The Nation/ state as case study: Bosnia

Conference paper presented in the conference

“Psychoanalysis and Democracy “

Columbia University

Organized in collaboration with the Association for Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society (APCS) and State University of New York

New York - October 15, 2005

 By Av. Jordan Daci, MA

Abstract:

The process of nation and national state creation in Bosnia was very complex and difficult which was accompanied by many tragic events. Basically, the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia was an inevitable process, which had a historical base of inequality among state’s creation ethnic groups and as a state with an evident artificial nature with a very heterogeneous ethnic population and because of other political factors. Furthermore, the failure of the leading Communist Party to reestablish new relationships with republics and other autonomous provinces was another good reason that served as a spark for the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia that is not yet completed.

The case of Bosnia represents without doubts a real challenge for the today’s model of democracy and of national state, especially taking into account the original meaning of the national state in the Balkans. Indeed, due to these specifics, what has been achieved in post-war Bosnia and other ongoing processes of national state creation in the Balkans, there is still an open question whether the process of national state creation in Bosnia has been completed?

Moreover the current status of Republika Srpska and the power of High Representative and its office do not promise any better future for Bosnia, which surely cannot be at this current stage forever. On the other hand, there is a clear political support of international community, especially of the European Union to maintain the current political status of Bosnia and Herzegovina by introducing the process of European Integration as a way of a final solution for Bosnia…  

Introduction

For many scholars after the Second World War, the era of nations and national states' creation was considered almost finished, except for some artificial national states, created at the beginning of 20^th century.[1][1] The creation of these national states was based merely on the ideology of annexation of territories from neighboring countries, not taking into account the ethnic composition of the concerned territories.

However, without underestimating the developments from the 1900s until to the beginning of the Second World War we can duly advocate the idea that the process of the creation of national states was considered finished in some way, right after the end of the Second World War. This was the time when these "national states" started having a real form in terms of administration and territorial unification. At this stage, many of these newly created national states with a strong artificial nature, established mostly by using force and repression, and having as a main ideology the inequality among state's creation ethnic groups, and with a clear chauvinist ideology in their relationship with the neighboring countries, were seen as a real model of the national state.

Even though the original idea of national state, especially for the Peoples of the Balkans was quite far away from this developed model.[2][2] It is understandable that this model was inspired and maintained alive for a certain period of time, by the communist ideology of brotherhood among communist countries, which were all united against the block of Western democracies. Consequently, the life of this developed model of the national state was not foreseen to be that long. Indeed with the fall of the communist regimes in Eastern block, it was more than clear that the existence of such artificial creations would end soon and this process would open a Pandora Box for these creations in attempting to reestablish their own new national states.

The former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was the most meaningful case where the inequality among state’s creation ethnic groups, and a clear chauvinist ideology in its relationship with the neighboring countries and other above-mentioned factors were developed for several decades. Its territorial and demographic composition was in question right after the failure of the leading communist party to reestablish new relationships with the republics and the permanent claim of the autonomous province of Kosova to become a Republic. On the other hand, parties' officials all over the former Yugoslavia used the nationalist wing in order to increase their political power.[3][3] The best example is the nationalistic speech of former dictator Milosevic in Kosova Field, who succeeded in gaining a strong political support by using the nationalistic ideas of Serbs for their old dream of Great Serbia.[4][4] The beginning of the dissolution of Yugoslavia opened the struggle of national state creation among nationalists in all former federal entities. 

Nevertheless, this failure was just a good pretext or a spark for starting the process of the dissolution of Yugoslavia that was clearly inevitable due to a new political situation in the Balkans and wider.   

The case of Bosnia

The process of dissolution of Yugoslavia, inspired by the right of Self-determination of nations and based on a strong nationalistic approach, involved all the state's entities including the former Yugoslav Republic of Bosnia, which was one of the six Republics of Yugoslavia for several decades.

However, due to the specific composition of the population, an early story of a national state of the former Bosnian Kingdom[5][5] and other political factors, the creation of Bosnian Nation and its National State was a very difficult process. Indeed, this process was accompanied by many tragic events. Therefore, because of these specific events, and what has been achieved during the post-war period, regarded in a regional perspective closely related with other ongoing processes[6][6] of national state creation in the Balkans, I believe there is still an open question whether this process has been completed?

The case of Bosnia (today Bosnia and Herzegovina) represents one of the most painful stories within the Balkans' drama after the fall of the former communist block and the dissolution of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Bosnia can be considered a 'sui generis'casein terms ofits characteristics in comparison to other cases of national state formation processes in the Balkan area. Indeed, right now without going into details, it is clear to all of us that the creation of Nations and the National State in Bosnia could not be achieved without going to war with Serbia (including the Serbs of Bosnia) and Croatia (including the Croats of Bosnia).  This process of nations and national state creation was primarily guided by nationalism, which in Walker Conner's words it is defined as: "a mass emotion, it is the most powerful political force operative in the world"[7][7] and the Yugoslav nationalist movement proved it. Surely it was the case when civic nationalism was transformed into an official one[8][8].

After the referenda held in Slovenia and Croatia, where their will to become independent from Yugoslavia was expressed, the nationalists within the Bosnian Muslim population started seriously thinking to declare their independence from Yugoslavia and to create their national state, which they had failed to create until than. Nevertheless, the population of Bosnia was not a homogeneous one. It was composed of Bosnians (Muslim Bosnians), Serbs and Croats and other small different ethnic groups, called Yugoslavs until the war.

After the short war in Slovenia and its successful secession, the Serbs continued opposing any further dissolution of their state. In supporting this idea they started mobilizing the Serbian population within the "rebel" republics supporting them with weapons and by political means. 

At the same time as the Bosnians, the Serbs of Bosnia started claiming their independence from Muslim Bosnians and unification with Serbia, while Bosnians were claiming the preservation of the entire territories of the former Republic of Bosnia. According to them, the new international confines had to be compatible with former administrative borders between respective republics. Moreover, the nationalists within the Serbian population in Bosnia lead by their spiritual leaders, Karadzic' and Mladic', fully supported by Belgrade, were not ready to accept any other solution, except their independence and the unification with their mother state, Serbia. Beside this request they had a lot of territorial claims in the northeastern part of Bosnia and in south eastern Croatia, trying to rebuild a new National state of Serbs, their Great Serbia, losing as few as possible territories. At the same time Croats also were thinking creating their own national state, claiming territories within Bosnia in the area where Croats were living, particularly in the south west of Bosnia.

Due to these developments, in April 1992, a new war started in Bosnia. At the beginning between Serbs and Bosnians and than it was a surprise when Croats, the only allies of Bosnians unexpectedly attacked their Muslim allies on March 9, 1993, and this was "a war within a war".[9][9] This war within a war continued until March 1994, when in a Peace Agreement was concluded in Washington, between Croats and Bosnians by establishing a pre-"national" state structure, the Federation of Croats and Bosnians of former Bosnia, called the Federation of Bosnia -Herzegovina. The conflict in Bosnia, besides other possible definitions according to Liljana  Mijovic, was primarily a conflict of armed members of different ethnic and religious communities. [10][10]

The united army of Serbs started occupying many territories of Bosnia and Croatia due to their military superiority and lack of international support to Bosnians and their allies, Croats. Although, after many mass graves and massacres against Bosnians and Croats committed by Serbs the situation changed side. This was the moment when international community intervened, stopping the advance of Croats and Bosnians' troops toward Banjaluka, today the capital of Republika Srpska. By doing this, the international community, basically the US and others, wanted to stop another "Sebrenica", but this time probably in Banjaluka. Indeed, another strong reason beyond the first one was that the maintenance of control over Banjaluka by Serbs was the very last chance for a possible future peace between parties involved.   

Fortunately, although it was too late, all this absurdity and conflict for identity and national states ended with the Dayton Peace Agreement, a US made agreement signed in November 1995 that constituted Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH), comprising two entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska. It is a unique example of a "Confederation" rather than a Federation, where administrative border goes along ethnic lines and where you have almost two Capitals and too often different foreign policies. Today's BiH has the largest bureaucracy in comparison with other federal states taking into account its extent and number of inhabitants.

Nevertheless, all these ethnic groups have a common state, which for some of them might be considered a national state. The new state of Bosnians, Serbs and Croats as a Federation of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska with its international name "The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina", was established by the Dayton Peace Agreement, which foresees a large autonomy to Serbs of Bosnia, who practically have their own state, called Republika Srpska and to Croats as well, but without having their own state. Currently the Republika Srpska, comprises 49 % of the territories, the rest 51 % is for Bosnians and Croats.  

The process of nation and national state creation in Bosnia was very difficult. The Bosnians, Croats, and Serbs had to do what Benedict Anderson called Nation as an Imaged Community.[11][11] At the beginning of this process the only visible difference among those people was the religion and some other small linguist differences among regions, but never enough to avoid the war. In fact ethnic communities in pre-war Bosnia were other defined rather than self-defined.[12][12] The degree of self-consciences was quite far from the degree of a nation “as a community of descent”.[13][13]  Nevertheless, today these new created nations look much more different than before.  The new State of Bosnia and Herzegovina, has a unique way of functioning. Although, these are sole some of problems of Bosnian's democracy.

Conclusion

It is quite clear that the process of nation and national state creation in Bosnia was very complex and difficult for several above-mentioned reasons.  From a simplistic point of view it seems that now this process has been completed and that all parties concerned are happy with what they have achieved, although that had to pay a very high price. Indeed, by carefully analyzing the current situation in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina, and what is going on and is expected to happen during the coming years in the Balkans, it is really doubtful to think that the process of nation/state creation in BiH has been finished. The Dayton Peace Agreement-DPA did end the war and attributed in some ways a victory to the international community, but as Clinton said during his speech in Kosovo "peace is still to be won", that also fits the Bosnia.

The future status of Republika Srpska is still an open question, because the current status could never fulfill the conditions to be part of a common "national state" of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The current BiH under the DPA agreement and its constitution as one of the annexes it is just a form of legitimization of ethnically-based state's institutions and ethnic divisions according to ethnic lines. The current general legal framework and relationship between state entities in BiH does not ensure a better future for this newly established "national" state. Furthermore, today's democracy in BiH is not a democracy, where free people decide for themselves, as long as the High Representative “has the power of a colonial viceroy”[14][14] and in the same time he and its Office are non-democratically elected and practically uncontrollable. The future of BiH seems grayer if we also take into consideration the developments within the Balkans.

However, maybe such events as the inauguration of the new reconstructed Bridge of Mostar, on 23^rd of July 2004 might be considered as a new era of reconciliation between those nations moving all together toward the difficult way of European Integration that might be the final solution. Surely this is not the end of history…

 Bibliography

1- Benedict Anderson.  “Nation as an Imaged Community" in Hutchinson, J, and A. Smith (Eds.) Nationalism. Oxford University Press. 1994.

2-  Dusan Janic. “Ethnic Conflicts and the Breakup of Former Yugoslavia”. Longo Editore, Ravena, 1997.

3-  Dusan Janic. Ethnic Conflicts and Minorities in a Multiethnic Society. Department of Ethnic Studies, University of Linkoping. CEUS, Sweden, 2002.

4-  Martin Sletzinger. “Iraq  Through the Lens of Bosnia and Kosovo”. Director of East Studies at Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available at http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.item&news_id=24039. Accessed on 01.08.2004.

 5-  Max Weber. "The Nation" in Hutchinson, J, and A. Smith (Eds.) Nationalism. Oxford University Press. 1994.

6-  Liljana Mijovic. "Human Rights in Bosnia". In Papic, Zarko (Eds.): International Support Polities to South-East European Countries-Lession (Not) Learned in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Muller Sarajevo 2001.

7-  Paini Sergio. "MOSTAR, UN PONTE CHE DIVIDE". (per L’Eco di Bergamo) 16/07/2004. Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

8-  Rogers Brubaker. “Nationalism Reframed. Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. Press Syndicate. University of Cambridge. USA, 1995.

9-  Walker Conner. "A Nation is a Nation, is a State, is an Ethnic Group, is a…" in Hutchinson, J, and A. Smith (Eds.) Nationalism. Oxford University Press. 1994.