VIDOVDANSKI USTAV – SIMBOL (NE)JEDINSTVA PRVE JUGOSLOVENSKE DRŽAVE

Abstract

In the paper, the author analyzes one of the basic starting points of the theory of constitutional law, according to which the constitution as the highest formal legal act simultaneously represents a symbol of unity and vitality of a state, a sign of its identity and a factor of social integration. If it succeeds in constituting a legal and sociopolitical order, the constitution has its future. From the aspect of such a theoretical definition, the Vidovdan Constitution has only partially fulfilled its function. Created three years after the unification into a common state of peoples of the same ethnic, but completely different cultural, religious, economic and historical origin, it has become more a symbol, and less a factual and legal reality. The paper will analyze the socio-political circumstances that led to its enactment and adoption, as well as the reasons that opened the question of its change from the moment it was adopted and entered into force. If we know that the quality of a constitution is crucial for its internal properties, its content, the circumstances under which it was adopted, the manner in which it was adopted, the intentions and goals of the constitution maker, it is clear that the Vidovdan Constitution, apart from becoming a formal legal symbol of unification, could satisfy the opposing aspirations of the Serbian and Croatian, as well as the Slovenian political establishment, the intellectual elite, but also the population itself. The Serbian political course of unification included a unitary system, a monarchical form of government led by the Karadjordjevic dynasty and a state that would have all members of the Serbian people within its borders. The Croatian political elite saw the new state as a transitional solution on the path to independence and the realization of a centuriesold dream of an independent Croatian state, based on the ideology of historical and state law. Slovenians perceives the idea of unification primarily as protection from Germanization, to which it was constantly exposed within Austro-Hungary. Thus, differences in the approach to the idea of unification will become the germ of conflict in the future common state. The Vidovdan Constitution could not resolve the antagonisms and mutually opposing views, but further deepened them. However, its importance is reflected in the fact that it shows that law is powerless in the face of socio-political reality if it does not primarily represent its framework, and that this thesis is current a century earlier, equally relevant today.