However, at this point things also became complicated. Puljak and his political colleagues – mostly the highly educated citizens with on-going careers in other areas – insisted from the beginning on sticking to their principles, with transparency regarding party goals being high on the list. They adopted an almost scientific approach and made a highly structured program which positioned them on the left-liberal spectrum, with emphasis on strengthening science and modernising education, reducing state administration and taxes for the private business sector, as well as insisting on social welfare measures such as free education and public health. They named their party “Pametno” (“Smart”) which raised more than a few eyebrows at the time.

​

The price of political “stubbornness”

 

When the first coalition propositions started to arrive – for example from the leading left party SDP at the Split city council – they weren’t really keen on making many compromises and decided that they would rather take a slower approach than sacrifice parts of their program. In the beginning, the price of this “stubbornness” seemed quite high, particularly during the 2015 parliamentary elections – they turned down an offer to join a large coalition of independent local initiatives known as MOST, proclaimed a “fresh new political power”, which later went on to became one of the biggest election winners, crucial in forming the new government.

“If our negotiations with MOST had ended successfully back in 2014, we might have never become an independent party. But we realized soon enough that they were much more interested in gaining the votes, than in the program itself,” says Puljak. His party won barely a few percent and remained far away from the parliament. It turns out that the newly formed government, cobbled together with awkward compromises and robust negotiations around seats, didn’t last long. The next parliamentary elections happened in 2016. Pametno still stayed below the electoral threshold, but this time they came reasonably close to winning their first parliamentary seat. A year later consistency and patience paid off somewhat when they won 7 out of a total of 35 seats in the Split city council.

Not everybody sees this painful approach, where progression is measured every few years by at most a few percent, as a particularly promising in the context of the passing time. Over the last 27 years, the Croatian political scene has been constantly dominated by the two large parties – right-wing HDZ and left-wing SDP. Currently the most successful third option, known by the name Živi zid is, in a way, the exact opposite of Pametno’s agenda, relying much more on a loud presence in the public, than on the feasibility of the political program. Nevertheless, Puljak remains optimistic that a steady, non-populistic approach will eventually get them far enough.

​​

​

Scientists in denial

 

“Modern society should be developed through long-term strategies and policies created in collaboration with experts, rather than through practices that see those with the reins of political power trade particular interests with different parties. Such acting is extremely unprofessional, but that’s how things are too often done in Croatia. And we want to change that”, says Puljak.In this situation it is precisely the experts, scientists in particular, he emphasizes, who have the responsibility to act and try to change society for the better.

“We as scientists are usually thinking that expertise takes priority, while politics is of less importance. I often hear my colleagues say: we will give our expert advice and let politicians implement it. But that is not likely to happen, especially not in a developing society like Croatia. It is childish to be an expert expecting things to change and at the same time choosing to stay away from politics,” reasons Puljak. One of his greatest disappointments, he concludes, is specifically the opportunistic passivity in Croatian academic circles. 

The science community in Croatia is, indeed, mostly silent. In this country, which has one of the smallest state budgets for the research and innovation in the EU – barely 0.85 percent of GDP – scientists are the last ones who will complain loudly. Almost every scandal in academic circles, even the plagiarism accusation levelled at the then-serving minister of science and education himself, passed without much public outrage from the science community, provoking usually only lonely protests from individual crusaders. The combination of silence and a resistance to changing the academic system, where excellence is often not the main criteria for career advancement, is recognised by many as an important reason why Croatian science is still less competitive on the world scene.

“Croatian scientists rarely react to injustice because of fear and opportunism. The usual attitude is that there is no need for ‚making a fuss‘ and it is better to look after your work and career,” says Tanja Rudež, award-winning Croatian science journalist at Jutarnji newspaper. The fear is real, explains Rudež, recalling the case of four Croatian philosophers who reported ex-Minister of science and education Pavo Barišić for plagiarism to the science ethical committee in parliament, and later suffered, they said, harassment at work, including a repeal of the study program on which they were engaged. Rudež agrees that stronger public involvement should be a sort of obligation for scientists, especially in the era of pseudo-science movements, but she still has some mixed experience with scientists turning politicians. She herself was publicly called out for her opinions and writing by one ex-minister of science, Dragan Primorac, and unsuccessfully sued by another, Pavo Barišić. Nevertheless, she sees Puljak’s political ambitions as promising ones.

“I like the motivation and ideas behind his political engagement. I also think their chances grew because of the current crisis in leading left-wing opposition party”, says Rudež.