Bosnia’s others
Despite the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, the political rights of the so-called “other” citizens are still hampered in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Today, we can observe the lack of effective mechanisms for the participation of minorities in public life.
National minorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina do not have effective access to their rights. The country is still deeply divided between the three constituent ethnicities – Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs – but also a fourth constitutional group, comprising more than a dozen other national minorities, called “the others”. The others are subject to institutional discrimination and they cannot fully participate in the country’s political processes and are treated as second-rate citizens.
July 7, 2020 -
Anastasiya Ilyina
- 
Issue 4 2020MagazineStories and ideas
The parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to the Constitution, which was created after the Dayton Settlement, only those declaring affiliation with a “constituent people” are entitled to run for the House of Peoples, the upper house of parliament. Photo (CC) commons.wikimedia.org
Public life in Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to be marked by segregation, since members of constituent peoples living outside the territory which corresponds to their ethnicity still suffer from discrimination and, in some cases, violence and abuse. Political leaders and other public figures continue to divide, discriminate and exacerbate ethnic divisions. Since such actions are not condemned by public institutions, this further creates precedents of impunity.
Unjustifiable inequality
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has so far rendered several verdicts such, as the Sejdić-Finci case that should remove discrimination from the Bosnia and Herzegovina Constitution and the Election Law, to allow every citizen to have an active and passive suffrage. The problem is that the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina do not respect these judgments and therefore do not enforce them. Dervo Sejdić was the Roma Monitor for the Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, having previously served as a member of the Roma Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the highest representative body of the local Roma community, and was a member of the Advisory Committee for Roma, a joint body comprising representatives of the local Roma community and of the relevant ministries. Jakob Finci was then serving as the Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Switzerland, and had previously occupied positions such as President of the Inter-Religious Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Head of the State Civil Service Agency. Ten years ago, the two men applied to the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants described themselves to be of Roma and Jewish origin respectively. Since they did not declare affiliation with any of the “constituent peoples”, they were ineligible to stand for election for the House of Peoples, the second chamber of the State Parliament, and for the Presidency. According to the constitution, which was created after the Dayton Settlement, only those declaring affiliation with a “constituent people” are entitled to run for the House of Peoples and the Presidency.
Despite the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, the rights of the so-called “other” citizens to be elected and to hold high-level public office are still hampered by a lack of political will to amend constitutional and legal provisions. After the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of the Sejdić-Finci case, the Bosnian government agreed to take measures to implement the court ruling. It initiated, for example, the idea of a task force that has yet to be created. Today, we can observe the absence of any prescribed method for the participation of non-constituent minorities within the task force, the lack of effective mechanisms for the participation of minorities in public life, and the existence of 22 cases of segregation.
Clive Boldwin, the former defender of Finci, is convinced that this situation can be changed. The first step could be the decentralisation of decision-making. Bosnia and Herzegovina should start by taking responsibility for the unjustifiable inequality of treatment. According to the Dayton Settlement, the United States and the European Union took part in the creation of these mechanisms, so they could put pressure on Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to respect the ruling on human rights. It would be a big change to see international institutions and foreign states getting involved in solving issues met by national minorities, especially since Bosnia and Herzegovina is still interested in joining the EU. According to the current Bosnia and Herzegovina election law, national minorities only have representatives at local level. Recently, the Sarajevo Canton Assembly adopted an initiative requesting changes to the Bosnia and Herzegovina Election Law that would allow national minorities to have representatives in cantonal assemblies.
Institutional discrimination
Bosnia and Herzegovina has also made little effort to provide minority language learning. There are neither publications nor broadcasts in minority languages, nor are these languages used in daily contact with administrative institutions. While initiatives by civil society organisations show that there is a will to introduce integrated schools, experts have not noticed sufficient progress when it comes to eradicating segregation in education. The Roma population in Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to face serious difficulties and discrimination in terms of access to employment, health services, regular education and housing.
The latest report of the Council of Europe Advisory Committee, published in October 2018, concluded that in a country still deeply divided between the three constituent peoples, national minorities continue to be institutionally discriminated against and are unable to fully participate in the country’s political processes. Moreover, Bosnian women advocating for constitutional reform emphasise that the constitution does not have a gender aspect and suggest five priorities for gender and social protection: introduce gender-sensitive language, implement affirmative measures to ensure gender equality, universal health, social and family protection (e.g., better legal protection and better food protection), and ensuring that they are being provided. Still to this day, there are inequalities in the provision of medical services depending on where the woman lives and regardless of her ethnic background. One of the tasks is educating citizens about constitutional changes and explaining that the constitution is not treating everyone equally.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, like other European countries, is facing the challenges of COVID-19. Educational institutions have been closed, public events cancelled and spots for public gatherings – malls, restaurants, museums and other non-essential public spaces – have been ordered closed. Sarajevo airport was closed to all passenger traffic on March 30th, while other airports in the country were already closed. In the federation, people are required to cover their mouths and noses when out in public, while in Republika Srpska there is a requirement to wear gloves. Throughout the country a 24-hour curfew is in place for those who are under 18 and over 65 years of age. All Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens and foreigners entering the country face mandatory quarantine at the port of entry or self-isolation for 14 days. The rhetorical question remains: during this difficult time, how will “the others” be treated by local medical services?
Anastasiya Ilyina is a graduate of the faculty of history of Brest State University, a graduate of Eastern studies at the University of Warsaw, and a graduate of the Human Rights Advocates Program at Columbia University. She has a PhD in humanities in the field of sociology from the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences.
