Slavenka Drakulic : Out of Sync in a Country Unaccustomed to Democracy

Slavenka Drakulic loves the dramatic twist. With her black leather jacket, ankle boots and pile of blonde hair, she seemed a vision of vibrancy in the smoky shabbiness of the cafe she chose for an interview in Croatia’s capital. The theatrical delivery of one of the first writers to emerge from the demise of Yugoslavia appeared out of sync in a country depressed by economic uncertainty and the looming prospect of more war.

But Drakulic, 44, has grown accustomed to being at odds with her fellow citizens. Her efforts to promote feminism and her penchant for being critical of Croatia’s fledgling democracy have earned her the disdain of its government. Even the more nominally independent newspapers find her an attractive target.

One article, describing a Brazilian conference by the writer’s group PEN, dubbed Drakulic and a handful of other female journalists as the “Witches of Rio,” taking them to task for daring to criticize the present government. Under the headline “Feminists Rape Croatia,” the article included a chart detailing where she and the other writers lived, who their parents were and how many children they had. “I just say what I think and do what I want. And it seems these two things enormously irritate people.”

Drakulic shuns the dissident image, though her books often use simple events to express strong views. In “How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed,” (W.W. Norton) she describes how women shouldered the toilet-paper shortages and other more mundane failings associated with daily life under a communist system. Her next nonfiction work, “The Balkan Express,” takes a similar ground-up approach. It focuses on the lives of average people, including a piece on a mother and daughter coping with the transformation of a life in peace to one in war. She plans a similar approach in her next non-fiction work, “The Children of Stalinism,” which examines the lives of the children of Stalin’s military officials.

Drakulic lives in Vienna with her husband, Richard Schwarcz, a correspondent for the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet. She has a grown daughter from a previous marriage.

Question: You use everyday things to attack communism. Why did you choose to write about tampons and mops in a political context?

Answer: . . . This is my style--to approach huge historical and important events from an everyday perspective. It’s the same thing with communism as with this (Balkans) war: You try to bring out the details of everyday life. . . . Because if you send a man to buy shampoo in a shop, he won’t be really able to tell you how many kinds of shampoo there are: Is there 15 or one? He just takes the first one from the shelf. . . . (“How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed”) was just to show that communism didn’t fail on a grand scale. (It) failed because it didn’t fulfill the simple needs of people--as simple as toilet paper. (After reading “The Balkan Express”), many people told me that they understood for the first time what the war is and how it changes people. It’s wonderful that people respond that way. So, I think this frog perspective--if we can call it that--tells people more. People do not live in grand ideas and schemes. They are manipulated into that by politicians and the ideologists.

Q: In “How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed” you described femi -

nism in Eastern Europe . You’ve since been tagged, as you say, a rising feminist voice. How do you feel about being the feminist voice for many women who grew up under communist systems.

A: I just somehow articulated the presence of these kinds of ideas and opinions in this part of the world. Perhaps, I was the only one who got it across to the Western world. . . . On the other hand, if you were to ask American feminists, they might say I’m not radical enough. . . . But I think “How We Survived Communism” is written from the point of view of a woman. In that sense, it is a feminist book . . .

Q: Why do some Croatian nationalists find your work objectionable?

A: They’ve (the nationalists) built this picture (of me based) on the harassment of the Croatian press. The harassment actually started with an essay (I wrote) about nationalism for Time magazine . . . I stated that when I feel reduced to my own nationality, that nationalism reduces you to the lowest common denominator and takes away your individualism, your personality . . . . People are confusing nationalism with patriotism, and I don’t think it’s necessary to be nationalist to be a patriot. I think patriotism gives you the possibility to love your country any way you can . . . . Nationalism includes hatred for the other, whoever that “other” may be, and so I experience it as a lack of freedom . . . .

Q: What was it about the Time piece that made people attack you?

A: I just said I don’t feel comfortable being reduced to the nation. The word “reduced” is what triggers that reaction. We are proud of being Croats, of finally having our Croatian state . . . . (I’m saying,) OK, we have a state, so what? Let’s now do something good. Let’s fight for more democracy, or let’s not take this nationalistic feeling and manipulate it.

This situation bears many similarities to the situation in communism. It’s the Bolshevik state of our government. If you are not with “us,” you are against us . . . .

Q: Are these views why you were attacked as one of the so-called “Witches of Rio”--in other words, not just for your views as a writer but also for personal characteristics, like your background?

A: . . . We have seen this method in communist times, too, because they can’t really use arguments. Whenever you lack arguments, whenever you lack quotes, whenever you lack serious discussion, then you can replace it with any kind of personal smearing . . . . It is very effective. Should I protest in newspapers, give a public statement and say that I am not ugly? It’s very funny at some point. But it is very dangerous at the same time . . . .

The aim of such campaigns is just to get you out of public life. If you are a writer, your power lies in words. If you are deprived of the possibility to express your opinions, to write--to be present in your country--in your language, then your hands are tied, so to speak.

And, of course, because we are women . . . . When you attack a man for his political views, you don’t say that he’s bald. But for a woman, you can say anything. Just anything.

Q: Why are all your books not published in Croatia?

A: It works through the harassment of the press. And then people don’t want to associate with (my) name. They say, aha! You are supporting her by publishing her . . . . So, I don’t think that people would like to take the risk. But I’m quite sure if you would go there and just ask them, they would say, “It’s a bad book, this is why we’re not publishing it.” Then, of course, the argument is astonishing, because this book works in so many other countries . . . . It doesn’t (come from) any kind of official censorship, then.

I think it’s enough to smear someone, because this is not really a democratic country . . . . Because as soon as you get out of communism, you can’t really build up democracy so soon. You lay out the foundation. The foundation is a democratic constitution, multiparty system, free elections. These are the three fundamentals for a democratic society. But to make this democracy alive, people have to understand that it (falls) upon them--that they are those who should build it from scratch . . . .

I don’t mind this government so much for not being democratic. What I mind is that it doesn’t show any tendency of becoming democratic. . . . The basic message that (this government is) sending is that “We brought you democracy,” as if democracy is a golden apple and you put it on the table, but you are not supposed to touch it. . . . It is wrong to identify a government with democracy and then . . . (not to) understand the role of you, yourself, as a citizen . . . Nobody is teaching us that. . . . We are dealing with a typical communist . . . power structure, (one) very much ruled in the manner of the one-party system because, for example, all key positions in the society, from school managers to managers in the economy and key intellectuals--they’re all a member of the party. This I cannot define but as a one-party system . . . .

Q: Why is there no will for some outside force to intervene in former Yugoslavia.

A: It’s a very complex attitude of East toward West--because we are still very much divided in Europe. Nothing has changed basically. The walls are up . . . . It has to do with the fact that the Balkans were never recognized as part of Europe . . . . I think that Western Europe is prepared to say, “It’s a little local war, and we should keep it as a localized fire--not to (let it) spread. If they want to kill each other, let them kill each other.”

And, for a long time, everyone thought this was possible. But I think it’s not possible, at least on a psychological and symbolic level, because what I see as a backlash is also the fact that mosques are burned in Germany--(it’s) neo-Nazism, it’s xenophobia--and I think what this war has triggered in Europeans is fear. It’s a fear of the “otherness.” It’s a fear of everything that is different.

We tried to develop tolerance, to live with tolerance; the peak of that concept of tolerance was the end of the Cold War and the abolishment of communism, and the idea that Europe could live as one undivided country. And I think we all had the illusion that we learned from what happened to the Jews during the Second World War . . . . What we’re witnessing now, throughout Europe, especially in Western Europe, is the dying of tolerance. And this is the sad fact of this war. And a fact we are not totally aware of at the moment.

Q: What is the future for Croatia and the Balkans?

A: The word “future” gives me goose bumps. You have to understand: The question about the future I’m asked only by foreign journalists. Here, you never talk about the future. And we don’t talk about the future for two reasons. One is because we’re not used to thinking about the future.

During communist times, we were deprived of the future. Because, what can you expect living in a communist country? You can’t expect to become rich. The future somehow is nonexistent. And this is also very depressing. But we have been used to that. Now, with this war, we are deprived of the future once more. It’s very difficult to think about the future when you have to survive day-by-day. The only way to really stop the Serbs is in a military way, some kind of intervention, because nothing else--no negotiations, nothing--will stop this war. It will only prolong the agony. And it is not clear who is willing to do this. It has to be some foreign military forces. Therefore, it is going to be a long agony, because I don’t see any will or determination to stop it by military action.

It’s worse now than two years ago, because two years ago you had hope that this was going to be over quickly. Now, you don’t have hope. You don’t see it, the end. This could go on for years.*