Reflections from the Course: Learning about the “Bosnian Style” of Populism and the Dual Hegemony of Ethnonationalism and International Intervention
Author: Ana Gvozdić, Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
None of us who started this course had a simplistic understanding of Bosnia and Herzegovina that I encounter far too often: the idea that we are a country with irreconcilable ethnic groups that have been fighting for longer than any of us can remember. Not only that the course immediately distinguished its approach from such superficial understandings, but it offered unique perspectives for interpreting the last 25 years in Bosnia and Herzegovina grounded in local-first, feminist, and workers’ acts of resistance to the dominant ethno-nationalist politics in the country. Having engaged with these different grassroots voices, I share the new concepts and ways of thinking that I acquired as part of the course and reflect on how they shaped my understanding of Bosnia and Herzegovina as its citizen, but also as a student of Peace and Conflict Studies with an emphasis on the Southeast European region and as future practitioner. In the following sections, I look at the analysis of contemporary Bosnian politics through the lens of populism, which allows shifting attention away from ethnic divisions onto class divisions. This shift brings to the surface the neglect of socioeconomic justice in peace literature and helps interpret workers’ protests that occurred in 2014 in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As I reference new ways of understanding the contemporary Bosnian politics and the liberal peacebuilding framework more broadly, I point out the ways in which these insights proved relevant to me based on my identities as a citizen and a scholar.
Starting the course through the lens of nationalism and populism helped me deepen my understanding of the Dayton ethnonational political structure in Bosnia and Herzegovina in a way that went beyond the aforementioned assumptions about the impossibility of collaboration across groups. When explaining the political structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina established by the Dayton Peace Agreement, my friends always surprisingly responded when they realized that we effectively have three presidents, each “representing” one of the constituent groups – Bosniaks, Bosnian Croats, and Bosnian Serbs. In their exploration of the “Bosnian style” of populism – the Ethno-national Populism – Bojanić-Savić and Repovac Nikšić (2019) do not shy away from acknowledging that “this structure has cemented the divisions and enabled the continuation of permanent peacetime tensions between the ethnic groups” (p. 295). However, they go on and claims that these tensions “are now exploited by the ethno-nationalist political elites” (p. 295). How do they do that? Bojanić-Savić and Repovac Nikšić (2019) explain that by advocating for the rights of their own people, the ethno-nationalist leaders use their political power to create and maintain their economic power (p. 297). In other words, a system that emphasizes the divisions based on ethnonational identity allows political elites to emerge as protectors of their ethnonational group – a position that provides them with the power to benefit financially and consolidate their rule. For this reason, the authors argue that the ethno-nationalist politicians themselves are “the corporations that finance their own campaigns and buy votes” (p. 297). This interpretation of the political landscape completely shifts the way we conceptualize it, from three boxes of people with their corresponding politicians, to a top box of politicians, and a bottom box of the people in three separate sub-boxes, if you so insist. As my first opportunity to vote in local elections is approaching, this image lingers in my thoughts, but I also wonder what this mental shift – from ethnic divisions to divisions based on economic and political power – means for my academic field?
This course made me aware of the calls from the critical peace study literature to pay greater attention to socioeconomic issues, again referencing the grassroots voices that were at the center of our course. I engaged with Pugh’s (2018) efforts to work against the absence of historically fashioned class dynamics from “studies of resistance in peacebuilding” by looking at workers’ conditions before and after the war, as well as acts of resistance through unions and unrest (p. 151). The call for greater attention to class dynamics in the peacebuilding literature was further strengthened by Richmond’s (2014) claims that “neoliberal forms of capitalism are not conductive to peacebuilding in a post-conflict transition” (p. 451). He pointed out that although continuing material inequality is inevitable, the failure to protect the citizens by the state and the international community undermines their legitimacy, leading to a response from the citizens. In 2014, workers protested across cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. To interpret the international community’s inability to understand their claims, Lai (2016) points out that the marginalization of socioeconomic justice issues stemmed from “the links between international intervention and post-socialist neoliberal economic reforms” with a two-fold impact: not only that the international interventions failed to “address socioeconomic injustice directly”, but it also “supported reform programmes that further aggravated social conditions” (p. 3). On the one hand, people are protesting based on their socioeconomic reality in a society depicted as a permanent ethnonational battleground; on the other hand, the international community’s intervention neglects socioeconomic issues in peacebuilding efforts, institutes economic reforms that perhaps do more bad than good, and on top of that fails to even interpret the local’s acts of resistance within the dominant framework that they use. Instead, they seek to hear “a call for social and economic reform compatible with the international agenda” (p. 20). Such stark criticism of peacebuilding and transitional justice mechanisms, based on fieldwork experience with activists on the ground, served as a helpful push for me to embrace greater attention to issues of socio-economic justice in my further work in Peace and Conflict Studies – something I was reluctant to do under my self-perceptions as not the “econ type”. I appreciate this reminder that, in order to critically approach my studies, I must pay attention to class issues too. In addition to relevant insights for my academic experiences, this course also explored the NGO and IGO world, fields that represent natural career choices based on my educational background.
Continuing with the study of the 2014 protests, we considered the role of the civil society in resistance efforts. I have found Puljek-Shank and Fritsch’s (2019) concept of “dual hegemony” particularly useful. They argued that the 2014 activists were responding to the dual hegemony of ethnonationalism and liberal peace. In that context, not only were they protesting against the corrupt politicians, but also criticizing the features of international intervention, which I outlined above. For this reason, the protestors also tried to stay independent from the civil society, rejecting collaborations and institutionalization of their informal groups (Puljek-Shank & Fritsch, 2019). While I was aware of the negative perceptions of certain civil society actors in my community, I was more focused on my dissatisfaction with Bosnia’s politicians, and I let some of my positive experiences with NGOs develop a kind of good-bad binary between the government and the non-governmental sector. The comprehensive nature of this approach which examined all the different, relevant actors – the state, the international community, NGOs, informal groups – served as a gentle reminder to my idealistic side that it is perhaps even more important that I critically assess those whose activities enmeshed in the language of peace and human rights seem so positive to me, yet they might also be causing harm. We explored this dynamic further with Prof. Čengić, considering the ways in which civil society actors, busy with grant-writing in their uncertain, project-based careers, internalize the liberal peacebuilding language, which they must master to secure funds and provide for themselves. In that process, the same liberal peacebuilding framework, which I criticized above, remains unquestioned. As I am nearing the end of my undergraduate degree, I hope to keep these insights close and be able to carry the critical peace study lenses into my future career positions.
The desire to carry the lessons from the course speaks about its value for me. This course introduced me to the understandings of the ethno-nationalist politics in Bosnia and Herzegovina as the “Bosnian style” of populism. It allowed me to interpret the 2014 protests through the “dual hegemony” idea. These and other new concepts and ways of thinking helped me better understand my own society, signaled important omissions in my field of study, and shared relevant insights about my potential future career fields. I am so grateful to the organizers, lecturers, and my colleagues for allowing me to learn so much this summer.
Bibliography:
Bojanić-Savić, M., & Repovac Nikšić, V. (2019). “How We Understand Populism?” Popular Responses to Populist Politics in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sociological Problems, (Special Issue), 291–311.
Čengić N.N. ‘What is a 'real job'? Transformation of Work and International Intervention’. Unpublished paper, work in progress. (17 pages)
Lai, D. (2016). Transitional justice and its discontents: Socioeconomic justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the limits of international intervention. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 10(3), 361-381.
Pugh M. (2018). Precarity in Post-Conflict Yugoslavia: What About the Workers?. Civil Wars. 20(2), 151-170, DOI: 10.1080/13698249.2018.1477269
Puljek-Shank, R. & Fritsch F. (2019). Activism in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Struggles against Dual Hegemony and the Emergence of ‘Local First’. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures. 1-22.
Richmond O. (2014). The impact of socio-economic inequality on peacebuilding and statebuilding. Civil Wars. 16(4), 1-19.
