Is Bosnia-Herzegovina one nation?
- Nadia Dalla Gasperina
- 26 feb 2021
- Tempo di lettura: 5 min
Aggiornamento: 8 ago 2023
After centuries of foreign domination, imperialist interests, assimilation and break-ups, the Balkans still seem to be in search of what separates one country from another, and what instead unites them. As far as culture is concerned, they have a lot in common: similar foods, dances, festivities; the religious question is more complicated but it does not always play a key role; politics and identity is instead the center of the question. Bosnia-Herzegovina is probably the most divided of all Balkan countries, starting from its name which immediately separates the State into two entities: Bosnia, the largest region with a defined cultural identity, and Herzegovina, the smaller region and sharing the territory with the Republika Srpska. Talking of which, the Republika Srpska is contrapposed to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, meaning that there are two separate entities in the territory. Along with the two regions there is also the autonomous unit of Brčko. The question is however not only territorial, but also ethnic and cultural, and in fact the geographical borders more or less coincide with the distribution of the three main ethnic groups: Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks (meaning Muslim Bosnians). As a result, each ethnic group administers its own institutions and regulations, while the central government also has a role in the politics of the country, resulting in major confusion and overlapping of services that are consequently mismanaged. One important last introductory point to be made is that for the general elections Bosnians can register only as either Serbs, Croats, or Bosniaks, so that those who don’t identify with any of these ethnicities are treated as “second-class citizens”, commonly known as “ostali”. It is therefore evident that the country is overwhelmed with confusion, bad governance, and corruption, leaving most of its citizens actually unrepresented in the system.The Constitution of BiH itself is flawed in this sense; it starts in fact with declaring the adherence to the principles of the United Nations and the precept of non-discrimination on the grounds of, among the other factors, “religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status”. There is an evident contradiction between allowing only three official groups to vote and to actually perform their role as citizens, and the text of the constitution that seems to be very open and acknowledging all groups of people living in BiH. Moreover, the constituent people are cited by the constitution as being Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs, adding “Others” only in brackets, hence putting them on a lower step.
The Balkans are a complex region in terms of history, as they have been the centre of three main cultural groups: western european, eastern european/asian, and turkik, all of which represent very different values and have come to the region with distinct interests. Because of matters of religion, agriculture, and later politics, there have been several migratory flows inside and outside Bosnia and Herzegovina, inevitably causing conflicts. A fundamental division, closely related to ethnicity, takes place along the lines of religion: in the country we can find Muslims as the main religion, but there are also Orthodoxs and Catholics. Although during Communism the role of religion was downplayed, it was a central element of the war in Yugoslavia and appears to be now a distinctive feature of self-identification in BiH, going as far as representing one of the country’s ethnic groups. By law, the Bosnian state can negotiate agreements with religious entities, which it has done in previous years. Besides, religious figures have run for public office, giving way to critics and mixed feelings. Therefore, we can notice how religion in Bosnia and Herzegovina has a dual role which contributes to dividing the nation: citizens are almost obliged to identify with a religion, especially if put against the Bosniaks that traditionally pertain to Islam. Still, the Constitution designs BiH as a secular State and naturally represents the existence of atheists. However, religion is almost always used by the political elites as an instrument of ethno-nationalist propaganda, so to appeal to a section of the electorate in a very populist manner. Basically, the Constitution - and thus the State, allows religion and politics to be separate, but the reality is much different, with religion being a key point for selfhood and recognition.
Religious education is a right in school as well, so that the thirteen entities responsible for implementing it in each of the cantons need to protect religious freedom and tolerance. Hence, religious education varies quite substantially from a canton to another. Apart from this fact, which seems reasonable given the variety of religious identities in the country, there is another peculiar characteristic of the Bosnian education system, namely segregation. The “two schools under one roof” policy is indeed quite common, so that there are separate entrances, classes, and even teachers for children of different ethnicity, meaning that pupils will not only have less chances of meeting each other and understanding a different “culture” from the one they were born into, but they will also sometimes receive divergent education on history, politics, and on all those subjects that can be interpreted based on the ethnic group. This system is a heritage of the ‘90s, that however persists despite clear protests from students, some teachers, and much less clear international complaints. It is not difficult to see how such organization can only prolong the conflicts and distrusts among the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and how it greatly affects the future of the country. It is also commonly understood that action must be taken at a higher level than single schools or even districts; the federal government should intervene, but again the Constitution provides no explicit guidance, given the fact that it both promotes the affirmation of one’s identity and the prohibition of discrimination. In any case, it seems unlikely that the Bosnian system complies with international standards or guidelines.
To conclude, it is very difficult to consider Bosnia and Herzegovina as one nation. This is due to many reasons: first of all, the administrative/political boundaries retrace basically all the minimal differences that separate one place to another, basing themselves especially on the recent events of the war in Yugoslavia and then in Bosnia. Such division results in a very confusing governance and on a political system that not only is highly inefficient, but takes propaganda and ethno-nationalism as its main source of power. The Constitution in this sense does not help: written by external forces, it aims at providing too many distinct things in one document, creating contrasts and ambiguities. What is more, the federal government does not appear very interested in changing things, leaving important decisions to the lower levels of the administration and in some cases to the religious authorities, so that nothing is actually accomplished. Education is probably the most concerning thing about BiH, as it advertises divisions since a very young age. It is complex to judge from an external perspective on what steps the State should take to promote a positive view of nationalism, as well as a shared national feeling, and I believe thoughts and actions should stem from the people directly living the situation. However, representation and good governance are certainly key issues, which would deconstruct much of the divisions that are to be found now in the country and perhaps lead to further bottom-up action. Nevertheless, a long time will pass before Bosnia and Herzegovina will be able to consider itself as a nation, given that almost thirty years have passed from the war and change is happening slowly.