Political Populism and Extremism in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a Threat to Democracy, Trust and Mutual Respect
Author: Aleksandar Ivanović1
The complex history of BiH has placed religion at the very center of the collective identities of Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks. The national identities of the three largest ethnic groups in BiH are primarily based on religion, in which religion is not only a group of believers but also an important part of an individual’s cultural identity.[i] Such a strong connection between religious and national identity also results in the difficult creation of civic identities, based on a common vision of the state and its future. If we look at the political scene dominated by the national parties of the three majority nations, we can see that there is no consensus in Bosnia and Herzegovina on any key state and political issues among these ethnic groups, and although there is something that all three constituent peoples agree on, for independence in deciding on important national issues of their social group, and more importantly, preventing other social groups from deciding on these issues. In a polarized political environment characterized by a specific connection between political affiliation and national/ethnic or religious identity, conflicting interests of the three constituent peoples on key state and political issues and insufficient development of civic identities, a fertile ground for political populism has been created which contains elements of extreme narratives that to a considerable extent hinder the establishment of democracy, building trust and mutual respect between members of different ethnic and religious groups.
Specifics of the Relationship Between Political Populism and Political Extremism in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Populism has been increasingly seen as an attitude based on listening to the needs of the people. Populists believe that decision-makers have moved away from what “ordinary people” consider important and this is considered a major shortcoming, which is why the main goal of politicians should be to listen to people and “interpret” what they consider important into political decisions.[ii] In this regard, populism is an ideology that opposes a homogeneous people with virtues, a set of elites and dangerous “others” who are described as depriving a sovereign nation of its rights, values, progress, identity and voice.[iii] From the aspect of populism, a special problem is the populists’ effort to secure the so-called “will of the people” by directing popular dissatisfaction towards individuals and social groups that have no rational connection with the causes of their dissatisfaction or who more or less share the same unfavorable conditions with dissatisfied social groups. In theory, such groups are called “dangerous others” and their basic feature is that they endanger the homogeneity and unity of the common people because they are committed to the realization of “special interests”.[iv] When it comes to BiH, “dangerous others” means primarily members of other national/ethnic and religious groups that traditionally live in this area. Populism needs an enemy, and in that sense the enemy presents himself as someone who is convinced to harm a given nation, to take from it what rightfully belongs to it, and to endanger the life and way of life of a given nation.[v] Myths about the nation, ethnicity and the need to protect the identity were used in the former Yugoslavia through populist strategies and extreme narratives to provoke tensions, which led to the civil war. In fact, the nationalist leaders of the 1990s, with their populist approach that contains elements of extreme narratives, tried to convince “their” people that the Yugoslav elites had ignored the legitimate demands of that people for identity, sovereignty and security for too long thus paying attention to these legitimate demands was presented as something that was welcome and that was the need of that people. Unfortunately, something similar, apropos of BiH, still exists today, and is a serious obstacle to the establishment of democracy, trust and mutual respect between different ethnic and religious groups living in this country.
Analysis of Populist and Extreme Narratives in the Political Life of Bosnia and Herzegovina
If we enter the analysis of the political speeches of the leaders of the three largest national parties in BiH, we will see that they are primarily conceived on populist discourse, which is based on listening to the needs of their own people to protect national identity. The protection of national identity is the most vital value of the people living in this area, which is generally considered a necessity of physical survival. Considering the very turbulent history of BiH, the fear of endangering the identity, national sovereignty and security of the given social groups is deeply ingrained. It is this fear that affects members of all three groups and intensifies the need to protect these values. This need has been recognized by the political leaders of the leading political options in BiH, and populist-extreme narratives have been tailored on that basis. In relation to narratives of political populism, they are based on the discourse of protecting the vital values of the “ordinary” own people from dangerous “others”, which means the other two peoples. What is characteristic of all three populist narratives is the subordination of the satisfaction of some everyday needs, such as the need for infrastructure, employment, better health care, education, etc., the need to protect national identity, sovereignty and social security. In addition, the populist narratives coming from the political leaders of all three constituent peoples in BiH have a firm stance on the issue of looking at the role of their people in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and consider it a sacred sanctuary.
In all three narratives, the cult of on-duty culprits and on-duty “dangerous others” is cultivated, with the fact that the citizens who belong to the so-called “dangerous others” struggle with the same problems and adversities, so the question can rightly be asked how much they really contributed to the bad situation of a given national/ethnic or religious community, or how much they really pose a threat to its vital values. The narratives of the leading political options in BiH do not offer solutions to many problems, but present their options as the only saviors of their people, the only saviors of the situation, without explaining how they will protect the vital values of “ordinary people”. Political leaders in BiH address primarily their people, and representatives of their people who are committed to this political option (pre-determined voters). With their skillful rhetoric, they emphasize their ideas as the ideas of the people to whom they are addressing, and their commitment to put them into practice by playing, while playing the card of mobilizing emotions. In these narratives, there is extremity that is manifested in exclusivity, in the sense of recognizing the existence of only one adequate political ideology (one’s own), the absence of the option of dialogue and rigidity on the issue of one’s own national policy.
All this leads to a lack of consensus on any key state and political issue among the leading political options of the three constituent peoples in BiH. In this regard, the question arises whether and to what extent the national identity of one of the three constituent peoples in BiH is endangered by the other two, given that all three peoples share the same unfavorable conditions and have the same problems? How much is the necessity of protecting the national identity from the so-called “dangerous others” represents the will of the people, or is it primarily an idea that is placed on the people by political leaders? In which direction are the rigid and starting positions of the political leaders of the three constituent peoples in BiH, which exclude the option of dialogue between the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society? In this constellation of political narratives and relations, how to talk about the establishment of a democratic society, with a high level of mutual trust?
1Aleksandar Ivanović is an associate professor of criminal law at the Faculty of Law, PEM University of Banja Luka. His areas of interest are hate crimes, hate speech, discrimination, peaceful conflict resolution and confidence building. In addition to scientific and educational work at several higher education institutions in the Western Balkans, he is also active in the civil sector as an activist for the protection of human rights and the promotion of the concept of human security.
Sources:
————————-
[i] Vukoičić, J. (2012). War and National Identity of Serbs in the Republic of Srpska. Doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Political Science, Belgrade.
[ii] Rooduijn, M.; Akkerman, T. (2015). Flank attacks: Populism and left-right radicalism in Western Europe. Party Politics, 1-12.
[iii] Albertazzi, D.; McDonnell, D. (2008). Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy. New York: Palgrave Mecmilan.
[iv] Šalaj, B. (2012). Suvremeni populizam. Anali Hrvatskog politološkog društva, 9 (1): 21– 49.
[v] Brewer, M. (2016). Populism in American Politics. The Forum 14 (3), pp. 249-264.
