「第一のユーゴスラヴィア」における「暴力の文脈」

―議会闘争内部におけるナショナリズムの政治的機能（1918–1928年）―

抄録

The author examined the context of political violence which happened in June 1928 in the national parliament of the First Yugoslavia, referring to both national relations between Serbian politicians and Croat ones on one hand and relations between a Serbian party, National Radical Party (NRS), and a Croat party, Croat Peasant Party (CPP) on the other. This political violence broke out due to serious national problems in the First Yugoslavia; however, the context linking conflict between national parties with their nationalism, “Context of Violence”, is still not clear in previous studies on the political history in the First Yugoslavia. This is why the subject of this paper is focused on imagined “Context of Violence” dependent on political leaders’ attitudes toward other political leaders.
In the First Yugoslavia, political relations between NRS and CPP had been influenced profoundly by their partnership with Svetozar Pribićević, who was the leader of Independent Democratic Party (IDP) and was considered as the main political representative of Serbians in the region of the former Hapsburg Empire, called “prečani”, in the First Yugoslavia. As long as he supported NRS, there was little national confrontation in the parliament because political power of CPP was limited as an opposition party. Yet, in 1927 when Pribićević chose by a political decision to cooperate with Stjepan Radić, the leader of CPP, a new structure of conflict came into the parliament. That was the territorial conflict between parties originated from the region of the former Serbian Kingdom and from the region of the former Hapsburg Empire. It was because the region of the former Serbian Kingdom was the base of support for NRS, while the region of the former Hapsburg Empire was the base of support for Peasant-Democratic Coalition (PDC), a coalition party established in 1927 from CPP and IDP.
This division which appeared in the parliament was interpreted for NRS as a serious political crisis for two reasons. First, under this political situation, NRS was faced with an obstacle to mobilization of Serbians. Second, politicians belonging to PDC, designated as “prečanski front”, in the parliament enhanced the possibility of dismembering the First Yugoslavia. Especially, Radić unfolded harsh criticism to the effect that NRS gov­erned in such a way as to ruin political and economical equality among nations and frequently disturbed parliamentary procedures. As for Radić’s position, his stubborness for NRS was justified from the political crisis over Croats and their historical territory. At that time in the parliament, the ratification of the Nettuno convention from which Croattia was to suffer disadvantage resulting from intrusion of Italy to Dalmatia was placed on the agenda. Radić repeatedlly required NRS to refuse their sanction to the Nettuno convention and blamed them for political confusion in the First Yugoslavia.
This paper makes it clear that “Context of Violence” for NRS and CPP derived from their fears of both the territorial conflict which interrupted Serbian nationalism and a threat to Croats caused by Italy’s laying claim to Dalmatia against the First Yugoslavia. These two political problems over the First Yugoslavia remained as such even after beginning of the dictatorship, entailing a risk of breaking up the nation and the state.