‘National Identity, Politics and Representation; Croatian National Identity 1990-1992’ a 20 min paper by Stuart Hodges

National Identity, Politics & Representation;

Croatian National Identity 1990-1992

By Stuart Hodges, PhD candidate, SSEES, UCL

20-minute paper for the CRONEM Annual Conference 2007, Nationalism and National
Identities Today: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 12–13 June 07, University of Surrey

Abstract

From the end of WW2 until the early 1990’s the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
existed as one State. Since then, five new States have emerged on the territory of ex-
Yugoslavia. This rapid transformation, set against a backdrop of ethnic and religious
tensions and hostilities, has forced a redefinition of national identity across the former
republics of ex-Yugoslavia in only a decade. The ‘old traditions’ and symbols of
Yugoslavia have been dismantled and replaced with ‘new traditions’ and symbols of
the emergent states – a process that has still not been fully completed for some states
in the region.

This paper highlights certain elements of visual culture that helped to configure
Croatian identity between May 1990 and May 1992, a period of rapid transition that
saw the development of Croatia from its status as Republic within the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia to its emergence as a sovereign state in the throes of a war for
independence. Through the study of the Croatian national flag and coat-of-arms the
paper discusses some of the ways a new visual language was developed to reinvent
the vernacular tradition and establish a new national identity.

The study considers the impact that the reformulation of Croatian national identity had
upon the socio-political tensions in the region during the period of enquiry and
examines how the change of identity affected the manner with which the nation and
the state were perceived. Analysis of Croatia’s national identity emphasises the
intimate relations between politics, identity and representation and underlines the
relations of power in signifying practices and the relational nature of identity itself.

Primary research for this study was conducted in Croatia and includes interviews with
Miroslav Šutej (designer of Croatia’s national coat-of-arms), graphic designer Boris
Ljubičić, a spokesman from the Croatian Democratic Union political party and

1
 ‘National Identity, Politics and Representation; Croatian National Identity 1990-1992’ a 20 min paper by Stuart Hodges

representatives from the Croatian Army Museum and the Zagreb City Museum.

National Identity, Politics & Representation;

Croatian National Identity 1990-1992

This paper examines the use of design in the representation of Croatian identity in the

Republic of Croatia from May 1990 to May 1992. Through the study of the Croatian

national flag and coat-of-arms the paper discusses some of the ways a new visual

language was developed to establish a new collective narrative for the nation and

reinvent the vernacular tradition.

Illustration – Map of Yugoslavia 1945 – 1991

In the spring of 1990 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was on the verge of

dissolution and the first multiparty elections since the ending of World War II had been

held throughout Croatia. On 30th May 1990 the Croatian Democratic Union party, a right

wing nationalist party, was elected to power with an absolute majority in parliament

and Dr Franjo Tuđman became President of the Republic of Croatia. In June the

following year, amid the increasing tensions and open hostility between Croats and the

Serbian minority of Croatia, parliament proclaimed Croatia to be a sovereign and

independent state, within a matter of weeks armed clashes between Croatian Serbs

and Croatia’s police and military forces had escalated into full-scale fighting across the

country. When international peacekeeping troops were eventually deployed in Croatia

at the end of 1991 a third of the country lay in Serb hands. On 22nd May 1992, the

Republic of Croatia became a member of the United Nations, for Tuđman, international

recognition of Croatia represented the fulfilment of ‘the Croats’ thousand-year-old

dream of independence’.1

1
Tanner, M. Croatia; a Nation Forged in War, pub. Yale University Press, London, 1997, Preface

2
 ‘National Identity, Politics and Representation; Croatian National Identity 1990-1992’ a 20 min paper by Stuart Hodges

Illustration – The National Flag and Coat-of-Arms of the Republic of Croatia

The flag and coat-of-arms of the Republic of Croatia are important symbols through

which Croatia proclaimed its independence and sovereignty to the world, symbols that

are still in use today. Article 11 of the new constitution of the Republic of Croatia,

promulgated by parliament on 22nd December 1990, states:

The coat-of-arms of the Republic of Croatia is the historical Croatian coat-

of-arms whose base consists of 25 alternating red and white fields. The
flag of the Republic of Croatia consists of three colours: red, white and
blue, with the historical Croatian coat-of-arms in the centre… The
description of the historic Croatian coat-of-arms and flag…and their use…
shall be regulated by law.2

Above the coat-of-arms is a crown with five peaks containing five small heraldic

shields that represent (from left to right): the oldest known Croatian coat-of-arms,

Dubrovnik, Dalmatia, Istria, and Slavonia.3

Whilst the tricolour has been an important signifier of Croatian national identity since

the mid nineteenth century, it is the various coats-of-arms and symbols that have

periodically adorned the flag which have given it ideological and political significance.

Of particular importance is the use of the Croatian coat-of-arms; a medieval armorial

shield bearing the red and white chequered pattern, known as the ‘Šahovnica’

(translation: chessboard).

Illustration – Croatian coats-of-arms

Throughout Croatia’s past the chequered coat-of-arms has been used by regimes

with different ideologies ranging from fascism to communism within the last

century. Primarily, because of its adoption by the pro-Nazi ‘Ustaše’ regime during

World War II, the chequered coat-of-arms with the first field in white was taken to

2
The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (prepared by Dr. L. Valkovic) Published by: Sabor Republike
Hrvatske, Zagreb, 1991.p.34
3
Source: Section 2, Article 7, ‘Law on the Coat-of-Arms, the Flag, and the National Anthem of the Republic of
Croatia, and on the flag and Sash of the President of the Republic of Croatia’ at:
http://www.vlada.hr/english/law.html (cited 24/7/01).

3
 ‘National Identity, Politics and Representation; Croatian National Identity 1990-1992’ a 20 min paper by Stuart Hodges

represent extreme Croatian nationalism and right wing political ideology.

Illustration – The Flag of the Independent State of Croatia in use: 1941 –

1945

On 25th May 1990 parliament promulgated amendments to the constitution and the

‘new’ coat-of-arms and flag were confirmed as national emblems.4 The following month,

the flag, which had represented Croatia as part of the Yugoslav Federation, was

replaced with the ‘new’ national flag of the Republic of Croatia. The Croatian red, white

and blue tricolour remained the consistent element and provided the background field

for both flags. The change was marked by the replacement of the red, communist five-

pointed star with the chequered coat-of-arms.

Illustration – The Flag of the Socialist Republic of Croatia being lowered

for the last time on 25th June 1990

Illustration – The ‘new’ Flag of the Republic of Croatia being raised for
the first time on 25th June 1990

The use of this coat-of-arms on the Croatian flag was provisional whilst the design

for the definitive coat-of-arms was being determined.5 Nonetheless, this was the

‘new’ national flag that had been confirmed by the amendment to the

constitution and had become law, at least for the time being. It is perhaps not

surprising that Serbs in Croatia and throughout Yugoslavia believed in the return

of Croatian fascism and the atrocities of World War II. Croatia had chosen to

represent herself as nationalistic and extremist by its use of the ‘šahovnica’ with

a white first field. BBC2’s documentary programme ‘The Death of Yugoslavia’

commented that ‘Tuđman’s embrace of the chequer-board flag was like waving a

Nazi swastika in their (Serb) faces’.6

4
Goldstein, I. Croatia; A History. Hurst & Co, London, 1999. p218
5
The current coat-of-arms of the Republic of Croatia, (as designed by Miroslav Šutej and described in Section
2, Article 7, of the ‘Law on the Coat-of-Arms, the Flag, and the National Anthem of the Republic of Croatia,
and on the flag and Sash of the President of the Republic of Croatia’), was adopted by Parliament on 22nd
December 1990.
6
BBC2 Series: ‘The Death of Yugoslavia’ Part II: The Road to War, 10.09.95

4
 ‘National Identity, Politics and Representation; Croatian National Identity 1990-1992’ a 20 min paper by Stuart Hodges

Eric Hobsbawm states that we can expect ‘the invention of tradition’ to occur

more frequently when ‘a rapid transformation of society weakens or destroys the

social patterns for which “old” traditions had been designed, producing new ones

to which they were not applicable’.7 Hobsbawm defines the term ‘invented

tradition’ in the following manner:

The term “invented tradition” is used in a broad, but not imprecise sense.
It includes both “traditions” actually invented, constructed and formally
instituted and those emerging in a less easily traceable manner within a
brief and dateable period – a matter of a few years perhaps – and
establishing themselves with great rapidity.8

The Republic of Croatia during the period of inquiry saw just such a rapid

transformation as the collapse of communism forced a redefinition of Croatian

cultural and national identity in only a couple of years. As the ‘old traditions’ and

symbols of Yugoslavia were dismantled they needed to be replaced with ‘new

traditions’ and symbols for Croatia. Hobsbawm describes a paradox of that exists

in modern nations:

Modern nations and all their impedimenta generally claim to be the

opposite of novel, namely rooted in the remotest antiquity, and the
opposite of constructed, namely human communities so "natural" as to
require no definition other than self-assertion.9

With the authority granted to the President by the new constitution, Tuđman

began work on the invention of a Croatian tradition, a national flag and coat-of-

arms ‘rooted in antiquity’ that would represent the new Republic. Professor Niksa

Stančić, historian in the Department of History at the Faculty of Philosophy in

Zagreb, was appointed to head a committee of experts to advise the Presidency

on the creation of the new coat-of-arms.10 Stančić has described his committee’s

7
Hobsbawm, E & Ranger, T (eds.). The Invention of Tradition, Canto Ed. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2000, p4.
8
Hobsbawm, E & Ranger, T (eds.). The Invention of Tradition, Canto Ed. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2000, p1.
9
Hobsbawm, E & Ranger, T (eds.). The Invention of Tradition. Canto Ed. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2000, p14
10
Stančić, N. ‘O grbu mozemo raspravljati, ali ne i o njegovoj ustavnosti’ (trans. ‘We can debate about the
coat-of-arms but not about its constitutional legitimacy’) in Vecernji List newspaper, Friday 28th January 2000
p53 translated by the author.

5
 ‘National Identity, Politics and Representation; Croatian National Identity 1990-1992’ a 20 min paper by Stuart Hodges

purpose as follows:

Our task was not to propose the shape and contents of the coat-of-arms,
but to provide expert knowledge and advice on the rules of heraldry to
politicians who would determine the coat-of-arms. We provided a model of
how the coat-of-arms could be accomplished… The traditional symbol of a
republic is a three-towered city, and our coat-of-arms, with its somewhat
‘historicised’ crown, is something that could symbolise a historic
Kingdom… I submitted our proposals to Dr Domljan (President of
Parliament), he engaged the painter Miroslav Šutej who made many
designs. We met several times with President Tuđman. On one of those
meetings Dr Tuđman accepted exactly this proposal for the design of the
Croatian coat-of-arms that was the best of those proposed.11

Clearly Croatia was to be symbolised as a ‘historic kingdom’, rather than a

republic, despite the fact that the state was, in both name and constitution, a

Republic; from the amendments made to the constitution it had also been

determined that the chequered coat-of-arms would provide the major element of

the new flag. Miroslav Šutej, professor at the Academy of fine art in Zagreb, has

described his role in the creation of the new coat-of-arms and flag in the following

way: ‘my task was to establish the foundations for the coat-of-arms: the red and

white chequered field and the arrangement of the other elements – the historic

coats-of-arms of the Croatian regions’.12 Šutej states:

None of us had any experience in designing national symbols and insignia,

neither Parliament nor myself. I made over one hundred design sketches
from contemporary minimalist to Baroque-style, however none of them
were fully completed…Parliamentary representatives accepted my
proposal…the following day the sketch of the coat-of-arms was presented
to the media as a finalised design solution.13

Illustration – Two design sketches for the new coat-of-arms of the

Republic of Croatia by Miroslav Šutej

This illustration shows two of the design sketches for the coat-of-arms that were

submitted by Šutej, interestingly, both sketches show the first field of the coat-of-

arms in red, rather than white, as had been ratified by Parliament. Despite the

fact that Šutej had produced over one hundred different design alternatives,

11
Stančić, N. ‘O grbu mozemo raspravljati, ali ne i o njegovoj ustavnosti’ in Vecernji List newspaper, Friday
28th January 2000 p53.
12
Nacional magazine No. 262, ‘Sukob oko izgleda drzavnih simbola’ (trans. ‘Conflict over the appearance of
our national symbols’) 23rd November 2000 pp50/51
13
Nacional magazine No. 262, ‘Sukob oko izgleda drzavnih simbola’ 23rd November 2000 pp50/51

6
 ‘National Identity, Politics and Representation; Croatian National Identity 1990-1992’ a 20 min paper by Stuart Hodges

Tuđman and the committee selected and approved the crown motif – to portray

Croatia as a ‘historic kingdom’. In an interview with the author Šutej explained:

I would have liked the five regional symbols to have been incorporated
differently on the coat-of-arms, in a straight line above the chequered
shield, but “they” wanted to have a crown…. Like this it’s rather kitsch but
what can you do, – that’s history.14

Illustration – The National Flag and Coat-of-Arms of the Republic of

Croatia

According to Šutej the message that the Croatian flag/coat-of-arms send to the world is

one of history,15 however, this is a history that has been selected and moulded to

construct an ‘essentialist’ definition of Croatian identity that suggests that there is a

clear and authentic set of Croatian characteristics that all Croats share. This is a

reformulation of Croatian identity that has replaced the symbols of ‘brotherhood and

unity’ with those of nationalism and seeks to legitimise its position by reference to the

past. Šutelj’s flag and coat-of-arms is a system of representation that acts as both a

symbolic and social marker in the construction of Croatian identity. On the ‘crown’

heraldic devices function as ethnic pictograms, regional and historical symbols that

quite literally put Croatia on the map, in time and place. This is a signifying practice

that enunciates from a position of power leaving the viewer with no doubt as to what

Croatia and Croatian identity is, and by extension, also what it is not. The flag with its

tricolour, medieval chequered shield and heraldic ‘crown’ function as signs that signify

Croatia to be Austro-Hungarian (European) and Catholic in heritage. Tuđman sought to

establish Croatian ethnicity and cultural heritage in opposition to the nation’s Yugoslav

heritage. His nationalism employed the selective use of history and the invention of

tradition in order to emphasise Croatian difference and justify secession from

Yugoslavia and independence.

14
Interview with Miroslav Šutej on 10.4.’01. (A tape of the interview is in the authors collection)
15
During an interview with the author, Šutej stated: ‘this is a historical story, these are our 5 historic
regions…but this is one country, with its own history - from Illyria to today’. Interview with Miroslav Šutej on
10.4.’01. (A tape of the interview is in the authors collection)

7
 ‘National Identity, Politics and Representation; Croatian National Identity 1990-1992’ a 20 min paper by Stuart Hodges

The formal adoption of the Croatian flag and coat-of-arms by Parliament occurred on

December 22nd 1990 with the promulgation of the new constitution. As a narrative

construct and a system of representation, Croatia’s flag and coat-of-arms function on a

number of different levels, at the first level, the flag performed as a system of

classification for Croatian identity. Through the tricolour, the chequered shield and the

regional coats-of-arms, Croatia was located geographically and its people defined as

‘family’. There could be no misinterpretation: the flag identified ‘what’ Croatia was, and

by extension, ‘what it was not’. As a citizen of the new republic you either saw yourself

‘reflected’ in the new flag - or not. For the national minorities who accounted for 15% of

the population of Croatia16 and were unable to identify with the flag’s ethnic

iconography, this was clearly problematic. They were excluded as equal members in

the Croatian family. At the second level, the flag and coat-of-arms provided a graphic

representation of all things Croatian: the home, the people, their shared culture, ethnic

heritage and ancestry; and in doing so defined the Croatian state.17 At the third level

the chequered coat-of-arms and ‘crown’ of heraldic elements provide a visual lexicon of

Croatian nationalism, nationalism as a political, cultural and moral ideal.18 As a political

ideal the flag was an affirmation of Croatia’s right to self-determination and a Croatian

homeland independent from Yugoslavia. As a cultural ideal the flag was a confirmation

that this was ‘home’ - the native land where Croats ‘belong’ and Croatian is spoken,

the place where other Croats understand not only what is said but also what is meant.

As a moral ideal the flag engendered the ethic of heroic sacrifice in defence of the

homeland. At the fourth and ultimate level the flag, through the process of

16
The results of a census carried out in 1991 showed Croatia to be populated by 4,760,000 people. National
minorities accounted for 760,000 people or 15.9% of the total population. Of these Serbs accounted for
12.2% (577,000 people), Bosnian Muslims 1.0%, Hungarians 0.5%, Slovenes 0.5%, Italians 0.4%, Czechs and
Albanians 0.3% each, and all others 0.7%. Source Bilandzic, D., Covic, B., Jurkovic, P., Klemencic, M., Letica,
S., Pavic, R., Tomac, Z. & Zuljic, S. Croatia between War and Independence. The University of Zagreb,
Zagreb, 1991, pp 49-52
17
This is a view of ethnic nationalism that Ignatieff explains conforms to the German Romantic ideal whereby
the state is defined by ‘the people’s pre-existing ethnic characteristics: their language, religion, customs and
traditions’ rather than by common citizenship. See Ignatieff, M. Blood and Belonging, Vintage, London, 1994
pp4-5
18
Ignatieff describes the claims of nationalism as follows: ‘As a political doctrine, nationalism is the belief that
the world’s peoples are divided into nations, and that each of these nations has the right of self-
determination, either as self-governing units within existing nation states or as nation states of their own. As
a cultural ideal, nationalism is the claim that while men and women have many identities, it is the nation
which provides them with their primary form of belonging. As a moral ideal, nationalism is an ethic of heroic
sacrifice, justifying the use of violence in the defence of one’s nation against enemies, internal or external.
These claims – political, moral and cultural – underwrite each other.’
See Ignatieff, M. Blood and Belonging, Vintage, London, 1994 p3

8
 ‘National Identity, Politics and Representation; Croatian National Identity 1990-1992’ a 20 min paper by Stuart Hodges

consumption (by Parliament in the name of the people), became both an inalienable

possession of the nation and a singular sacred object. The flag thus represents the

rebirth of Croatia and serves as a visual bond19 between the nation and her people:

uniting them through the flag’s essential definition of what it means to be a Croat.

Illustration: The President of the Republic and the Croatian flag

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this account of the creation of Croatia’s

flag and coat-of-arms is to illuminate the power of national flags and symbols as

signifying practices. Not only do the flag and coat-of-arms define and determine

Croatia and Croatian identity on a number of levels, they do this in a particular

way. Through their portrayal a particular image of Croatia and Croatian identity is

constructed and established in people’s minds. Although Šutej is nominally the

designer of the Croatian flag and coat-of-arms, in reality he was little more than a

facilitator, Tuđman was the real architect of this construction. He approved the

remit of the design brief and the main elements for the flag: the tricolour,

šahovnica and the five heraldic devices to establish an explicit definition of

Croatia. He determined that Croatia be portrayed as a ‘European’ kingdom with

its roots firmly planted in a past that pre-dated imperial or Yugoslav domination

and he selected the ‘crown’ design from over one hundred alternatives. Tuđman

even amended the constitution of the Republic to accommodate the basis for the

new flag. To the author, this suggests that Tuđman not only understood the

importance and power of representation to establish a homogenous Croatian

culture/identity, but that he was prepared to go to great lengths to create a

representation that expressed his interpretation of the ‘meaning’ of

Croatia/Croatian identity. Whether viewed as an invented tradition, a system of

ethnic classification, a sacred symbol of the nation, or an articulation of political

ideology Croatia’s flag and coat-of-arms is the material embodiment of Tuđman’s

19
See Jarman, N. ‘Material of culture, fabric of identity’, in Material cultures, why some things matter, (ed.)
Daniel Miller, UCL Press Limited, London, 1998, pp121-145.

9
 ‘National Identity, Politics and Representation; Croatian National Identity 1990-1992’ a 20 min paper by Stuart Hodges

autocracy and an expression of his personal style.

Following Tuđman’s death in 1999 there has been a re-evaluation of his

policies/practices and a change in Croatia’s political climate. However, the

national flag and coat-of-arms have been retained as national symbols, even

though there are critics who believe they should be changed. Dr Slaven Letica,

former advisor to Dr Tuđman, believes the ‘crown’ on the national coat-of-arms to

be unconstitutional: within the Law describing the coat-of-arms, the base

chequered shield is augmented by a new element, the crown – which Letica

believes exceeds the constitution.20 In addition to doubts as to the crown’s

legitimacy there are other concerns. Some critics believe the crown should be

removed from the coat-of-arms completely as the crown’s five coats-of-arms do

not (adequately) represent the whole of Croatia, whilst others object to the

appropriateness or correctness of individual regional heraldic elements.21 Then

there is the consideration of aesthetics and Tuđman’s sense of style that has

informed the design of the crown motif. Dr Zvonko Maković, an Art Historian has

written:

You don’t have to be a genius to know what the coat-of-arms, the flag, and
all that other cheap Croatian national iconography would represent to the
contemporary civilised world. However, Šutelj’s design corresponded
perfectly with Tuđman’s kitsch and provincial taste.22

Boris Ljubičić is a leading graphic designer in Croatia with strong views on the

design of the Croatian flag and coat-of-arms:

Croatia needs to create a (contemporary) image; our current flag with its
coat-of-arms refers to the 19th Century and a period of Monarchy. (In 1990)
we were more concerned with trifles and domestic history than we were
with building a contemporary visual identity, a redesign of traditional
20
Vecernji List newspaper, 25th January 2000 p5 Vecernji List newspaper, 25th January 2000 p5 translated by
the author. ‘Je li kruna na Hrvatskom grbu protuustavna’ (trans. ‘Is the crown on the Croatian coat-of-arms
unconstitutional?’)
21
Vecernji List newspaper, 25th January 2000 p5 Vecernji List newspaper, 25th January 2000 p5 translated by
the author. ‘Je li kruna na Hrvatskom grbu protuustavna’ (trans. ‘Is the crown on the Croatian coat-of-arms
unconstitutional?’)
22
Vjesnik newspaper, 10th February 2000, p17 translated by the author, ‘Treba li mijenjati grb i zastavu?’
(trans. ‘Should we change the coat-of-arms and flag?’)

1
 ‘National Identity, Politics and Representation; Croatian National Identity 1990-1992’ a 20 min paper by Stuart Hodges

elements that could be combined with the symbols (logos) of our

companies/organisations.23

Between 1990 and 2000 Ljubičić has been working on a self-initiated project to

redesign the visual identity for Croatia and an alternative Croatian flag.

Illustration – An alternative flag for the Republic of Croatia by Boris Ljubičić

Ljubičić explains the idea behind his design concept for a new Croatian flag:

The idea of my proposal is founded on the synthesis of historical Croatian

elements: the tricolour and the coat-of-arms… The interwoven different
coloured squares portray the indentations and richness of the Croatian
coast and lend the flag special qualities in conditions that flags are mostly
seen in, - in daylight and blowing in the wind.24

Ljubičić sees the creation of a new visual identity for Croatia very much in terms

of marketing, arguing that ‘the State is a product that is dependent on good

design like any other product’.25 He has called his strategy for developing a new

visual identity “new look Croatia”. Ljubičić believes that his matrix of red-white-

blue squares could become the basis for a national identity which, when applied

to the identities of Croatian products and organisations, could rival Canada’s

maple-leaf or Switzerland’s cross in their distinctiveness.26

Illustration – ‘New Look Croatia’ by Boris Ljubičić

This is an approach to national identity that has more in common with the

practice of branding rather than vexillology or heraldry but Ljubičić has also

identified a fundamental requirement for the design of any flag that suggests,

even if for no other reason, the design of the Croatian flag should change. The

prime functions of a flag are to be distinctive and to communicate or signal a

23
Vjesnik newspaper, 10th February 2000, p17, ‘Treba li mijenjati grb i zastavu?’ (trans. ‘Should we change
the coat-of-arms and flag?’)
24
Vjesnik newspaper article 10th February 2000, p17, Vjesnik newspaper, 10th February 2000 p17, translated
by the author, ‘Treba li mijenjati grb i zastavu?’ (‘Should we change the coat-of-arms and flag?’)
25
Vjesnik newspaper article 10th February 2000, p17, translated by the author, ‘Treba li mijenjati grb i
zastavu?’ (‘Should we change the coat-of-arms and flag?’)
26
Vjesnik newspaper article 10th February 2000, p17, translated by the author, ‘Treba li mijenjati grb i
zastavu?’ (‘Should we change the coat-of-arms and flag?’)

1
 ‘National Identity, Politics and Representation; Croatian National Identity 1990-1992’ a 20 min paper by Stuart Hodges

message. 27 Because the Croatian tricolour with its three horizontal stripes is

fundamentally the same as the national flags of Holland, Luxembourg and

Paraguay, it relies upon the coat-of-arms to be distinctive and communicate

meaning. Ninety percent of flag’s surface area is therefore ambiguous - the

remaining ten percent doing duty for the whole, by virtue of its difference and

ability to signify. Movement and gravity mean that for much of the time this vital

ten percent remains hidden from view. Moreover, when seen at a distance or

reproduced in small sizes the ‘crown’ with its five regional coats-of-arms is simply

illegible or disappears into a haze of half-tone dots. Thus, the greatest failing of

today’s Croatian flag, is its inability to function as a flag, to be distinctive and to

signify Croatian identity in a wide variety of circumstances and conditions.

This paper has explored the use of design in the representation of Croatian

identity. As a signifying practice Croatia’s flag and coat-of-arms construct a

narrative that defines Croatia/Croatian identity and illuminates both the politics of

power invested in signifying practices and the power of representation itself.

Firstly, the power to include/exclude as evidenced by the flag’s ethnic

iconography; secondly, the power of national symbols to transform the image of

the nation and symbolise communal belonging; and finally, the power of

representation to imprint Tuđman’s definition of Croatian identity in people’s

minds and reinvent the nation’s vernacular tradition. However, the alternative

national flag proposed by Ljubičić demonstrate that other interpretations of

Croatian identity were available at the time. Not all representations of national

identity conformed to Tuđman’s image of the nation or drew their inspiration from

his ideology. Perhaps in a more democratic climate than that afforded by the

region and the period Croatia would have succeeded in recreating a national

identity without seeking to reassert a ‘lost’ identity from the past.

27
The New Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus gives the following definition for the word ‘flag’:
‘flag, n.: a piece of cloth … often attached to a pole or staff, decorated with a design and used as an
emblem, symbol, or standard or as a means of signalling.’ The New Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus, Collins,
London and Glasgow, 1989.