Three decades after the war, Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to face the consequences of an incomplete process of facing its past. Although the war has ended and institutions formally function, society remains burdened by mistrust, differing interpretations of the war legacy, and frequent political misuse of issues that ought to be the subject of responsible and careful public debate. In such a context, the issue of hate speech cannot be viewed merely as a matter of political culture or inappropriate communication. It is directly linked to the question of what kind of peace we have in Bosnia and Herzegovina today, and whether we truly wish to preserve and build upon it.
In peacebuilding theory, a distinction is often made between negative and positive peace. Negative peace implies the absence of direct violence, whereas positive peace means the existence of social and institutional conditions in which trust, security, equality and responsibility are built. In this sense, Bosnia and Herzegovina is still largely in a state of negative peace. The war is over, but many of the causes of division have not been overcome.
Hate speech as political mobilisation
The past is often not discussed as a space for learning and responsibility, but rather as a means of political mobilisation. For this reason, hate speech in Bosnia and Herzegovina carries a particular weight. It does not operate in a vacuum, but in a society where war traumas are still present, in which different experiences of the past are often mutually exclusive, and where mistrust is easily renewed. When language that deepens divisions, belittles others, relativises suffering or portrays certain groups as a threat is used in the public sphere, it does not build peace, but maintains an atmosphere in which reconciliation is constantly postponed.
Hate speech does not always lead to direct violence. Its impact is often slower and more long-term. It shifts the boundaries of what is considered acceptable, accustoms citizens to hostility and creates a sense that division is a natural state of society. In this sense, its most dangerous effect is not just in the individual insult or statement, but in how it gradually normalises the idea that ”others” are a threat, rather than fellow citizens.
It is particularly problematic when such speech comes from the public and political sphere. Holders of public office have a greater responsibility than other participants in public debate because their messages are not just a personal stance. They affect the political atmosphere, trust in institutions and citizens’ sense of security. In a country where the consequences of the war are still visible in everyday life, elected and appointed officials should be aware that the words they use can further open old wounds, entrench divisions and discourage any serious attempt at building trust.
For this reason, hate speech should be seen both as an obstacle to reconciliation and as a risk to the existing peace. If the public sphere is constantly used for fear mongering, then not only is the building of positive peace prevented; the very minimum of stability that exists is also called into question. In other words, the problem is not only that hate speech slows down reconciliation, but also that society continuously returns to a logic of conflict even when there is no open violence.
Facing the past begins in the public sphere
Facing the past therefore cannot be separated from the issue of present-day public discourse. It is not enough to speak in principle about the need for reconciliation if, at the same time, one tolerates speech that deepens mistrust and destroys the possibility of dialogue. The way the past is spoken about today shows how truly ready a society is to deal with it responsibly. If the past is used merely as a political weapon, it does not become a foundation for understanding and building trust, but remains a source of new divisions.
Legal mechanisms are important, and it is necessary to insist on the consistent application of existing regulations, especially in cases of incitement to national, racial and religious hatred, discord and intolerance. However, sanctions alone are not enough. They can respond to the most severe forms of abuse of public space, but in the long term, they cannot replace education, media literacy, responsible reporting, psychosocial support, and the creation of conditions for discussing difficult topics without insults, threats, and political manipulation.
Citizen participation as a space for a different kind of debate
In this sense, processes that involve citizens in a conversation about reconciliation are also important. The Citizens’ Assembly on Reconciliation is one example of such an approach. It is a process in which citizens from different parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with prior information and a guided discussion, talk about issues of importance for reconciliation, trust, and relations between communities. Such a process does not start from the idea that solutions should be imposed from above, but rather that citizens, when given information and a space for dialogue, can identify the problems that burden their daily lives and offer recommendations that have a broader social significance.
The value of this model lies not only in the recommendations that emerge at the end of the process, but also in the very way they are reached. In a society where public discourse is often reduced to conflicting political narratives, it is important to show that citizens can engage in a different kind of conversation: by listening to diverse experiences, recognising the complexity of issues, and seeking solutions that do not deepen divisions. The recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly, among other things, recognise the need for education, public dialogue, media literacy, mutual cooperation and strengthening trust, which shows that reconciliation can be linked to the concrete issues of everyday life, and not just to general political messages.
Such processes, of course, cannot replace the responsibility of institutions. They cannot solve deep political and social issues on their own, nor can they undo the consequences of years of irresponsible public discourse. But they can show that there is room for a different approach. The significance of such processes is not that they offer simple solutions, but that they show citizens can discuss difficult topics outside of the everyday political logic. If hate speech closes the space for trust, civic participation and informed debate can at least partially open it up again.
Reconciliation cannot be just a formal obligation, nor a topic that is occasionally raised within the framework of projects, strategies or public debates. It must be connected to the way institutions operate, how the media report, how young people are educated, and how public figures speak about others. Otherwise, it remains at the level of a declarative commitment, while mistrust and distance continue to be produced in everyday life.
Therefore, the issue of hate speech is not a secondary one. It shows whether institutions and public actors genuinely want to build a society in which conflicts are not suppressed, but can be discussed responsibly. Without this, Bosnia and Herzegovina remains at a level of peace that is largely reduced to the absence of violence, while the causes of mistrust are constantly being renewed.
Facing the past starts in the present: in the way we speak about victims, responsibility, justice, and about one another. Without a clear rejection of hate speech, especially when it comes from the public and political sphere, it is difficult to expect reconciliation to become a genuine social process. Peace is not maintained simply by the absence of violence. It is also maintained by not allowing public discourse to reproduce fear, mistrust, and the feeling that coexistence is not possible.
Mirjana Trifković has worked on projects and programmes in the field of facing the past and peacebuilding for more than ten years, focusing on peace education for young people and work with associations of victims of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. She worked at the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an associate at the War Crimes Chamber. She holds a degree in law from the Faculty of Law of the University of East Sarajevo. She is a peacebuilding trainer and Gestalt psychotherapy and trauma counselling trainer. She is currently working as a consultant for international organisations in the field of transitional justice, facing the past and peacebuilding in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
