The parliament of the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes: projects, the constitution, and reality (1918–29)

ABSTRACT

The kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, founded in 1918, enacted its first constitution (the Vidovdan – St. Vitus Day – constitution) on 28 June 1921. This constitution remained in force until 6 January 1929. Although various projects and drafts existed for the constitution, with very different concepts of what the parliament should look like, the one finally adopted was largely based on the Serbian constitution of 1903, with a more or less classical unicameral parliamentary model. However, in practice, the parliament was weak and frequently hindered by obstructions, and the king (Alexander Karađorđević) played the leading role. This article focuses on presenting the position of the parliament according to the Vidovdan constitution, but with a glance both backwards and forwards – to the alternatives that were proposed in other constitutional projects (and the Serbian constitution of 1903), and to how these constitutional regulations performed (or failed to perform) in practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Vidovdan constitution of 1921
• Serbian constitution of 1903
• monarchical parliamentarism
• unicameral or bicameral parliament
• political crisis
• Yugoslavia

Notes

1 For some accounts of the unification process see S. Jovanović, Ustavno pravo Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca (Belgrade, 1924), pp. 3–21; B. Petranović, Istorija Jugoslavije 1918–88, prva knjiga: Kraljevina Jugoslavija 1914–41 (Belgrade, 1988), pp. 3–29; R. Marković, Ustavno pravo (22. izdanje) (Belgrade, 2017), pp. 104–12.

2 At the moment of the country’s unification, the king was still Peter (Petar) I Karađorđević, but his son Alexander (Aleksandar) was already regent in his name since 1914. King Peter I passed away in 1921, and Alexander succeeded the throne.

3 See more in B. Gligorijević, Parlament i političke stranke u Jugoslaviji (1919–29) (Belgrade, 1979), pp. 17–65; Č. Mitrinović and M. N. Brašić, Jugoslovenske narodne skupštine i sabori (Belgrade, 1937), pp. 339–49.

4 Many of the parties in the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes had made slight changes to their names during the period covered by this article. For simplicity’s sake, they shall be referred to by the names they are best known for.

5 See more in Gligorijević, Parlament, pp. 67–114; A. Fira, Vidovdanski ustav (Belgrade, 2011), pp. 48–75.

6 Izveštaj Ustavnog Odbora Ustavotvorne Skupštine o nacrtu Ustava i Tekst Ustava, kako je primljen u Ustavnom Odboru, 3–4. (Arhiv Jugoslavije, 72-1-3, http://www.arhivyu.gov.rs/).

7 The first governmental draft was created by the government of Stojan Protić, but it was never submitted to the Constituent Assembly; see more below.

8 Most of these clubs were formed prior to the Constituent Assembly, in the Temporary Representation. See Gligorijević, Parlament, pp. 36–43.

9 All were filed by MPs: two by Dr Miloš Radosavljević, one by Manojlo Sokić, one by Pavle Anđelić, two by Dr Pavle Čubrović, one by Anton Sušnik, one by Mihailo Živković and one by Dragutin Pećić. Izveštaj Ustavnog Odbora, p. 4.

10 The Croatian Republican Peasant Party published its draft after leaving the Constituent Assembly, while the Communist Party made its ideas known before the Constituent Assembly and in its party programme. Fira, Vidovdanski ustav, pp. 126, 152.

11 Fira, Vidovdanski ustav, pp. 144–52.

12 See, for example,. Gligorijević, Parlament, p. 104; Z. S. Mirković, Srpska pravna istorija (Belgrade, 2017), p. 224.

13 Unfortunately, the submitted drafts were not preserved in the Archives of Yugoslavia in Belgrade, and the existing literature mentions some of them – particularly the Muslim and Marković’s draft – only briefly and based on the discussions in the committee. Therefore they cannot be presented here in detail or at all. Whether they will be found in some other archives on the territory of ex-Yugoslavia in the future remains to be seen. On the other hand, Novaković’s draft is of insufficient quality, and the opinions of individual members of the Constituent Assembly are mostly not detailed enough to be presented.

14 Jovanović, Ustavno pravo, p. 40.

15 A club of Croatian bourgeois parties – Starčević’s Party of Right (Stranka prava) and Lorković’s Progressive Democratic Party (Napredna demokratska stranka), which merged into the Croatian Community (Hrvatska zajednica) in the summer of 1919, the Croatian National Community (Hrvatska narodna zajednica) from Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as some Croatian deputies from the regions of Dalmatia and Istra who used to be members of the Yugoslav Committee (Jugoslovenski odbor) during the war. Gligorijević, Parlament, p. 39.

16 Jovanović, Ustavno pravo, pp. 40–3; Fira, Vidovdanski ustav, pp. 107–11; O. Popović, ‘Oblik državnog uređenja prema nacrtima parlamentarne opozicije u Kraljevini SHS u vreme donošenja prvog jugoslovenskog ustava’, Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu 3–4, (1987), pp. 389–98.

17 The Yugoslav Club was a dominantly clerically oriented organisation, led by the Slovenian People’s Party (Slovenska ljudska stranka), accompanied by deputies from a Croatian clerical group, later the Croatian Popular Party (Hrvatska pučka stranka). Gligorijević, Parlament, pp. 40–1.

18 Jovanović, Ustavno pravo, pp. 43–6; Fira, Vidovdanski ustav, pp. 112–5; Popović, ‘Oblik’, pp. 389–98.

19 This was the club of the Yugoslav Muslim Organisation, formed in February 1919 by Muslim politicians from Bosnia and Herzegovina, representing mostly the interests of former feudal landowners. Gligorijević, Parlament, p. 42.

20 Popović, ‘Oblik’, pp. 398–9.

21 One of the later clubs on the Yugoslav political scene, it was formed in January 1919 by a group of republican MPs, mostly former memers of the Autonomous Radical party (Samostalna radikalna stranka), headed by Jaša Prodanović; the Republican Party (Republikanska stranka) itself was to be formally organised only later. Gligorijević, Parlament, pp. 42–3.

22 Jovanović, Ustavno pravo, pp. 50–1; Fira, Vidovdanski ustav, pp. 116–24.

23 This group, initially the Club of Yugoslav Social-Democratic Deputies, was formed by the right-wing democrats: the Yugoslav Social-Democratic Party (Jugoslovenska socijaldemokratska stranka) from Slovenia, the Social-Democratic Party of Croatia (Socijaldemokratska stranka Hrvatske), and the Serbian-Bunjevac Social-Democratic Agitation Committee (Srpsko-bunjevački socijaldemokratski agitacioni odbor) from Vojvodina. Gligorijević, Parlament, p. 41.

24 Jovanović, Ustavno pravo, pp. 50–1; Fira, Vidovdanski ustav, pp. 124–6.

25 The club was a representation of the Agrarian (Farmers’) Union (Savez zemljoradnika), formed by multiple parties representing the interest of farmers, the most numerous class in the country at the time. The Slovenian Independent Agrarian Party (Samostojna kmetijska stranka) abandoned the Union in March 1921 upon being offered to enter the Government. Gligorijević, Parlament, pp. 100–101. Some authors equate it with the Agrarian Party (Zemljoradnička stranka); e.g. Jovanović, Ustavno pravo, pp. 48–50; Fira, Vidovdanski ustav, pp. 132–6.

26 According to Slobodan Jovanović’s judgement, this draft was ‘an attempt to organise a republic within a monarchy, and to find a middle ground between a parliamentary and presidential system within that republic’. Jovanović, Ustavno pravo, p. 49.

27 Jovanović, Ustavno pravo, pp. 48–9; Fira, Vidovdanski ustav, pp. 132–3.

28 Fira, Vidovdanski ustav, pp. 126–31; V. Kazimirović, Srbija i Jugoslavija 1914–1945, knjiga II (Kragujevac, 1995), pp. 424–7.

29 Fira, Vidovdanski ustav, pp. 152–6; Lj. Kandić, ‘Ideje Oktobarske revolucije i Vidovdanski ustav’, Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu 3–4, (1967), pp. 570–4.

30 J. Smodlaka, Nacrt jugoslovenskog ustava (Zagreb/Beograd, 1920), pp. 26–41; Jovanović, Ustavno pravo, pp. 46–8; Fira, Vidovdanski ustav, pp. 144–50.

31 Fira, Vidovdanski ustav, pp. 150–1; Popović, ‘Oblik’, pp. 399–400.

32 Jovanović, Ustavno pravo, pp. 34–6; Fira, Vidovdanski ustav, pp. 137–44. Since Protić later published this draft as a separate publication, Fira counts it as Protić’s individual effort.

33 Jovanović, Ustavno pravo, pp. 34, 36–7; Fira, Vidovdanski ustav, pp. 96–107.

34 It was discussed in general on 4–16 February, and article by article from 18 February until 5 April .

35 The Agrarian Club (Avramović, Vošnjak) and the Yugoslav Club (Sušnik) made various proposals that would introduce corporate representation, but none were accepted. Izveštaj Ustavnog Odbora, pp. 13–14.

36 Izveštaj Ustavnog Odbora, pp. 4–19; Jovanović, Ustavno pravo, pp. 34, 37–8; Gligorijević, Parlament, 104–5.

37 Izveštaj Ustavnog Odbora, p. 6.

38 Gligorijević, Parlament, pp. 105–14; Kazimirović, Srbija, pp. 432–4.

39 Ustav Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca od 28. juna, 1921. god., (Belgrade 1921).

40 The committee adopted this solution as a middle ground between the simple proposal of general suffrage, extant in the government’s draft, and the proposals of some parliamentary groups to introduce proportional representation. Izveštaj Ustavnog Odbora, p. 14.

41 The 1931 constitution of the kingdom of Yugoslavia also contained this possibility in its art. 55, but female suffrage was still not introduced until WWII. The Vidovdan constitution has been criticized, on this account and others, for seemingly granting various rights in accordance with laws that later turned out to be far less liberal. D. Jevtić, ‘Vidovdanski i Oktroisani ustav od 3.IX.1931. godine – sličnosti i razlike’, Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu 1–2, (1988), pp. 108–9.

42 Pašić’s draft had originally omitted this matter, leaving it to the Elections Act; it was introduced by the Constitutional Committee, which unanimously decided that such matter belonged in the constitution. Izveštaj Ustavnog Odbora, p. 14.

43 More detailed provisions regarding the budget, as well as the prescription of taxes and state loans, were contained in Section X, art. 113–5. The budget proposal was to be put before the Assembly after no more than a month since its summoning, together with the final account for the previous year. The National Assembly could approve ‘twelfths’ of the budget for one or more months before approving of the plan for the entire year. If the National Assembly was dissolved before the budget was approved, last year’s budget could be extended by a decree for a maximum of four months.

44 See Jovanović, Ustavno pravo, pp. 225–7.

45 The regents had to be born Serbs, Croats or Slovenes, at least 45 years of age and possessing a higher education. They, too, would pass an oath of fidelity to the king, constitution and laws before the National Assembly.

46 During the discussion in the Constitutional Committee, a proposal was made to distinguish constituent power as a separate fourth power, in addition to the legislative, executive and judiciary, but it was not accepted. The committee believed it better not to have two organs that would represent the one and indivisible sovereign power in the name of the people, but merely to prescribe a more complicated procedure before the regular legislative organ. Izveštaj Ustavnog Odbora, pp. 12–3. It is worth noting that Pašić’s original (bicameral) draft had prescribed a Constituent Assembly, which would consist of joint sessions of the Senate and National Assembly. Izveštaj Ustavnog Odbora, pp. 58–9.

47 The issues in question were: agrarian relations, the National Bank, moratorium liquidation, liquidation of the legal state caused by war and damages inflicted by the war, as well as the regulations regarding loans and the speeding up of judicial procedure.

48 Marković, Ustavno pravo, pp. 101–4; Mirković (ed.), Srpska pravna istorija, pp. 136–40.

49 The article numbers in this section refer to the articles of the Serbian constitution of 1903; the corresponding articles of the SHS constitution were already indicated above. See M. Jovičić (ed.), Ustavi Kneževine i Kraljevine Srbije 1835–1903 (Belgrade, 1988), pp. 199–233.

50 It was assessed as such even in the 1869 constitution, and has been further reduced since. See S. Jovanović, Vlada Milana Obrenovića I (Belgrade, 1990), p. 77; S. Bošković, ‘Prva zakonotvorna skupština’, Za prosvetu i slobodu: članci i rasprave naučnog i političnog sadržaja iz ranijeg i poznijeg doba (Belgrade, 1882), pp. 81–2.

51 The condition of citizenship was somewhat modified. The Serbian constitution had demanded for the MP to be either born a Serbian citizen or naturalized with at least five years’ residence in Serbia. The Vidovdan constitution, as mentioned, did not require any length of residence for naturalized citizens of the Serbo-Croat-Slovene nationality/ies, but demanded 10 years for naturalized citizens of other nationalities.

52 These so-called ‘qualified’ MPs were first introduced in the Serbian constitution of 1888, and were subject to much controversy due to increasing the competence of the National Assembly, but diminishing the people’s freedom of choosing their representatives. See M. Ilić, ‘Kvalifikovani poslanici’, Misao 4, (1924), pp. 301–9; 5 (1924), pp. 385–96; N. Kršljanin, ‘Ustanova kvalifikovanih poslanika po Ustavu Srbije od 1888. godine’, in V. Petrov et al. (eds), Ustav Kraljevine Srbije od 1888–125 godina od donošenja (Belgrade, 2015), pp. 217–34.

53 Such exceptions could be made on the request of the government, Chair or 10 MPs; in the latter two cases, the Assembly could vote whether to close the parliament to the public or not.

54 It does not contain a guarantee of public sessions, either, so a law could still prescribe exceptions – but that is still a different matter compared to them being present in the constitution itself. Similarly, individual voting (name-calling – art. 110) was no longer prescribed.

55 For more regarding this institution see S. Jovanović, Velika narodna skupština: studija o ustavotvornoj vlasti (Belgrade, 1900); N. Kršljanin, ‘The Great National Assembly of Serbia: A Sovereign Representative Body Or a Political Myth?’ in E. Ripoll Gil and S. Serra Busquets (eds), El parlamentarisme en perspectiva històrica. Parlaments multinivell (Palma, 2019), vol. I, pp. 125–40.

56 It existed in Montenegro as well, since the Montenegrin constitution of 1905 was largely based on the Serbian constitution of 1869. See Mirković, Srpska pravna istorija, pp. 204–6.

57 Petranović (ed.), Istorija, p. 132; cf. Kazimirović, Srbija, p. 435.

58 Gligorijević, Parlament, p. 175.

59 S. Orlović, ‘Ustavni položaj organa vlasti u prvoj jugoslovenskoj državi’, in A. Fira and R. Marković (eds), Dva veka srpske ustavnosti (Belgrade, 2010), p. 304.

60 Cf. Marković, Ustavno parvo, pp. 115–6.

61 M. Vladisavljević, Parlamentarizam po odredbama ustava (Belgrade, 1936), p. 17.

62 Petranović, Istorija, p. 132; Jevtić, ‘Vidovdanski i Oktroisani’, pp. 111, 124.

63 Petranović, Istorija, pp. 132–3; Kazimirović, Srbija, pp. 440–3.

64 The king relied most on the Radical party, which had formed 30 out of 39 governments, but had the majority even in some of the others. Petranović, Istorija, p. 134.

65 Petranović, Istorija, p. 134.

66 M. Radojević, ‘Politička opozicija u Kraljevini (SHS) Jugoslaviji’, Istorija 20. veka 2 (1997), pp. 19–35; Kazimirović, Srbija, p. 439; Gligorijević, Parlament, passim. Here is an illustrative example from 1925. The government intended to have the National Assembly refuse to verify the mandates of the HRSS (due to their communist connections and other unfavourable political views), but before the Presidency was elected, the opposition President pro tempore (automatically appointed as the eldest MP) asked the representatives of the government to enable the arrested MPs from the HRSS to attend the Assembly. He then adjourned the sitting, stating that he would summon the next one in written form when the aforementioned MPs are able to join. At first, the government was sufficiently surprised by this act that the MPs from ruling parties left the Assembly along with the others; however, they soon decided to constitute the Assembly without the presence of the opposition. Claiming that the previous President had abandoned his seat and left the hall of assembly, they elected their own eldest MP as a new temporary President and continued the work of the parliament. On the next day, the opposition complained about a breach of the Rules of Procedure (since a concluded sitting could not have been resummoned without written summons and agenda), but the governmental parties possessed a sufficient majority for this to be of no avail. Gligorijević, Parlament, pp. 198–9.

67 Mirković, Srpska pravna istorija, pp. 234–7.

68 Petranović, Istorija, pp. 172–3.

69 Orlović, ‘Ustavni položaj’, p. 290.

70 Petranović, Istorija, pp. 174–5.

71 Mirković, Srpska pravna istorija, pp. 237–54.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nina Kršljanin

Nina Kršljanin is Assistant Professor at the Department of Legal History, Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade, Serbia, where she teaches Serbian Legal History and assists with the teaching of Comparative Legal Traditions. She has a PhD in medieval Serbian law (‘Serbian medieval charters as the source of Dušan’s Code’). Her other research areas include parliamentary history, customary law and gender studies.