written by Bedrudin Brljavac printable version send your friend

Friday, 4 November 2011

‘‘I am not mandated by anyone...I do not belong to any political party. I only represent myself: an intellectual and a citizen.’’

(Jean Amrouche, an Algerian poet and intellectual)

Introductory Remarks 

The political leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina have failed to form a government since the October elections in 2010, and the country is facing its worst political and social crisis since the end of the war in November 1995 after having signed the Dayton Peace Agreement. Furthermore, inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric has been dominating public discourse in the country almost throughout the entire post-Dayton era. In other words, the leaders and politicians of the country's three biggest ethnic groups, namely Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosnian Croats, have for years been accusing each other for the status quo and political paralysis of the country. It is indeed very difficult to expect, under the conditions of zero-sum game politics, nationalist politicians holding opposing and diverse interests to reach a stable compromise without external actors and mediators. One such actor which could provide a helping hand to quarrelling Bosnian politicians is civil society. As Paris points out, civil society organizations can “help to break down social barriers between formerly warring communities and provide grassroots support for political parties that support intergroup accommodation” (2004: 194).

However, in the post-Dayton Bosnia civil society generally has been marginalized and sidelined from the main political decision-making. Due to the socialist-communist regime in the former Yugoslavia civil society groups were weak in BiH before the war (Fischer, 2006: 16). Nevertheless, during the war and in its aftermath, civil society in the country started to flourish both in quantitative and qualitative terms. In fact, in the aftermath of the war a large number of international NGOs have worked toward reconciliation and the transition to democracy. Furthermore, huge financial and logistic means have been allocated, mainly from foreign donors, to domestic civil society groups. Similarly, the European Union has ambitiously supported the development of civil society in Bosnia as one of the democratic preconditions to enter Brussels. Still, as Žeravčić and Biščević state in their study: “The ability of the civil sector to participate in the creation of public policies is almost negligible” (2009: 145). Thus, the puzzling question is why the civil society or non-governmental sector in BiH has not been deeply involved in resolving the country's years-long political deadlock.

The Role of Civil Society in Democracy

In the literature of political science it is widely confirmed that a developed, active, and independent civil society is an indispensable factor in democratic and open countries. There can be diverse civil society organizations and groups which act as separate but necessary players in democratic societies. Thus, Paffenholz points out that “[c]ivil society consists of a large and diverse set of voluntary organizations and comprises non-state actors and associations which are not purely driven by private or economic interests, are autonomously organized, show civil virtue, and interact in public sphere” (2010, 60). Furthermore, in modern democracies, a developed civil society increases the citizens´ freedoms, promotes the rule of law, reduces state corruption, and establishes greater government effectiveness (Bostic, 2011: 95). That is, without independent and developed civil society any democratic regime would follow uni-dimensional policy-making from the top-down, which is then in content and ideology closer to closed and autocratic regimes than to open societies. Therefore, strong and active civil society organizations should not be perceived as a threat and dangerous element to a country's political establishment.

In consolidated democracies it is taken for granted that civil society organizations work in cooperation with state actors having a role as an equal partner, contributing to a very significant extent to the policy-making process in the country. Civil society as a voluntary element is fairly distinct from the state structures and commercial elements of the market; all three constitute the entirety of a democratic society. Thus, civil society is a corrective partner to state institutions. That is civil society which includes, for example, human rights, environmental concerns, youth and women organizations, and other CSOs that deal with politics in general, performs the function of articulating interests and checking state power (Bostic, 2011: 96). Still, civil society cannot replace the state and its role is not to act on behalf of public institutions, but rather to work together with them in a harmonic and transparent atmosphere. Furthermore, states with a strong civil society are thus politically stable, not least because CSOs train citizens to be tolerant, cooperative, and reciprocal (Tusalem, 2007: 379–80).

Reasons Behind Invisible NGOs

There can be a variety of reasons behind an underdeveloped, non-influential, and marginalized civil society sector in the process of democratic transition in the country. Bearing in mind the fact that Bosnian social discourse is marked by an extensive ethno-nationalization process, it is almost natural to conclude that even civil society in the country has been ethnicized and divided along ethnic lines. Thus, Gajo Sekulic, a scholar at the University of Sarajevo, points out that cooperation or partnership based on the principle of equality between civil society and public sector representatives in BiH is impossible and unthinkable because of the latter’s dominant ethno-nationalist agenda (2002). Somehow instinctively, a rise in the activeness and dynamism of civil society is perceived as a reduction in government power. Granting civil society scope for action is a risky business for nationalist elites which fear that this will jeopardize their control over the economy, the media, and the general public (Sejfija, 2006: 132). That is, the idea of ethnopolitics is opposed to the development of a strong and influential civil society. The ethnic politicians have a fear of a developed and active civil society as if it were Satan.

In addition, the sector of civil society has practically become an isolated sector staying far away from real needs and interests of ordinary people. In other words, it seems that the most important goal of many civil society organizations in BiH is to get funds for a project regardless of the project's usefulness and relevance to the Bosnian social and political challenges. Thus, people working in civil society organizations who analyze developments and situations in this sector often talk about “projectomania.” The term denotes an uncritical attitude by NGOs whose entire program of activities revolves around project funding, and whose priority is to develop projects that focus on compliance with the sponsors’ criteria, often without considering their practical relevance and viability (Sejfija, 2006: 134). These organizations, argues Gajo Sekulic, “are merely a surrogate civil society … the problem is that their projects lack any social legitimacy. What has emerged is a separate, isolated segment of civil sector which could jeopardise the development of an authentic civil society in BiH. The participation of citizens – who should be the defining feature of a civil society – is called into question” (Grupa autora, 1998: 42).

Furthermore, institutional framework based on the DPA has continuously resulted in increasing ethnic homogenization and thus preventing the evolution of a genuine civil society in the country. In fact, the Dayton Peace Agreement signed in 1995 designed to stop the war and create a new democratic country, divided it into entities. However, fifteen years after Dayton, Bosnia is still far from the effective and democratic state that the accord had envisioned. Even the vast majority of civil society organizations have been mostly divided and act mainly in their respective entities. Thus, instead of being a significant integrative factor pushing for multi-ethnic cooperation, civil society groups have further contributed to the ethno-nationalist project. For instance, although there are around 10,000 NGOs in the country, only a small number of them have offices in both entities, and most employ workers predominantly from one ethnic group. Thus, since the Dayton Agreement divided the country into two entities along ethnic lines, genuine civic initiatives are almost blocked. As Nanić claims:

“the current constitution substantially restricts the development of civil society because of the deep divisions in the civil society itself on ethnic interests and thus NGOs generally do not have sufficient capacity for activities at the state level” (2010).

The next reason which has contributed to a weak and undeveloped civil society is political culture and social behavior from the pre-war communist regime, which was mainly based on total reliance on the state institutions and the communist party. Kamrava defines political culture as “a set of values and orientations which determine and influence the public’s perception of politics” (1996). Thus, Bosnian political culture has been going through substantial transformative processes since the mid-1990s. However, it would be naïve to say that democratic transition and change in political culture has been successful and produced democratic citizens. Halimović argues that, “BiH citizens generally don’t have a clear vision of what should be their priority and they are completely excluded from the policy making. In fact, it seems that the citizens are not sufficiently interested in anything except for their mere existence. The fact that BiH has been the slowest country in the liberalization of visa regime, and that the citizens are again silent, tells us enough about the involvement of the citizens” (2010). Only when people actively participate in the community and when “they take their lives in their hands” they can contribute to bringing about social and political changes (Belloni, 2001: 173).

Concluding Remarks

Bosnia and Herzegovina has been facing deep and damaging political and social paralysis over the last decade in the post-Dayton era. Although domestic political elites several times attempted to reach a compromise solution on the country's necessary constitutional reforms they have not succeeded so far due to their very diverse national interests and party positions. In addition, international community mediation attempts, and especially those of the EU and U.S., have not been so helpful in calming down ethnic differences on the country's political agenda. However, it is an interesting and puzzling question that civil society in Bosnia has been almost marginalized and excluded from the main transformation processes such as constitutional reforms, although the country has been going through a deep democratization process for the past twenty years. Although there are institutional and administrative obstacles which block civil society organizations from playing a more important and decisive role in the country's policy-making processes, they should make additional efforts to put pressure on domestic politicians to work in the interests of citizens. The time when Bosnians were dying for democracy are behind us, now is the time to work hard and live for democracy. Democracy is when you go to the streets and peacefully express your discontent with unaccountable and corrupt politicians!

Literature:

1. Belloni, Robert, (2001), “Civil Society and Peace Building in Bosnia-Herzegovina”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2001, pp. 163-180.

2. Bostic, Anze Voh, (2011), “Analysing EU's Civil Society Development in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, European Perspectives – Journal on European Perspectives of the Western Balkans, Vol. 3, No. 1 (4), pp 91-113, April 2011.

3. Fischer, Martina, (2006), Introduction: Moving out of the Dayton Era into the Era of Brussels?, in Martina, Fischer (2006), Peace building and Civil Society in Bosnia- Herzegovina. Ten Years after Dayton, Münster: Lit Verlag 2006.

4. Grupa autora 1998. Lokalni NVO-sektor u BiH, problemi, analize, preporuke. Sarajevo: IBHI.

5. Halimovic, Dženana, (2010), “Journalist at the Radio Free Europe (RFE)”, Personal Interview, May, 2010.

6. Kamrava, Mehran (1996): ‘Understanding Comparative Politics: A Framework for Analysis’, London: Routledge, p. 58.

7. Nanic, Husein, (2010), “The Representative in the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Federation of BiH”, Personal Interview, April, 2010.

8. Paffenholz, Thania (2010): “Civil Society”, in Chetail, Vincent, ed., Post-Conflict Peacebuilding: A Lexicon, pp. 60–73, Oxford University Press.

9. Paris, Roland (2004): At War’s End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10. Sejfija, Ismet, (2006). From the “Civil Sector” to Civil Society? Progress and Prospects, in Martina, Fischer (2006), Peace building and Civil Society in Bosnia - Herzegovina. Ten Years after Dayton, Münster: Lit Verlag 2006.

11. Sekulic, Gajo 2002. Interview in Dani. Sarajevo, 21 February 2002.

12. Tusalem, Rollin F. (2007): “A Boon or a Bane? The Role of Civil Society in Third- and Fourth-Wave Democracies”, International Political Science Review 28 (3), pp. 361–386.

13. Žeravčić, G. i Biščević, (2009), Analysis of the Civil Sector Situation in BiH; In: HTSPE Ltd. And Kronauer Consulting. Civil Society: Contributions to the Development of the Strategy on Establishment of an Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sarajevo, 2009.

About the Author:

Bedrudin Brljavac received his B.A. in Political Science and Public Administration at the Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey. He completed the Master Programme in European Affairs (MEA) at Lund University in Sweden as the scholarship holder of the Swedish Institute. Since September 2011 he is the PhD candidate at the Department of Political Science at the University of Sarajevo. His doctoral project is titled “The European Union as a Global Civilian Power (GCP): An Impact on the Transformation of Modus Operandi of the International Relations”. He has regularly written columns for national and international magazines and daily newspapers such as Dnevni avaz, Novi horizonti, Turkish Weekly, Transconflict, Strategic Outlook, Contemporary Relations and Open Democracy. Also, he has published a number of academic articles in international journals such as Romanian Journal of European Affairs, Evrodijalog, Analytical, Political Thought, Perspective politice, etc. In addition, he has had several translations from English and Turkish into Bosnian. His research interests are Transnational Relations, Multilateralism, Europeanization, EU Enlargement Policy, Democratization Theory, International Organizations, International Relations Theories, Turkish Foreign Policy, and Western Balkans Politics.