VIEWS FROM THE CAPITALS

Spring 2007

by Sevima Sali-Terzic

RELATED ARTICLES:

---

Bosnia and Herzegovina's constitution can be seen either as a scapegoat for the country's failure to heal its deep ethnic divisions or as a Holy Grail, representing peoples' hopes for a democratic future. In a recent opinion poll, one man who has now been unemployed for seven years said his top priority is constitutional change. The present one is widely seen as a major cause of unemployment, poverty, corruption and all the other misfortunes of this country’s post-war “transition”. Many Bosnians seem to believe that constitutional change will magically make their misfortunes disappear.

The constitution was drawn up in the 1990s as part of the Dayton peace accord that ended the bloody inter-ethnic conflict between Muslims, Croats and Serbs. The international conference held on a US airforce base in Dayton, Ohio created two entities, a Muslim-Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Bosnian Serb Republic of Srpska. Each has its own institutions of state responsible for most government functions, and there is also a central Bosnian government with a rotating presidency.

But both the country and Bosnia's political parties are still deeply divided along ethnic lines. Bosnia and Herzegovina remains under the titular leadership of an international High Representative, and an EU stablisation force is still stationed there.

Ever since its adoption, the Bosnia and Herzegovina constitution has been much criticised for all the post-war failures of both local authorities and the international community. Regardless of their affiliation most politicians have used the constitution as excuse for ethnic divisions and the “homogenisation” of different parts of the country along ethnic lines. Certainly the constitution’s existence has done nothing to reconcile the politicians’ conflicting aims; some demand the abolition of Republika Srpska, others claim the right to organise a referendum on the formal secession of Srpska from the multi-ethnic state. Rather than serving as a bridge from war to democracy, the constitution has been used to further the divisions between communities.

Last year had been heralded as the start of a new era. Negotiations began with Brussels on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU as Bosnia and Herzegovina’s first step towards EU membership. Talks also began among Bosnian political parties over amendments to the constitution. But as the parties were unable to secure the parliamentary majority they needed the amendments failed. Constitutional reform will continue to dominate domestic politics in 2007, and will also figure highly on the international agenda. Unfortunately though, Bosnia’s leaders and citizens have yet to hold a much-needed debate on the common values that the new constitution should proclaim and protect. There may rightly be serious objections to the present constitution, but it does at least lay down some basic principles that are a starting point for strengthening both the state and democratic society; such concepts as pluralist democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the market economy are already enshrined in it.

International pressure will probably ensure that the process of constitutional reform continues, but there are a number of lessons to be drawn from past failures. First, the process must be transparent and open to the public. One of the major factors that has contributed to the lack of a consensus on constitutional values is the undemocratic way the present constitution was drawn up. It is the lack of public accountability rather than the constitution itself that has proved an insurmountable obstacle.

To regain “ownership” of the reform process, the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina need a public debate on the values that all can share. What nobody knows is whether there is enough political will in Bosnia for that debate to begin.