834707505

denied freedom;²⁹ even individual3 from other strata, that are socially better off, develop a sense of insecurity, so that they often deny them-selves the enjoyment of freedom which is at their disposal (extensive forms of self-censorship in all kinds of creative activity; the existence of illegal censorship on the basis of »implicit self-managing consent« in mass media, as a result of the unanimity of opinion among the power groups; the acceptance of the »psychology of quiet life«, as op-posed to the uncertainty and risk implied in a revolutionary s life,

etc.).

Apart from the objective conditions mentioned above, another source of insecurity is the powerlessness of the individual to influence the legał basis of the system, so that the delimitation of liberties and of the autonomy of individuals, as well as the verdict with respect to the circumstances in which the limits have been violated, are com-pletely in the hands of the power groups. In the existential sense, the individual continues to be confronted by law as an alienated force which can crush him should be venture to taste a little morę of freedom.³⁰ A legał system conceived in such a way, and its application, reveals that the maxim, »Man is the highest social value«, is nothing morę than a faęade behind which hides the system that is self-suf-ficient. Even in socialism, where the system is a priori a higher value than individual rights and freedom, individuals feel that legał mea-sures are nothing but the »will of the ruling class promoted to the Ievel of law«.

²⁹ As a counter-argument to other socialist countries it is usually said that in Yugoslavia there is far morę freedom: unlimitcd freedom of movement (within the country and abroad); free selection of the place of work; greater creative independ-ence; greater opportunity for the publishing of books and studies, and for the ex-pression of different views and styles; greater opportunity to obtain Information from different sources (including foreign press and books). This is undoubtedly so, but one should also ask: Who actually enjoys these liberties? For the reasons mentioned above (financial and cultural), these liberties are not enjoyed by the large majority of members of the working and peasant class, which means that the ma-jority of Yugoslavs do not have acccss to them. In fact, these liberties may have a negative sense. For example, the freedom of movement for them usually means migration for the purpose of finding work (which includes the economic emigration to foreign countries). For the great majority of members of these strata newspapers are the only contact with »culture«, and the only source of information not only on political event$, but also on all other events. All investigations show that work-crs seldom buy morę than one daily newspaper; the one they do buy only too often falls in the category called »boulevard press*. Therefore, they have no opportunity to compare information, and the existence of numerous newspapers does not mean much to them. In short, they continue to be deprived of the existing liberties and remain in this sense below other strata of Yugoslav society.

³⁹ The discussion on the pages of the Belgrade weekly NIN in 1970 on the Article 118 of the Criminal Codę foresaw some of these problems. (This Article refers to the limitation of political rights regarding free speech, writings and orga-nizations if by them »the interest of the socialist system is attacked«, and »an uneasy feeling of the peoplc is produced.«) It demonstrated how the lack of pre-cision of the formulations in the Codę creates a great deal of room for arbitrary interpretations, which is obviou$ly not merely the question of clumsy formulation. This Article, as far as it is known, has not been applied often, but it appears that its »educational« effect has been counted on. Its very existence may serve as a preventive measure against an »epidemic« of utilization of civil liberties.

418