False Hope for Democracy in Bosnia & Herzegovina
Bosnia & Herzegovina (B&H) is notoriously hard to govern. Scarred from a bloody war in the 1990s after the collapse of Yugoslavia, the country’s constitutional order emerged in international peace talks in the United States. What later became famous as the Dayton Peace Agreement (DPA) might have stopped the war but, in our opinion, sowed the seeds for complex democratic problems today. As we will show in this text, the ECtHR’s judgments represent a false hope for democracy in B&H, because ethnopolitical parties in B&H will not agree on how to implement the ECtHR’s judgments and the Office of the High Representative will not take a more active role in this context. We therefore argue against an earlier contribution on this blog by Woelk (2023), who suggested that the solution for the implementation of the ECtHR’s judgments should come from within the country, as we will show, ethnopolitical actors do not have a real interest in implementing these judgments. To put it bluntly, change from within is, alas, pie in the sky. It is much more likely that nothing changes and the powers that are remain the powers that will be.
Continue reading >>
Christian Schmidt’s Stabilitocracy
The High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina Christian Schmidt has imposed amendments to the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Election Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina. By this decision, Schmidt questioned the role of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina – should Bosnia and Herzegovina be a democratic state or a state of ‘ethnic stabilitocracy’? Schmidt showed us that ‘ethnic stabilitocracy’ is the current aim of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Continue reading >>