war crimes committed during that time period. The debate continues on whether or not historical truth should be protected or if it should be addressed in order to prevent future conflicts from happening again.
Furthermore, while some may see this shift as an opportunity for reconciliation between different groups in Croatian society, others fear that it could further divide an already fractured country along ethnic lines.
In conclusion
