Croatia

Located on the Adriatic Sea between Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia recently democratized its governmental process after years of socialist rule. The nation's political transition has been historically unique: Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes splintered from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, forming a kingdom known as Yugoslavia by 1929. At the end of World War II, this nation became an independent communist federation under strict totalitarian rule. Although declaring its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991, what is now known as Croatia became an independent and democratic nation almost 10 years later after years of conflict with Serb armies. The 4.5 million citizens of Croatia today are 90 percent Croatian (and approximately 4.5 percent Serbian). The nation's transformation from socialist totalitarianism to a democratically elected body can be explored from the lens of a networked developing society. Organizations initially collaborated with other organizational allies to promote this shared goal of nation building, and yet over time, network data suggests Croatia also began to compete for resources during this critical time of turmoil and change.

The pivotal turning point in Croatia's social and political transformation was its first democratic election in January 2000. Maureen Taylor and Marya Doerfel explored the networks of relationships among a sample of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), state- and independently run media, and donor organizations, with a unified vision of a democratic process that was active during the campaign. NGOs promoting democratic ideals early on became most influential in playing a key role in this national transformation. Yet a general propensity toward cooperation across all sampled NGOs reflected the vision and actuation of a unified goal: communication across this web of relationships—coordinating local organizations, media, and international donors—helped to build a nation.

Once the voices of the Croatian citizenry were heard in its first parliamentary election in 2000, NGOs quickly refocused their energies to more local goals. That is, the unified goal of democracy across various NGOs became more fragmented after this pivotal national event, and organizations became more internally driven, concentrating on their own missions and more microlevel goals. Doerfel and Taylor continued [Page 192]to explore the network dynamics of nation building two years after the election, and found some surprising changes. Those organizations on the periphery of the network remained dependent on network resources and remained cooperative; yet the more central (and cooperative) players during the campaign became more competitive, and therefore more selective, about their interactions with fellow NGOs. While the density across organizations was reduced by 50 percent between 2000 and 2002, this depletion of relationships did not occur in an efficient and effective way.