Bosnia and Herzegovina experienced one of the most bloody secessions during the dissolution of Yugoslavia. The main three ethnic groups; Croats, Bosniaks, and Serbs who had lived peacefully for years, demanded independence and backed their claim with their states in the region.
Slobodan Milošević who was the President of Serbia at the time was conducting ferocious campaigns against Bosnia. During these incidents, after multiple traumas occurred which are still reverberating worldwide, many Muslims lost their lives. The traces of what was happening can be seen on Ferhat Pasha Street which is located in Sarajevo, the current capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The vitalization of Serbian shelling over the people who had queued to buy some bread exists in a commemoration museum for the Bosnian War. This situation clearly puts forward a high level of trauma. In addition to that, the Srebrenica Genocide, which is the largest massacre after the Second World War, and in which more than 8 thousand people were murdered that could not be stopped by the disputed Dutch United Nations forces attracted colossal criticism and reaction from the world.[i]
Followingly, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), by interfering with the conflict, commenced the bombing of the Serbian outposts. After the intervention, the negotiations were initiated and the Treaty of Dayton that ended the Bosnian War was signed in 1995 between Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian leaders. The Accord suggested the maintenance of a single-state structure of Bosnia and the creation of a federal structure that is composed of two entities. One would be the Bosniak-Croat Federation, and the other would be the Bosnian-Serb Republic (The Republika Srpska), and Sarajevo being the capital. Other than that, the Brčko District had been divided into these two entities prior to the autonomy verdict that was imposed by the International Arbitration Award. Accordingly, as of the year in question, the district has been being ruled on its own as a separate entity of the federal state alongside the other two. Yet, the two main entities have their own constitutions and governments with the existence of the Council for the absence of consensus on internal matters.[ii]
The President’s Office in the country rotates among the three major ethnic groups. Namely, a Bosnian, a Serbian, and a Croat are elected for a 4-year term and govern the country on an 8-month rotating basis. This system faces huge criticisms as it has the potential for a big conflict out of the lack of trust between the presidents. These criticisms are not groundless. Yet, given that the armed conflict had been halted, the system seems to have progressed. Undoubtedly, keeping relative peace in the country would be troublesome to achieve as the animosities between the ethnic groups gained the highest impetus and reached their climax just thirty years ago.[iii]
In the country, the presidential structure is, at some point, leading to disputes among the presidents. Normally, the three presidents govern the country on an 8-month rotating basis, but they, purportedly, prefer to participate in the meetings altogether as they do not trust each other thoroughly. This action shows how fractured the political stability of the country is. Moreover, there are multiple regulations regarding ministerial appointments. For instance, two-thirds of the ministers cannot be appointed by the Federation. Besides, the Parliamentary Assembly is a bicameral legislative branch. One of them is the House of Peoples consisting of 15 delegates who serve two-year terms. Two-thirds of the delegations of the House of Peoples are elected equally from the Bosnian Federation as 5 Croats and 5 Bosniaks, and the rest 5 are elected from the Serbian Republic. Another chamber is the House of Representatives consisting of 42 members elected for four-year terms. The distribution pattern is quite the same as the one that is implemented for the House of Peoples. Two-thirds of the delegates of the House of Representatives are elected from Bosnia who are 14 Bosniaks and 14 Croats. The rest 14 are elected from the Serbian Republic in the Federation all the same. A similar distribution pattern is executed in different branches as well.[iv]
The aforementioned structure represents a collective response to the management of ethnic diversity and hostility. Taking into account that the current entities waged war against one another just thirty years ago, the results so far can be considered a success and progress. Yet, only a minor and tenuous stimulant might lead to another conflict. Even though the post-Dayton system was derived out of an armistice, such a structure can be considered as a sample for the countries that are scuffling with similar issues as it had ended the 4-year-long armed conflict in Bosnia.
The Balkans represent harmonization. Thus, given that the region went through multiple conflicts alike, the countries in the region might need such systems and their variations over time. However, as mentioned above, there will always be a possibility for a new conflict to arise in the regions like the Balkans. Because a system is relatively functional in Bosnia, it is not supposed to mean that it will be all the same for other nations. Eventually, it would not be that straightforward for the people who lost their relatives in the Srebrenica Genocide to live harmoniously with the Serbs.
Furthermore, apart from the relative function of the system, other entities in the country are currently not represented in the Parliament. Other than that, the federal structure can be regarded as a weak central government. Yet, the federal government in Bosnia has a stronger central authority compared to its counterparts. Under the roof of the complicated issues, the accession process of Bosnia and Herzegovina into the European Union encounters sturdy impediments. Ultimately, like other Balkan countries, establishing cooperation and partnership through international organizations bears a high essentiality for Bosnia.
In conclusion, there will always be tension among the people although the armed conflict seems to have been resolved. The lack of mistrust between the Presidents is a substantial embodiment of such fractures. Yet, the equal and just distribution of the entities in the Council and other branches is necessary for a path toward peace and fruitful cooperation. By doing such, though seemed impossible, the people with traumas might be incentivized to set their animosities aside and move forward. Despite such a process being troublesome, even in such a country with a flawed democracy, a new conflict can be prevented from arising thanks to an increasing awareness of the people through campaigns and integrations. Removing doubts concerning the administration is more foundational matter for the people. Because such doubts are a huge hurdle from a political legitimacy point of view there will always be upheavals in countries which has not plainly demanded legitimacy from their people.
[i] Haliloğlu, G. (2018). Administrative-Political Structure of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Identity Question, Atlas International Refereed Journal on Social Sciences. 12(4), 972-974.
[ii] “Bosnia and Herzegovina, Potential Candidate”, European Committee of the Regions, division of POWERS, https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/Bosnia-Herzegovina.aspx, (Access Date: 08.10.2024)
[iii] Malik, J. (2000). The Dayton Agreement and Elections in Bosnia: Entrenching Ethnic Cleansing through Democracy, Stanford Journal of International Law, 36, 303.
[iv] Lamba, M. & Hisoğlu Koç, T. (2022). Administrative Structure of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 5(1), 74-87.
