Introduction
Gandhi once said: ”There is no path to peace – peace is a path.” This thought resonates strongly in the work of the Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung, the founder of peace studies, who pointed out that peace does not happen spontaneously, but must be rather carefully built over a long period of time. According to Galtung, the so-called positive peace is not a mere absence of war, but rather social justice, fostering dialogue and building social cohesion. If these elements are missing, one can talk about the so-called negative peace at best. Galtung also firmly believed that violent conflicts could be prevented by applying a careful and accurate approach.
We failed to stop the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But, what about peace? Have we built it at all and how?
In order to give an answer to this complex question, it is necessary to analyse two key dimensions. First of all, global peace building paradigms that shape international interventions and institutional reforms in post-conflict societies such as the one in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Secondly, the state of the social base, especially in local communities, where peace is not measured based on declarations, but rather everyday life and trust among persons as well as possibilities for a dignified life for all, and in particular for marginalised groups.
It is precisely here, between theory and practice, between international strategies and local realities, that the space for critical reflection and development of locally conscious and oriented peace initiatives lies.
Concept and critique of liberal peace
The idea of liberal peace has been shaping peace interventions and directions of peace building in war-torn societies for decades. Its main premises focus on the state as the main subject of international relations, building of democratic institutions and economic development. It is believed that democracy, by promoting dialogue and limiting power, contributes to stability and peace, and that market economy can prevent armed conflicts or reduce the possibility of their outbreak by connecting people through economic interests.
Some scientific research based on a regression analysis on a large sample has shown that states characterised by economic interdependence, limited political actors and non-violent conflict resolution norms are generally peaceful.
This concept of peace building gained momentum at the international level after the report of the UN Secretary General Boutros Ghali in the context of strengthening the role of the UN after the Cold War, multilateral organisations and more and more peace missions. This paradigm, although rooted in Kant’s idealistic position on eternal peace, is far from its ideal and it led to a neoliberal negative peace. Peace was identified with the absence of armed conflict, and the key role in peace negotiations was played by the local elites and international actors.
In doing so, the local dynamics of certain conflicts were not taken into account and they were treated as case studies of contemporary conflicts at best. Also, international peacekeepers were seen as neutral and benevolent experts, local groups and organisations as implementers of a pre-defined peace conflict, whereas groups in conflict, such as ethnic communities, were seen as homogenous entities. Certain categories, such as women, were presented as peacemakers by nature, which eventually led to a restriction of their activities to humanitarian work and their marginalisation in decision making processes.
Democracy was considered an almost universal solution for a long time and it was ”exported” to the periphery under the promise of a lasting peace. The local population, its initiatives, practices and needs were often seen as potential obstacles to peacebuilding, just as local traditions and culture, which were often uncritically considered to be contrary to liberal values. However, due to poor results in the field and wide-spread criticism that have become evident in the meantime, the key obstacles in the implementation of such an approach are becoming increasingly clear.
For many societies with a colonial past, this concept represents a form of neo-colonial practices, given the fact that it implies a hierarchical and centralised approach and neglects alternative voices and local perspectives from the base of society. Some theoreticians, such as Roland Paris, for example, see that this paradigm, instead of focusing on reconciliation and social cohesion, reduces peace to the technical management of the state, which may lead to superficial stability without resolving deep seated causes of conflict. At the same time, it neglects structural and social factors, and especially the distribution of economic power, class structure of society and social exclusion of different marginal groups. For these reasons, Paris advocates a reformed liberal approach that includes local voices and marginalised communities. Some theoretical approaches, such as those developed by Oliver Richmond and Roger MacGinty, stress that international mediation is often necessary in order to stop conflicts, but that the local population has to play a crucial role in the peacebuilding process. Peace initiatives coming from the community should be supported and not imposed from outside.
According to John Paul Lederach, peace is built by involving a wide group of actors at different levels and different segments of social actions that aim at conflict transformation. Although there is no permanent solution for some conflicts, it is possible to transform them into non-violent relations. In this context, instead of using traditional diplomacy that relies on political elites and short-term goals, Lederach advocates a long-term change by building social structures, interdependence and potentials for reconciliation. Such an approach implies educational processes, relying on community capacities, an active civil society and engagement of ordinary persons.
Implementation of the prevailing peace paradigm in Bosnia and Herzegovina
In the opinion of many persons, Bosnia and Herzegovina constitutes an example of unsuccessful liberal approach to peacebuilding. The focus on democratisation and strengthening of institutions as part of a political system that reinforces ethnic divisions and encourages ethnonationalism has not led to any significant results. In the ethnic triangle of consociational democracy, a key role is played by political elites that base their legitimacy on the very existence of a conflict, rather than its resolution. In the opinion of most citizens, politicians are the main obstacle to building peace and reconciliation.
Although democracy is promoted formally, numerous key decisions are made outside of local institutions, and the powers of OHR demonstrate a pronounced neo-colonial approach of the international community in these processes. Although they are frequently criticising the local political leaders, international actors from Western liberal democracies have at the same time given them legitimacy through various meetings and negotiations on institutional solutions considered necessary as part of this paradigm. On the other hand, OHR played an important role in legal reforms related to the right to restitution of property to returnees with clear procedures that made it impossible for local authorities to ignore these requests and harmonisation of laws in both entities, including, among other things, repealing local decisions that prevented this and introducing deadlines and sanctions. Also, given the fact that the consociation model of democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina makes it possible for ethnic groups to use the so-called veto mechanism, which was frequently used to block democratic reforms or government processes (e.g. during the adoption of the national budget), OHR intervened in such situations.
Civil society is considered crucial in democratisation and peacebuilding processes. However, it is essentially marginalised in decision making processes and reduced to the NGO sector. Involving certain organisations in individual programmes frequently aimed at creating the illusion that the local population was involved in such activities. What is particularly worrisome is the concentration of key events in urban centres and organisations located there, whereas associations from small, and especially underdeveloped areas and returnee communities, are frequently fighting to survive.
The dependence on international donations has weakened the critical potential of professional organisations, given that donors frequently change priorities and focus on other war-torn areas. At the same time, local authorities abuse public budgets and they frequently allocate funds to civil society associations in an untransparent manner, which often leads to societal rifts and tensions. Although it is obvious that without the international assistance many important initiatives would not have a chance to be launched, research has shown that many of them were implemented in a manner that obfuscated the real results achieved during project implementation and that there was no real reciprocal contact. The adoption of various initiatives modelled on other post-conflict societies made Bosnia and Herzegovina a training ground for projects that never really took off. An example of this is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the establishment of which ultimately failed in spite of several attempts that were made.
Lack of social justice and exclusion of marginalised groups
A major issue is the lack and marginalisation of social justice issues that most citizens consider crucial for positive peacebuilding. It is often also viewed as a remnant of the old and undesirable socialist system, which is in compliance with saving policies promoted by global monetary institutions, the EU and local political actors. Market reforms and privatisation were implemented fast, often without protecting local interests. This resulted in high unemployment rates, economic stagnation, emigration of youth and waste or destruction of natural resources. For this reason, social justice and reconciliation constitute key challenges in the post-war Bosnian and Herzegovinian society, which still faces deep ethnic divisions, economic inequality, growing poverty and institutional weaknesses.
That these issues are marginalised is also demonstrated by the case of the Movement for Social Justice, which was formed during the protests held in Tuzla in 2014 and soon spread to other parts of the country. In many cities, especially in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, citizens established plenums to articulate their demands for the protection of workers’ rights, reduction of corruption, review of suspicious privatisation cases, introduction of direct democracy and reform of the health and education system. However, as pointed out by Jasmin Ramović, the response of the European Delegation to Bosnia and Herzegovina and numerous international officials was to avoid meeting and cooperating with the representatives of this movement, while the local political elites used different tactics to silence or ignore these voices.
The critical voices of people living or originating from Bosnia and Herzegovina, including especially academic works of Azra Hromadžić, Nenad Stojanović, Jasmin Ramović, Gorana Mlinarević and Nela Porobić, have pointed out for a number of years that liberal peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina frequently serves the interests of international actors and local political elites, whereas local needs remain neglected. Of particular concern is the fact that individual marginalised groups have been almost completely marginalised and excluded from the process of post-war reconstruction and social democratisation. .
For example, the Roma community faced limited access to reconstruction programmes after the war. Many Roma are still internally displaced in Bosnia and Herzegovina and it is estimated that around one third of Roma emigrated from the country. Although they constitute the largest national minority in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Roma have been practically erased from the culture or remembrance, and the data about their suffering were mainly collected by NGOs.
LGBT+ persons still face different forms of violence in the so-called peace, which makes their visibility and involvement in different initiatives and processes even more complicated. Persons with disabilities, due to their fight to survive and various obstacles and lack of access to different initiatives and programmes, have not had a real chance to be actively involved.
Importance and power of local initiatives
On the other hand, Bosnia and Herzegovina has had a tradition of peace and local activism even before the outbreak of war as a direct conflict. Some initiatives continued to exist during the war. Particularly important examples come from local communities, such as Tuzla, which managed to preserve its multi-ethnic structure during the war and post-war period, including an important role of local initiatives and organisations, especially the Forum of Citizens of Tuzla, which managed to stay dedicated to its mission.
Women’s groups and organisations have made a particularly important contribution to peacebuilding and addressing both institutional limitations, for example through the initiative ”Women citizens for constitutional changes”, lobbying for anti-discrimination legal solutions, and solutions for the structural and cultural violence that permeates the society of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Many of these initiatives involved different dimensions needed for an in-depth approach to peace building, such as economic empowerment of women returnees and their families, provision of psychological and other forms of support, participation in inter-entity gatherings and initiating dialogue at local communities.
Work on prevention and fight against peer violence, continuous support to victims of domestic violence, lobbying for the adoption and implementation of laws in this field as well as involvement and initiation of different peace initiatives, both local ones, such as the initiative ”Peace with a Woman’s Face”, and regional ones, such as the initiative ”Women’s Court”, point to authentic engagement and perseverance of a large number of women’s organisations.
The contribution of women from small and underdeveloped local communities and rural areas, as this is the case with women’s organisations from Bratunac, Bosansko Grahovo and Konjević Polje, highlights the importance of applying an inter-sectional approach and dedication to peacebuilding processes at the local level by addressing key issues related to fundamental human needs for a dignified life, such as the availability of primary healthcare, kindergartens, social welfare centres and other services needed in order to have a dignified life, which is a pre-requisite for permanent and positive peace.
The example of the ”Mothers of Srebrenica” is also paradigmatic, since it shows how women who lost numerous, and especially male members of the family, who mostly represent social strata from smaller communities and rural areas, and are often neglected in peacebuilding processes, managed to overcome international and local obstacles and become a recognisable and strong voice of women that fight for social justice and the assumption of political and criminal responsibility. Although they have demonstrated their willingness to engage in a dialogue and reconciliation, which is confirmed by their trips to Grabovica and Jasenovac, an example that no official politician followed, the interethnic cooperation of women’s organisations focusing on the criminal dimension of transitional justice was eventually obstructed, which made life at the local level even more difficult, especially in returnee communities.
Important authentic local initiatives include OKC ”Abrašević” from Mostar, which focuses on youth needs. By combining cultural and civic engagement, including through the reconstruction of neglected cultural buildings, among other things, this initiative aims to overcome ethnic divisions in the city and establish accountable local authorities. The Peace Building Centre from Sanski Most has been actively operating and launching different inspirational peace activities, and some youth initiatives that were launched more recently, such as the Youth Association Čaplja from Čapljina, connect philanthropic, environmental and educational work focusing on different social groups and marginalised strata for the promotion of general good and humane interpersonal relations.
Some activities are based on an approach combining local reconciliation traditions, such as neighbourly dialogue, religious and interreligious initiatives, including institutional reforms. This also includes local reconciliation projects in Goražde that aim to improve the cooperation between religious communities and the local administration, with significant participation of youth and women. It is important to also mention local volunteering initiatives, such as the Mosaic of Friendship from Banja Luka that helps elderly and sick fellow citizens, takes care of children’s birthdays, organises shelters for the elderly and participates in the launch of social companies as an alternative to institutional injustice.
When it comes to peacebuilding and restoration of inter personal ties, the local initiative ”Because it Concerns Me” from 2013 is particularly important. It gathers a large number of organisations from local communities from almost all parts of the country. Activists from Banja Luka, Mostar, Tuzla, Ljubuški, Prijedor, Bosanska Gradiška, Konjic, Sarajevo and other cities from Bosnia and Herzegovina organised remembrance activities for all civil victims of war and visited concentration camps where civilians of different nationalities were held captive.
Initiatives involving former concentration camp detainees and war veterans from armed forces of all warring parties have demonstrated a huge peace potential present in case of those that directly faced the devastating consequences of war.
New challenges
A sharp rise in economic inequalities, poverty, climate and pandemic risks, spreading of different forms of violence and exclusion, especially via social media, migrant crises and global trends of democratic regression point to numerous challenges of the current period and the fragility of peace. These processes have a direct impact on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the intensification of the political, institutional, economic and social crisis is evident and does not only have the potential to lead to a destabilisation, but also a complete collapse of society.
Given the contemporary environmental challenges, it is becoming increasingly clear that the economic growth in itself may further deepen the gap between the rich and the poor, creating thus pre-conditions for violent conflicts, both between states and within certain societies. The unfair distribution of economic and environmental risks is directly linked to violence and at the same time contributes to its further escalation. Such unfavourable trends affect the most vulnerable categories of population, and the decline of the social position of the elderly, persons with disabilities, single-parent families, ethnic and other minorities deprives the whole society of its peace dimension and makes it less safe for everyone. In such a context, the requests for social justice and inter-sectoral approach that are, although suppressed, present in Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially at the local level, point to the necessity of adequate solution of structural factors that result in outbreaks of direct violence.
Zlatiborka Popov-Momčinović is a full-time professor of political science at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of East Sarajevo, where she teaches the courses History of Political Ideas, Politics and Gender, and Political Culture. She earned her degree in Sociology from the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad, obtained her Master’s degree from the Faculty of Philosophy in Pale, and completed her PhD at the Faculty of Political Science in Belgrade.
Her research focuses on women’s political representation, the feminist movement, anti-gender mobilization, as well as peacebuilding and reconciliation. She has participated in numerous academic and activist projects addressing these or related topics, including projects on gender equality, women’s political participation, LGBT+ rights, transitional justice, social dialogue, and democratization. She actively collaborates with domestic and international civil society organizations, academic institutions, and research networks. Her academic work has been published in national and international journals, edited volumes, and publications. She speaks English, German, and French.
