364 The Presidential Years
those under discussion should not be resolved in an improvised way. At the
same time, they feared the reinforcement of self-management, because—as
Marko Nikezić and Latinka Perović said in a discussion with Kardelj—Serbia
was still in opanke (the traditional footwear) and could not be modernized
without the help of managers and technocrats.^548
In addition, the Serbo-Croat linguistic dispute fired up again in 1971 because
it was impossible to come to an agreement about the publication of a common
dictionary. When the project became bogged down in disagreements, the “Mat-
ica Srpska” (Serb matrix) issued a declaration on January 10 accusing their Croat
“sister” of filibustering. The Croats responded ten days later in an abrasive man-
ner, reproaching the Serbs for denying the “individuality and the cultural and
national unity of the Croat language,” and announcing that their matrix would
publish its own dictionary, without the Serb contribution.^549 This polemic caused
quite a stir in the media, as did the election of the vice-rector of Zagreb Univer-
sity. According to the new academic statutes approved after the 1968 uprising,
the candidate to that position should be chosen by the University Senate com-
posed of professors, assistants, and students. The party organization of the uni-
versity named its own candidate, but the Senate decided to elect Ivan Zvonimir
Čičak, a twenty-five year-old student of literature and theology known for his
nationalistic positions and fiery temper. The Croat leadership, while not enthu-
siastic, approved this appointment since it was reached in a democratic way.^550
The watchword was “democracy,” which was also affirmed by the most im-
portant personalities of the federation, who met under Tito’s chairmanship
at the end of 1970 at Brioni to discuss the constitutional amendments that
would replace a third of the old norms.^551 The leaders gave their blessing to an
ample administrative and economic pluralism that would encourage the estab-
lishment of a democracy able to represent all the ethnic and regional diversities
of Yugoslavia. In the context of this broad approach to innovation the so-called
“proletarian amendments” stand out. Kardelj considered them to be “extremely
important and revolutionary,” because they would give the workers the possi-
bility of governing the entire production process. “In the relation of mutual
dependence and common responsibility,” the self-managers should be able to
administer and to have at their disposal the entire income generated by their
work. “Only such an economic condition can guarantee their governing role in
the framework of political power.”^552
The Serb liberals (Marko Nikezić, Latinka Perović, Mirko Čanadović) played
a decisive role in this renewal process, because they did not bet on the national-
ist card.^553 Rather, they opposed the conservative current out of the conviction
that Serbia should no longer be the “Yugoslav Piedmont,”^554 but should aim
at development and an equal dialogue with other republics. Matko Nikezić,