Croatian Socrates; Slobodan Praljak

Slobodan Praljak was a Croatian general during the War of Independence, a professor of philosophy and sociology, a theatre director, and an engineer. He was born in 1945 in Capljina (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and voluntarily joined the Croatian army in the 1990s. Given the relatively short amount of time passed since the aforementioned war as well as the highly complex and heated phenomenon that it still is, this text will try to avoid going into the topic of the Croatian War for Independence and keep its emphasis on Praljak as a person and his decision to take his own life after being convicted which prompted many to draw parallels between him and one of the fathers of western philosophy; namely, Socrates. Socrates is one of the three greatest ancient Greek philosophers; the other two are his student Plato, and Plato’s student Aristotle. These three men largely shaped philosophy as we know it today as well as the western culture in general. In what ways are Praljak and Socrates similar, is there bravery in being willing to die for one’s ideals, and why bravery is so attractive to us will be discussed henceforth. 

Praljak was a somewhat unique individual; he was an intellectual who graduated in 3 different fields; engineering, theatrical direction, and philosophy/sociology. What is more, he received the highest grades in one of the most difficult universities in Croatia (namely, Faculty of Engineering and Computing). Once the War of Independence started, Praljak voluntarily joined the Croatian army where he quickly climbed the ladder and established himself as one of its highest-ranking officials. The reason for his quick success is usually attributed to his intellectual capacities as well as his bravery which he showed as soon as he started participating in armed conflicts. This is exemplified, among other things, by the account of his application in the army; shortly before the 1990s, Praljak predicted a war is to come so he started gathering various pieces of weaponry which he buried in his backyard. Once the war came, Praljak dug up his weapons, put on one of his skiing outfits, and took the first bus to the battlefield. Perhaps this wouldn’t be so peculiar if not for the fact that Praljak was an established public intellectual at that point. He was a former professor at the Faculty of Engineering and Computing and was then working as a freelance artist directing theatre plays. As such, he could have easily avoided military duty given his “irreplaceability in the workplace” - as the Croatian government defined those with such specific job statuses. In any case, Praljak joined the army and participated in many now-legendary war stories; one of them describes how Praljak’s platoon was on the losing side in one of the battles at which point he noticed many of his soldiers retrieving in fear. Seeing this, Praljak apparently took his AK-47, climbed on a tank, and went directly to the battle motivating his soldiers to keep pushing forward. As the story goes, while standing on top of the moving tank, Praljak shouted towards his men; “soldiers, follow me!” 

After the war, as Croatia won its independence, Praljak became a prominent figure in the Croatian public space, recognized for his eloquence and fierce rhetoric capabilities. Unfortunately, there aren't many of his public appearances available today albeit a few which clearly illustrate his personality, charisma, and intellectual power. Though the war was still talked about at every corner at that point, the topics he covered in these appearances didn’t include solely those of war but varied from philosophy through general politics to ethics and literature. Praljak was erudite in the full meaning of the word. Not too long after, however, the Haag tribunal was formed and Praljak was among those against which indictments were filled. He described his indictment as “absurd, and therefore, unbeatable” indicating that the “commanding responsibility” upon which his accusation was formed was non-sensical; as he argued, the indictment failed to differentiate war-crimes (such as genocides, ethnic cleansing, etc. - for which there is a clear commanding responsibility given that they are constructed and ordered from the top-down) from crimes in a war which he saw as crimes done by the individual will independent of any commands. The Haag tribunal didn’t present a single piece of evidence that would indicate Praljak ordering crimes of any sort. Contrarily, they accused him of something similar to “knowing that crimes are going to happen, but not stopping them”. He replied that, following such logic, the mayor of each metropolis in the world should be in jail seeing that they go to sleep each night “knowing that crimes will happen” based on any statistical evidence which shows that a given number of crimes will happen every night. In other words, pure statistics state that a certain amount of individual crimes will happen each night in Chicago, but we don’t hold the mayor of Chicago accountable for not stopping them before going to sleep. Why the same logic shouldn’t be applied in incomparably more violent situations such as war is unclear. 

“Slobodan Praljak is not a war criminal! With contempt, I reject your verdict!” Praljak resolutely and confidently asserted as he was being sentenced - after which, he drank the poison that ended his life. Croatia, along with most of the western world, watched in horror. Given the reputation of the Haag tribunal, which many accuse of not following basic judicial rules, but rather, forming verdicts based mostly on politics, Croatians weren’t surprised that their generals were convicted that day. What surprised them, however, is the fact that Praljak decided to commit suicide despite being free in less than three months after the verdict (as the time he spent in prison up until that point was calculated in his punishment). In turn, this prompted many to compare him with the legendary philosopher Socrates who, in a similar situation in which he was accused of something he deemed untrue, decided to rather let go of his life than betray his ideals. 

The historic event of Socrates’ trial is described in one of the most marvelous philosophical texts of all time, written by one of the most important and deepest philosophers of all time; namely, Plato’s Apology. Socrates was accused of various “crimes” (these included “corrupting the youth”, “exploring things above and below the ground”, etc.) which could in today’s terminology be summarized as working against the state. The fact of the matter was that Socrates had been a thorn in the side of many prominent Athenians because of his unbreakable ideals and insistence on holding people accountable/forcing them to think for themselves. Thus, he famously described himself as a gadfly who “bites” people in order to arouse their critical thinking and evaluate their preconceived notions about existence. The famous Socratic (Elenchtic) method was, hence, formed which consists of a series of questions that stimulate the person’s mind and allow him to “give birth” to his own clear thoughts. In any case, such a way didn’t sit well with a lot of powerful people who didn’t necessarily like to be proven not to know anything so they put him on trial. Interestingly, as the historical accounts show, the goal of the accusers (given Socrates’ vast influence and philosophical reputation) was merely to force Socrates out of Athens, not to kill him. However, Socrates took them on as he always did and demolished their arguments during the trial through his usual irony (Greek eironea) and incredible rhetorics. Given the ingenuity in both his arguments and Plato’s account of them, it is best not to try to rephrase them here. Socrates was convicted but was given yet another opportunity to bow down to his accusers (and save his life) by allowing him to offer a punishment for himself which implied he could, for instance, pay a hefty financial sum (which he could because Plato and many of his other students were very wealthy and willing to pay as much as needed) and leave Athens. His brilliant counteroffer, however, was that his accusers should buy him lunch.

Socrates rejected his verdict just as Praljak did, only Socrates did it with a smile on his face - as a philosopher would - while Praljak did the same but with a soldierly seriousness. What motivated these two men to willingly choose death? Both could have been free and both could have kept on living, but both knew that they would betray their ideals with such a choice. Both knew that by saving their lives they would lose themselves.  As Socrates pointed out, in order to be courageous, one must know exactly what he has to lose (i.e., the value of life), but, at the same time, he must realize that not being able to let go of life diminishes its value. G. K. Chesterton described courage in his work Orthodoxy as the following;  “Take the case of courage. No quality has ever so much addled the brains and tangled the definitions of merely rational sages. Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die. “He that will lose his life, the same shall save it,' is not a piece of mysticism for saints and heroes. It is a piece of everyday advice for sailors or mountaineers. It might be printed in an Alpine guide or a drill book. This paradox is the whole principle of courage; even of quite earthly or brutal courage. A man cut off by the sea may save his life if we will risk it on the precipice.  He can only get away from death by continually stepping within an inch of it. A soldier surrounded by enemies, if he is to cut his way out, needs to combine a strong desire for living with a strange carelessness about dying. He must not merely cling to life, for then he will be a coward, and will not escape. He must not merely wait for death, for then he will be a suicide, and will not escape. He must seek his life in a spirit of furious indifference to it; he must desire life like water and yet drink death like wine.”

It is a testament to the low level of the public narrative of Croatian politics that Praljak is rarely talked about nowadays. The reaction to his conviction of Croatian politics was shameful and it is even more shameful to see that conservatives, with their mouths full of patriotism, almost completely forgot what kind of a man Croatia had in Praljak. It is likewise shameful that the courage of his act was never discussed through the philosophical lens. Nevertheless, Praljak knew exactly what he was doing and he wasn’t doing it for fame. Just like Socrates 2500 years earlier, Praljak chose to die not as an action contrary to life, but as an action that fulfilled it. Paradoxically, these two men knew that choosing to keep living would be an act against life - or at least against a life worth living.  They valued their ideals more than the transient life they were currently in. It is a peculiar thing, when you think about it, that the willingness to die may be one of the necessary ingredients that encompass a worthy life. As humans, we are a unique species as we are aware of the transience of our existence during our existence; i.e., we are in the absurd position of knowing we are going to die as we live. This realization, however, allows us, through the Heraclitian unity of opposites which teaches that we can only fully realize concepts through their opposites (eg. can there be good without evil?), to comprehend the things which aren’t transient. Our ideals, our courage, our developed characters, our heroic actions, are all eternal. Thus, through the immersion in them, we touch upon eternity. Through them, we become eternal. It is for this reason that great men such as the two described here are so admired and why their life stories are so much more than a limited amount of years which they spent in this world. They remind us that though we can’t affect how long we are going to live, we can choose to live rightly and heroically. As Nietzsche famously proclaimed; 

“For believe me! — the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is: to live dangerously! Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Soon the age will be past when you could be content to live hidden in forests like shy deer!”