4 September 2023
We have invited Professor Savić, member of the presidency of the Croatian Catholic Community ‘MI, Associate professor at the Department for Theory of Law at the University of Zagreb Faculty of Law for an interview to talk about the Project of the Central European Academy (CEA) and University of Miskolc, which he is part of. His work is connected with the topic of the Rule of Law and Academic Freedoms. We have asked a few important questions about this topic, which interfere with the work of academics, professors and students as well as the work of students and all others who are part of the academic work at the universities. This is even more important because the Croatian Catholic community ‘MI’ is to gather young people with Christian character who want to learn and study in a way which is orientated towards the welfare of their homeland and Europe as a whole.
- Professor Savić, would you be willing to say a few words about the Project you are a member of?
For three years in a row, I am a member of the projects organized by the Central European Academy (CEA), which gathers scientists from Central Europe: Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Serbia. The headquarters of the CEA is in Budapest, with scientific and logistical coverage from the University of Miskolc. The main goal of the Academy is not only to work with scientists from geographically close areas but also to cooperate on topics which are of utmost importance for Central European legal space and Europe as a whole. In the first place, we cover legal, political and economic topics with the intention to show that ‘we also have something to say’ in today’s contemporary Europe. There was an era where of the communist rule when our part of Europe was ‘silent’ and unjustly put aside. Our scientists didn’t have proper status in the European community of nations, but all this has changed, and now this part of Europe speaks loudly and often differently.
- You are talking about specific characteristics of our central European legal space; what is this all about, and what do you want to achieve with your work within this Association?
Yes, it is true that this part of Europe has a rich tradition of culture and science, and it is filled with numerous old Universities, and some of them are among the oldest in Europe. We have realized that the time has come that by mutual efforts in the scientific work sense we can show ourselves in the best possible light and by choosing relevant subjects and topics we can (and have to) show that we have our own views, expertise and that our views on the society do not have to be necessarily identical to those of our colleagues in the Western Europe, and the way things are resolved there. Of course, we all share the same foundations, democracy, human rights and the rule of law as principal values, but on many issues, we can think differently, and what is the most important is that we are able to discuss with arguments and offer our attitudes and views and solutions for problems which Europe is facing as a whole. In the first place we are trying to do this as scientists and experts of law.
- Today, does it seem that countries from Central and Eastern Europe have strengths that they did not have before and that they are more listened to?
That is correct. Until recently, Central and Eastern Europe was ‘other’ Europe, ‘second’ Europe, poorer, which lived under the shade of communist and socialist rule and, as such, followed its Western neighbours as a role model. But look at Poland, for instance – Poland became a European power and an important factor in geopolitics. Also, our homeland, Croatia, has become an important partner in peacebuilding and stability in this part of Europe, and its representatives are involved in top-profile jobs within the European Union. Indeed, it is important to stress that Hungarian colleagues, with their initiative, are producing a big impact by gathering us into an organization which now has excellent legal experts who are able to offer elaborate and well-shaped opinions and give added value to the development of science, not only in Central Europe but much wider.
- Tell us more about this year’s Project. What is the topic?
This year’s main theme of the group in which I am involved is the Rule of Law. Rule of Law is the fundamental cornerstone of contemporary democratic society, and basically, it states that no one is above the Law. Law is not only above the citizens, but also above public offices and branches of power. All should have equal access to public services and the right to have just and independent judiciary. In the scope of this Project, which is divided into two parts, legal scientists from central European countries write topics which they choose, and in the second part, they write a book of textbook type about the Council of Europe and the Rule of Law. All work comes from the pens from our Croatian colleagues and colleagues from the neighboring countries. As every year, the results of our research will be published in publications with International editorial boards, and as a grand finale, there is a publishing of the book, which will be our mutual achievement.
- As a part of this year’s theme, you have decided to write about academic freedoms, why?
For a long time now, it looks like we live in a deeply antagonized society in which nobody listens to anybody. Taking that into account it seems that liberal views dominate public space and leave very little room for reasonable critique and serious argumentation. Of course, in the public square, we have to hear the voices of all, but in my research of academic freedoms I have tried to ‘tranquilize the topic’ and start forming fundamental questions which are important for the rule of law and activities of the academic community. I was working on the basic features of academic freedoms, which are, in the first place, connected with honest work, dignity and respect for argumentation. What is this all about? It is about the fact that every freedom and academic freedom is not an exception, which has its roots in the legal order of the country in which it is performed, and international documents (conventions) which cover that area of law have to work within the constitutional framework. The idea I have presented is simple, and it is about the work of the scientists who have to be dedicated to his/her ethical principles and, in accordance with their conscience, report the results of their research. In doing so he/she has to respect the legal order of the county in which he/she can freely, I underline freely, perform that research. Science has the right to be used for critique, but basic principles of the public order have to be respected, and especially those connected with public morals. We need a lot of respect and tolerance to build the society in which we could discuss by arguments and not by political dictate and/or ideological ideas. Of course, every scientist has its own ethical habitus, and often even political identification, but in the democratic society, fair discussion has to replace aggressive ideological behavior and I think this is the most important feature of academic work at the University.
- You say it is important to respect. What do you mean by that?
We have to make things more simplified and say that in every society there are different divergent interests. It is normal that people have different thoughts and opinions, and therefore, they behave and act differently, and science is not an exception. It is normal that young people who are bearers of the future use their powers and enthusiasm to change society – so if they (young educated people) cannot express their attitudes, who should have that right, if not them? But those young people have to be educated to be exceptional scientists and to use methods of honest (and sharp, if necessary), but polite scientific communication. By doing so, and it is to be said clearly, every activity, and science is not an exception, acts within the framework of some community which has its own rules of existence, which have to be respected. In that sense there are constitutional norms which do not allow activities which might jeopardize constitutional order. At the same time, there are tendencies that every critique is labelled as hate speech and that criticizing which harms somebody’s feelings is not allowed – all that went too far. Now in many countries, many scientists are afraid to express what they really think and what are their real scientific findings of their work, because by doing so, they might endanger their status and get a ‘sticker’. This is unacceptable. This is not freedom of scientific and research work.
- So, what we should do?
It was the main question which I have asked myself when I have started doing research in this field. The key is in balancing between conflicting rights, and therefore I have made an analysis of theoretical framework for understanding academic freedoms in the boundaries of democratic systems and the role of the state which may protect public order and public morals, but has to do all that academic work enjoys maximum possible support of the state and maximum possible level of freedom. It is necessary to justly balance between sometimes conflicting rights. I remember the protest of the employees of the University of Chicago a few years ago in which they expressed their critique about restraining their work and the fear that the results of their work will be jeopardized by political correctness, as they said, which destroys science and brings auto-censorship into research.
- Do you have a message for students and young scientists who are just about to enter academia?
I have a simple message: you should have a moral spine, work honestly, do not attack anybody personally, do not offend, and if you criticize, do it in a scientific manner, grounded and with excellent argumentation. You have the right to your morals and values and if someone does not look at your work with admiration, do not be discouraged. Truth in the end, sometimes too slowly, wins. Do not allow your work to fall under cloudy trends which are always passing, as you could do, but work according to your conscience using scientifically accepted methodology. Competence is always the best answer to critique. Invest in your knowledge and skills, and by doing so, you will be authentic, and if not loved, at least you will be respected.
Thank you for this interview.
