Bosnia and Herzegovina, a country with three ethnic groups (Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks) went through devastating war coupled with ethnic cleansing in 1990s. Finally with US led intervention the Dayton peace accord was signed and peace was restored. Three ethnicities that were at war were brought to live together as members of one nation. Since Dayton, the country has been busy establishing institutions and democracy but these efforts have met stumbling block erected by extremist ethnic politicians. Given the ethnicity based government structure the only way for Bosnia to implement reforms and have cooperation between various communities is through coalition government. Such efforts regularly fall prey to ethnic extremists and threaten the future prospects of Bosnian state.
Since presidential and parliamentary elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina held on October 3rd 2010, things were progressing very slowly there towards forming ruling coalition on the state level. Reason for that is as simple as it is devastating; winning parties coming from three different ethnical groups that live in Bosnia (Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs) differ so much in their views of future internal organization of Bosnia that their goals and demands look very much mutually exclusive and their positions are so entrenched that any compromise would look like failure for each of them. Bosnian Serbs and partially Bosnian Croats are primarily pushing towards further decentralization of state institutions while Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) are in favor of more centralized state. This situation however, is not much different from past elections and pundits generally expect that at the end a few of strongest parties will come together to form some kind of “mathematical coalition”, that is just enough to take the power but will continue mutual bickering throughout next four years of rule. For ordinary Bosnians of any ethnicity, it would mean four years more of wasted time on inefficiency, mutual vetoing and ethnic outcries that ignore national interest and render state institutions powerless. It would also mean four years more of virtual economic stagnation and slow implementation of reforms needed for EU ascension that in return give rise to separatist tendencies.
Fundamental question for Bosnia and Herzegovina is then, given the protracted state of affairs like this, can it survive as a country in the long term? Some of the Western diplomats like Mr. Henry Kissinger and Mr. William Montgomery, former advisor of US president for Balkans think that it cannot. Reason they see is that some ethnic groups that live in Bosnia like Bosnian Serbs and Croats cannot be forced to stay in a country that they don’t want to be part of. Since they do not see Bosnia as one entity, but rather regard themselves primarily as citizens of neighboring Serbia or Croatia then they also doubt the legitimacy of Bosnian government itself. Given this ground reality, there is a strong feeling among many that Bosnia exists only on the paper and as a result of international pressure and that Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats will walk away as soon as that pressure wanes.
This view is further vindicated by results of war in 1990s that profoundly altered ethnical structure of Bosnia. Most of territory and cities that were “ethnically mixed” before became “ethnically clean” and are now dominated exclusively by one ethnical group after the war. After Dayton Peace Accord that ended war in 1995, two entities within Bosnia and Herzegovina were formed: Republika Srpska, almost exclusively inhabited by Bosnian Serbs and Federation of Bosniaks and Croats that was also deeply divided between Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats. Beside the war that left deep emotional scars on people there, children too who were born after the war, continued growing up in ethnically homogenous environments without chance to mix with members of other ethnical groups. As a result Bosnian society is becoming even more divided, with palpable fear of “others” – people of different ethnicities and without signs of reversal of this disastrous trend.
Recently, government in Federation of Bosniak and Croats was formed by coalition of two major Bosniak and several fringe Croatian parties. Forming of this coalition was precipitated by announcement of common platform built around social democratic values with proposed list of legislative items. Newly formed government received blessings from Western allies and encouragement for swift action. However this resulted in major Croatian parties being pushed into opposition, an unprecedented event in Bosnian history. Having difficulties with acknowledging defeat, major Croatian parties used proven method of appealing to populist sentiment proclaiming themselves as only true representatives of Croatian constituency in Bosnia and accusing Bosniak representatives of trying to marginalize Croats in Bosnia. While it is true that Bosniak political parties have at times selfishly pursued ethnic interest, this only shows how the most effective arguments run by politicians in Bosnia are of ethnic survival and fear.
The gloom future was also implied with actions on the ground as relative normality in Bosnian internal political process could only be achieved with extensive interference of International Community. For that purpose Office of High Representative (OHR) was created that as some put it: “renders Bosnia a protectorate and High Representative a viceroy”. Office of High Representative is the institution that represents countries of Peace Implementation Council and which has duty to oversee implementation of Dayton Peace Accord but also has powers to impose legislation and sack democratically elected officials. OHR, especially right after the war, played significant role in removing ethnically extremist politicians and pushing for reforms that made Bosnia more governable by centralizing state institutions. However in last few years (especially after departure of energetic British diplomat Paddy Ashdown), the OHR has minimized its activities to mostly advisory role. This was partly because: a) the US started losing interest in situation in Bosnia as they became preoccupied with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and more importantly b) the EU came to conclusion that if Bosnia wants to work on its way to EU membership then it has to start making independent decisions that should not be imposed from the outside.
However, this led to the rise of unbridled ethnic extremism that pushed Bosnia back into political stalemate. Politicians of all three ethnicities that live there know very well that the easiest way to win the elections is to ride on the wave of ethnic extremism and fear of other two ethnic groups. Elections in 2006 confirmed this by the election of Mr. Milorad Dodik, Bosnian Serb politician who won the elections for Prime minister of Republika Srpska by promising secession of Republika Srpska from Bosnia and Mr. Haris Silajdzic, Bosniak politician who got Bosniak support for Presidency on slogans of centralized state. Ever since then, any kind of meaningful compromise was impossible and Bosnia kept stagnating both politically and economically. This ethno politics prevented any debate on important economic problems such as corruption, unemployment skyrocketing at 27% and slow EU ascension reforms, problems recognized as most pressing issues by all three ethnic groups.
It is hard then to project a bright future of Bosnia when politicians there have diametrically opposed political goals, use ethnic rhetoric and are not willing to look for the national interest in compromising on core issues.
However, we need to look at root cause of interethnic problems in Bosnia: the domination of ethnic extremists over moderates ever since country gained independence in 1992. Bosnia, part of former socialist Yugoslavia has had a hard time transitioning into democratic state with free market economy. Besides the war that tremendously imperiled the whole country that did not have democratic tradition, free market reforms and privatization of state owned enterprises further lead to impoverishment of people and creating tiny class of wealthy tycoons. In such situation, with almost nonexistent middle class, voice of moderates was impossible to get through. Result was that ethnic extremists were able to frame every issue as “matter of ethnic survival” and play ethnic card in order to remain in power. So the only chance for Bosnia to solve this problem is to develop moderate forces formidable enough to take power from ethnic extremists. Until now they did not have a lot of success since voters were still struck by ethnic fear of others and chose those who offered the most populist policies. However, in order to have complete picture of Bosnian political situation we have to look beyond everyday political quagmires and analyze the implications of potential dissolution of Bosnia and current trends in the Balkan region.
It is important to note that Bosnia and Herzegovina has not always been country with ethnically divided society. In fact, throughout history it was one of rare examples where different ethnic groups lived peacefully together albeit within bigger country i.e. the Austrian Empire, Yugoslavia etc. In addition Bosnia never had before ethnically clean areas where certain parts of the country were inhabited exclusively by one ethnic group. In other words, it was very hard to geographically divide Bosnia on ethnical lines because most of the cities had large populations of all three ethnic groups. Only after the war, due to ethnic cleansing it became possible to draw the map with “ethnically clean” geographical areas where one ethnical group represents absolute majority and other two minority, although even today it wouldn’t be entirely possible in cities like Tuzla, Mostar and Midwest Bosnia in general.
So one has to understand that dissolution of Bosnia along ethnic lines would not be product of organic historical processes but vindication of violent ethnic cleansing where Bosniaks and Croats were forced to leave areas that encompass Republika Srpska and Bosnian Serbs fled parts of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is why general consensus in International Community today is that sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina has to be preserved and that result of war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide must not be legitimized.
Furthermore, it is somewhat understandable that Bosniaks and partly Bosnian Croats are opposed to such dissolution because they stand to lose the most given that 49% percent of Bosnian territory is now part of Republika Srpska and independence of Republika Srpska means that Bosniaks and Croats would effectively lose the land that belonged to them before the war and from where they were forced out. However, it is less clear why Bosnian Serb leaders are so eager for dissolution since even though they got biggest territorial gains in previous war, many of Bosnian Serbs in such outcome would tend to lose a lot too. It is estimated that in Sarajevo alone, today’s capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina and city where majority are Bosniaks, approximately 180 000 Serbs left the city during the war. It is hard to understand that in the city where there was vibrant Serbian community for centuries that greatly contributed towards multicultural life, today’s Bosnian Serbian politicians are willing to forgo and refuse right of many ordinary Serbian people to claim their right on their previous habitats throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina.
On top of that, those who are advocating secession should not be overly optimistic about prospects of those newly formed states as they would have very hard time getting recognition of their independence. UN has already recognized Bosnia as independent state and EU together with US has put massive resources behind state building efforts in Bosnia. Any secession attempts are then likely to be unsuccessful because such project wouldn’t gain recognition of other independent states and it would go directly against efforts of International Community to build self sustaining Bosnian state. Other EU members such as Belgium and Spain also have problem of independence aspiring provinces but they are unlikely to go to full extent of declaring secession because such projects would fail on feasibility grounds. More importantly, recently Germany and Turkey as premier rising economic powers in Europe have showed significant interest in sorting out problems in Balkans in general and the determination to help find solution that protects the rights of all three ethnic groups and preserves integrity of Bosnian state.
As soon as people are willing to look beyond poisoning ethnic extremist rhetoric it will be easier for them to understand that for all three ethnic groups it is better to return to their previous towns and cities and if all of them want to be part of European Union eventually they will have to live together anyway. Of course, this a little bit of “common sense” and rationality is hard to find in ethnically charged Bosnian politics today. However there were some recent overtures that might signal positive changes.
Firstly, newly elected Croatian president Ivo Josipovic started trend of mutual reconciliation between Balkan countries by offering apologies for mistakes and war crimes committed by Croatia during Balkan wars. In this he was joined by Serbian president Boris Tadic who helped pass declaration in Serbian parliament that for the first time recognized war crimes committed by Serbian army. But more importantly new Croatian government, firm on its path towards EU membership and resolve to put the past behind its back sent clear message to Bosnian Croats that their future is in Bosnia and they have to work on solving their issues through Bosnian institutions instead of expecting to become part of Croatia someday. This offered good example how substantially situation can change since Croatian government during 1990s strongly supported secession movement of Bosnian Croats but now was able to stand behind integrity of Bosnian state. This fact significantly alleviated ambitions toward secession among Bosnian Croats. However, similar step was notably lacking from Serbian government since they formally supported integrity of Bosnia but failed to distance themselves from Bosnian Serbian politicians that were openly calling for secession of Republika Srpska. It is likely that Serbian government will do it in near future; as they are enrolling in EU ascension process they will be pressured by EU authorities to do more to support integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. EU as ultimate authority in Balkans has interest in calming down situation there because it doesn’t want problems in its backyard and in the same time wants to help Balkan countries in becoming members of European Union.
Secondly, recent presidential elections in Bosnia brought victory to Mr. Bakir Izetbegovic, son of wartime Bosniak leader and moderate Bosniak politician over Mr. Silajdzic, a hardliner. This might serve as a sign Bosniaks are also becoming inclined to more moderate options. It is positive sign that Bosniaks being the biggest ethnical group in the country put forward the moderate option that will extend open hand to other two ethnical groups. Problem that has been plaguing Bosniak leaders as some Western officials put it was that” they were living in the past” expecting that because they were victims of war atrocities someone else will solve problems for them. This was the result of backward looking politics that that was exploited by many Bosniak politicians in getting votes but never made any meaningful progress. Mr. Izetbegovic, on the other hand, seems to understand that internal Bosnian problems have to be solved through negotiations with other two ethnic groups and appealing to International Community to solve Bosnian problems will not work.
Unfortunately, irresponsible extremist rhetoric still remains ingrained in Bosnian political scene and makes compromise very difficult. Openly defying constitution in Bosnia still goes without political or legal consequences. In such situation opportunistic politicians thrive and have no incentive to forgo short term interest for building better future. Those who do are often derided as traitors of “vital ethnic interest”.
It is necessary for Peace Implementation Council as guardian of Dayton Peace Accord to take firm stance against those who openly agitate against the constitution, byproduct of Dayton Peace Accord itself. Sovereignty and current structure and laws of state has been established through negotiations prior to Dayton Peace Agreement thus ending the war and can be renegotiated only through agreement of all three ethnic groups. International Community must make it abundantly clear that it is still guarantor of peace agreement and that will protect it if necessary. Only in climate where ethnic extremists understand that there are no shortcuts or unilateral solutions and that change is possible through mutual effort and negotiations, it will be possible for meaningful dialogue to take place. Only when openly challenging constitution or state institutions is not tolerated, politicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina will have enough incentive to sit for common table and make hard compromise. If not, current situation threatens to undermine progress made so far and even lead to violent outcomes that everybody could only regret to happen.
The author studies in International Islamic University Malaysia, and can be reached at: senadhadrovic@gmail.com
