written by Bedrudin Brljavac printable version send your friend

Monday, 28 November 2011

“I have been thinking about the notion of perfect love as being without fear, and what that means for us in a world that's becoming increasingly xenophobic, tortured by fundamentalism and nationalism” (Bell Hooks)


Introduction

More than a year since the General elections in October 2010 the political elites in Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter Bosnia or BiH) have not agreed on the state government. Furthermore, according to the European Commission's Monitoring Report for 2011 which evaluates the country's progress in the EU reforms, Bosnia and Herzegovina has been lagging behind other countries from the western Balkans, the region that today comprises Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, as well as Kosovo. Since the end of the war in Bosnia 1992-1995 the country's ethnic politicians, which have in each election except for elections in 2000, have not paid enough attention to the European integration reforms as they largely focused on achievement of short-term ethno-nationalist interests. In other words, for the ruling nationalist elites, EU integration project imposes high adoption costs because it undermines their power base, entirely built on domination of ethnic identity (Juncos, 2011: 370). Also, Chivvic and Dogo point out that relations between three ethnic groups are more polarised then at any time since the fighting ended, and Bosnia risks falling out of step with its neighbours and missing the train to Europe. A return to violence, while not likely, remains possible (2010). However, the process of substantial ethnic-nationalization is not compatible with the process of Europeanization. Therefore, the Bosnian political elites which tend to safeguard domination of purely ethnic interests at all costs have to chose between maintenance of ethnic apartheid or integration into the European Union (EU) economic and political structures.

Bosnia's Europeanisation Process

Although the EU had played very passive role during the war in Bosnia, despite the fact that Bosnia is in its closest neighbourhood, in the aftermath of the war the EU states developed more strategic approach toward western Balkans countries, including Bosnia. The regional shift in terms of integration emerged with the EU’s clear commitment towards EU membership of the Western Balkans in 1999 (Aybet & Bieber, 2011: 1918). Thus, in 1999 entering the Stabilization and Association Process (SAP) the western Balkans countries, including Bosnia, have started more visible and long-term integration perspective with the EU. SAP has been a fundamental integrating framework of the EU member states towards the countries from the Balkans. The main objective of the SAP is to strengthen democratic transition of the countries from the region implementing substantial political, legal, and economic reforms. Following successful and effective reform process in the sphere of democracy, rule of law, education, economy, media, and administration the countries from the region sign the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) with the EU states. BiH signed the SAA in June 2008. The SAA is aimed at making the country more democratic and more functional. In other words, the so-called Stabilisation and Association Agreement is a pre-accession tool designed as a first step for the Western Balkan, and Bosnia as well, towards eventual EU membership (Vucheva, 2008). The previous EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn called it "a milestone that marks a new stage in our relations" and "a gateway for [EU] candidacy" (Vucheva, 2008).

Overall, over more than a decade Bosnia has been going through deep and all-embracing modernization and transformation processes which are in literature of international relations known as Europeanization process. Even though it is not easy task to make a proper definition of the term, the Europeanization is often used in the studies and explanations about the influence and impact of the European Union on domestic political, legal, and economic structures of the countries aspiring for the EU membership. Thus, Radaelli argues that: “Europeanisation consists of processes of a) construction, b) diffusion and c) institutionalisation of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, 'ways of doing things' and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the EU policy process and then incorporated in the logic of domestic (national and subnational) discourse, political structures and public policies” (Radaelli, 2004: 3). Currently Bosnia is one of the potential candidate countries which have aspirations to join political and economic structures of this supranational organization. While the country is supposed to be going through deep transformation processes of adopting EU legal norms or acquis communautaire the country is largely going through massive ethno-nationalist projects of preserving short-term ethnic interests which can at the end of the day result in terrible inter-ethnic conflicts from early 1990s.

Ethno-nationalisation Process

However, the Europeanization process in the country has not so far contributed to significant democratic transition, social cohesion, and an economic well-being. What's more, there have been increasing opinions and statements among ethnic political elites and hard-liners about the political and legal model based fundamentally on ethno-nationalistic divisions. Such systemic attempts to make changes in political, legal, and economic governance based on ethno-nationalist principles and norms of ethnic exclusion are known as ethno-nationalisation. As Asim Mujkic points out:

“I call a community characterized by the political priority of the ethnic group(s) over the individual that is implemented through democratic self-legislation, and a community characterized by the political priority of the ethnic group’s right to self-determination over the citizen’s right to self-determination where the citizen’s membership in a political community is determined by her or his membership in ethnic community, Ethnopolis. And I call the political narrative and practice intended to justify this ethnically-based social construct, ethnopolitics” (2007: 116).

Thus, public sphere in Bosnia is almost completely dominated by ethno-nationalist dynamic of chauvinistic discrimination. As Atajic points out, “Everything – from the greeting you use to the dialect you speak and the newspaper in your coat pocket – is judged, commented upon and categorized in terms of an omnipresent, mysticised ‘ethnicity’. Under such circumstances, defining oneself as a citizen of the BiH state is tantamount to a betrayal of one’s national identity” (2002:118). The best example which best explains systemic deepness of ethnic-nationalist processes are often initiatives and calls for establishing of third federal unit or entity in the country, in which Bosnian Croats would make the majority of population. Despite the fact that some ethnic communities are discriminated against in certain parts of the country, it is difficult to accept the idea that one ethnic group tends to realize its democratic rights through attempts of ethnic-nationalist separation or the ethnic apartheid. Keeping in mind the fact that each political project of territorial separation in the early 1990s after the dissolution of Yugoslavia has resulted in massive genocides and ethnic cleansing it is essential to search for political and legal governance model which will be built on democratic principles of multi-ethnic coexistence and social inclusion. In fact, each new efforts in partition of Bosnia would restart war, precipitate ethnic cleansing, and cause untold human sufferings (Serwer, 2011). Also, Senad Pećanin, analyst at TV1, believes that partition of Bosnia is not possible without new war (BH-News, 2011).

In addition, the ethnic-nationalist segregation in Bosnia can only lead to serious marginalisation of universal and civilisational values of  tolerance, dialogue, and trust. Also, increasing ethnic homogenization rapidly is leading to the eradication of the idea of the state citizenship. Furthermore, public discourse in BiH is to a large extent marked by domination of the so-called constituent nations thus openly discriminating against a citizens of the so-called Others, a minority groups in the country. The most illustrating example is the case of minority groups, Jews and Roma, whose members are legally not allowed to exercise their legitimate rights and freedoms. Although Bosnia joined the Council of Europe on 24 April 2002 there has been increasing discrimination against minorities in the country. Thus, the citizens from minority communities such as the Roma, Turks, or Jews, are granted only a limited degree of freedom and self-administration (Soberg, 2008: 715). Thus, the post-war political and social space has been largely dominated by three ethnic groups, leading to institutional marginalization of minority groups and their members. In the post-Dayton Bosnia the majority of citizens are in a position of ―homo duplex, or a divided human, since they are in a struggle between being a genuine human being and loyal ethnic being (Brljavac, 2011: 56). In fact, political space has become limited and even unwelcome for the groups such as Yugoslav, Bosnian, and so forth. As Touquet and Vermeersch point out that:

“These people have now been excluded from mainstream accounts of the outcomes of the recent conflict: it is not possible to be a Yugoslav, a Bosnian or an Eskimo in a situation in which ethnic nationalism has transcended all else and in which there are intensely localized variations in identity and ‘national’ sentiments” (2008: 280).

What’s more, the paradigm of ethnic-nationalism in BiH completely dominates over the principle of citizenship as the idea of nationalist collectivity has supremacy over democratic model based on individual rights and freedoms. Also, social supremacy of collectivity over individual action will result in deep ghetto-isation of the three ethnic communities in the country. That is, politics of ethno-nationalisation paves the way for extreme apartheid regime in which the members of different ethnic communities live side by side but still deeply separated. Thus, Pasic argues that “Not only are there physical entity and cantonal borders, but ethnicity is also institutionalized in all aspects of political life in BiH. The ethnic segregation is evident when it comes to living areas, government, voting, education and even languages, which are intelligible” (2011). As a result, the separated territories, or ethnically pure “ghettos” have developed (Flottau and Kraske 2005). Further, establishing ghettos in Bosnia seriously ruins the idea of unity in diversity. Furthermore, the process of ghetto-isation increasingly contributes to mistrust and animosities between the citizens of ethnic groups in BiH which can result in final dissolution of the country. Therefore, it is of crucial importance that both political elites and ordinary citizens understand that each attempt of physical and psychological polarisation of three ethnic communities can even result in a new war. In fact, widespread ethnic and religious polarization has been proven to increase the risk of civil war (Kalyvas and Sambanis, 2005: 199). Farer from the process of Europeanization and closer to the projects of ghetto-isation, increases the possibility of destruction of multi-national community in BiH.

In addition, possibility of new conflicts in Bosnia is not impossible if current politics of marginalisation of citizenship values continue. In previous decade from time to time local politicians and the media have begun to mention war as a possible option for the first time since signing the Dayton Agreement (Whitlock, 2009). Although such terrible scenario currently seems unreal fifteen years of peace-building process, a local hard-liners can use the military option when they feel it necessary and feasible. In fact, most wars in the world started mostly because of short-sighted ideological and political interests of political elites. For example, before the war in Bosnia started political elites in Serbia and among the Bosnian Serbs created the thesis that Serb population is under an existential threat coming from other two nations in Bosnia. As the atmosphere of fear and mistrust was created it was not difficult to push ordinary people into the war. Therefore, it is important that the local political elites demonstrate the political will in developing policies and legal structures which will ensure the same rights and obligations for all citizens of Bosnia. For example, such a model of equality of all citizens can be based on rational and efficient governance model in which regionalisation of territory would be shaped on the basis of stable and competitive economic integration. Just such a model of regionalisation is implemented in many EU countries where citizens have an opportunity to develop policies at the lowest administrative level which exemplifies the most successful model of democratic governance. Most importantly, such model of regionalization has a strength to strongly resist the secession tendencies of nationalist hardliners.

Last but not least, the ethnic-nationalist tendencies of some Bosnian politicians to a significant extent has marginalised and blocked the process of Europeanisation. As Todorova claims, the post-war Bosnia has largely been closer to the process of 'Balkanization‘ that is understood as contrary to what may be 'western‘ values and norms (1994). That is, dominating model of ethnic-nationalist organization of Bosnia is in direct collision with all-embracing Europeanization reform processes which are expected from Bosnian political elites. In fact, domestic factors largely contributed to the EU’s failure in Bosnia. The consociational model established by the Dayton Agreement signed in 1995 with its multiple veto points, as well as recalcitrant nationalist elites, hindered EU-led reforms in the country (Juncos, 2011: 369). Therefore, it is essential that the nationalist politicians and ordinary citizens as well accept the fact that each purely nationalist project paves the way for the inter-ethnic polarisation. It is easy to understand that ethnic elites repeatedly use the card of inter-ethnic fear in order to win elections and continue their 'nationalistic hegemony'. In other words, most of Bosnian political leaders do not sincerely use the idea if European integration in terms of their political programme since they are aware that it will not bring them the votes of their ethnic groups respectively. However, it is very interesting and almost paradoxical that majority of the Bosnian citizens, from each three ethnic communities, strongly support the country’s path toward the European Union, but prefer ethnic-nationalist programmes of the political elites. As the ethnic-nationalist model of policy-making has not worked for previous twenty years if democratic transition it is more than obvious that Bosnians must look for alternative model of governance.

Integration of European Countries

As a possible model for Bosnian ethnic groups, it is important to remember how six European countries in the aftermath of the World War II decided to establish the European Community, from the 1991 the European Union, which was aimed to prevent further nationalistic projects across Europe. In the aftermath of one of the most devastating war in the humankind history Europeans agreed to build an ‘Even Closer Union’ between the European states. The transformation was to be developed through the process of ‘evolution by which formerly hostile nation states would be drawn together until they could become integrated in a single political, economic and social entity’ (Welsh, 1996: 1). Although the EU states recently has been confronted with deep financial crisis the idea of European integration is a good example of organization which tends to create stable and secure supra-national community through political, economic, and legal integration of the European countries. In fact, a number of European leaders having understood what a disintegrating and destabilising power nationalism can have on the peace in Europe they initiated integration process of democratic and peaceful European Community. Due to its capacity to transform state sovereignty and its integrating potential the European Union is often perceived as the perfect example of cosmopolitanism in practice (Rifkin, 2004).

The present-day image of the EU, rather far from resembling the original idea of federation, can be defined as a ‘political, economic, social and legal hybrid with a combination of federal, confederal, supranational and intergovernmental features’ (Winer, 2004: 40). Political integration among the EU states has deepened to such an extent that in 1991 in the Maastricht Treaty the European leaders accepted the idea of European citizenship. The idea of a European citizenship creates the right for the citizens of the EU states enabling them to use a right of vote in each EU state in which they are situated at the time of elections for the European Parliament. As Fligstein (2008: 139) argues, people will “come to see each other less as Italian and French, and thus foreign, and more and more as sharing common interests, a process that eventually will lead to seeing themselves more as Europeans and less as having merely a national identity”. In addition, the European citizenship means that EU citizens can use embassy or consular services in the embassy of whichever EU states around the world. Although European integration model has its shortcomings and deficiencies such as powerful role of its richer countries such as France and Germany, it is currently the best political model of supranational character with a potential to reduce nationalist animosities and increase the level of solidarity. As Lichfield puts it, although substantial integration of the EU states may be destructive dream, the core supranational bodies of the EU are just as necessary as ever (2010).

Conclusions

It has been more than fifteen years since the war in Bosnia ended, and yet the differences among Serbs, Muslims and Croats still seem insurmountable as it was the case during the war.

Although Bosnia is supposed to go through deep Europeanisation process with other countries from the western Balkans, its political and economic reforms have progressed very slowly. As a result, Bosnia is today with Albania lagging behind other countries from the region on their path to the EU membership. In fact, ethnic rhetoric of ethno-nationalist leaders have almost blocked any meaningful and so needed adoption of the EU-related democratic norms and economic principles. Thus, the central rule which dominates public discourse in the country has been ethnic nationalism which is clearly incompatible with the EU-related reforms. That is, the process of ethno-nationalisation is the project of ethnic hardliners, which is making a country a dangerous 'powder keg'. In contrast, the process of Europeanisation or integration into Euro-Atlantic communities can to a significant extent guarantee peace and security for Bosnian ethnic groups. Therefore, it is now the critical time that political elites in Bosnia, like Schumann, Monnet, and Adenauer did, bravely intensify a European integration process and make the country part of a democratic and free Europe. In fact, we must make a choice between an ethnic apartheid that is likely to result in a new ethnic conflicts or a European democracy which can guarantee us long-term political stability and peaceful coexistence.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

Literature:

1. Atajic, Ramo (2002). Civilitet kroz povijest. Bihac.

2. Aybet, Gulnur, & Bieber, Florian, (2011). “From Dayton to Brussels: The Impact of EU and NATO Conditionality on State Building in Bosnia & Hercegovina”, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 63, No. 10, December 2011, 1911– 1937.

3. BH-News, (2011). “Podjela Bosne I Hercegovine je nemoguca bez novog rata”, BH-News, 20 April, 2011., available from http://bh-news.com/ba/vijest_det.php?vid=11676&r=1.

4. Brljavac, B. (2011). “ Institutional Discrimination against the Minority Groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Barrier to EU Membership”, Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2011, Vol. 14, No. 3, (7).

5. Chivvis, Cristopher, & Harun, Dogo, (2010). “Bosnia needs a renewed transatlantic effort”, Europe's World, Autumn 2010. 

6. Fligstein, N. (2008) “Euro-Clash: The EU, European Identity, and the Future of Europe”. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7. Flottan, Renate, & Kraske, Marion, (2005). “Dayton 10 Years On: Apartheid in Bosnia”, Spiegel Online International, 11.07.2005., available from http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,383962,00.html.

8. Juncos, Ana, E., (2011). “Europeanization by Decree? The Case of Police Reform in Bosnia”, JCMS, 2011, Volume 49. Number 2. pp. 367–389.

9. Kalyvas, Stathis, N., & Sambanis, Nicholas, (2005). “Bosnia's Civil War: Origins and Violence Dynamics”, in Paul Collier and Nicholas Sambanis (eds), Understanding Civil War: Evidence and Analysis, Washington, DC: The World Bank, Volume 2, 191-22.

10. Lichfield, J. (2010), “Europe Needs Sceptics”, ‘The Independent’ (Tuesday, 12 October, 2010), [online], Available from:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/john-lichfield-europe-needs-sceptics-2103912.html.

11. Mujkić, A (2007) We, the Citizens of the Ethnopolis, Constellations, Volume 14, Issue 1, 112-128.

12. Pasic, Lana, (2011). “The Dreams of One Nation? The Role of Political Leaders in Reconciliation and Nation-building in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, Balkanalysis, March 17, 2011.

13. Radaelli, C. M. (2004). “Europeanisation: Solution or problem?”, European Integration online Papers (EioP), 8 (2004)(16).

14. Rifkin, J. (2004). “The European Dream”. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Penguin, 2004.

15. Serwer, Daniel, (2011). “The Siren Call of Partition Could Lead Only to Disaster in Bosnia”, The European Institute, February 2011., http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-February-2011/the-siren-call-of-partition-could-lead-only-to-disaster-for-bosnia.html.

16. Soberg, Marius, (2008), “The Quest for Institutional Reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, East European Politics and Societies, 2008; 22; 714 originally published online Sep 8, 2008.

17. Todorova, M., (1994), “The Balkans: From Discovery to Invention”, Slavic Review, 53 (2), 1994, pp. 453-482.

18. Touquet, Heleen, and Vermeersch, Peter, (2008), “Bosnia and Herzegovina: Thinking Beyond Institution-Building”, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, Volume 14, Issue 2 April 2008 , pages 266 – 288.

19. Vucheva, Elitsa, (2008). “Bosnia signs EU pre-accession deal”, Euobserver, 17.06.2008., available from http://euobserver.com/15/26335.

20. Welsh M., (1996), “Europe United?: The European Union and The Retreat From Federalism”, Macmillan Press Ltd: London.

21. Whitlock, Craig, (2009). “Troubles Threaten Again In Bosnia,” The Washington Post, August 23, 2009. 

22. Winer A. and Diez T. (2004), “European Integration Theory”, Oxford University Press: New York.


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, 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. Meanwhile he has worked on a number of national and international research projects. His research interests are Transnational Relations, Multilateralism, Soft Power, Europeanization, EU Enlargement Policy, Democratization Theory, International Organizations, Transatlantic relations, and Western Balkans Politics.