Duraković on shortcomings of statement against hate speech towards Bosniaks: Without a civic concept and broader support, the statement loses its meaning

By: Academician Esad Duraković/SB

At the Gazi Husrev-beg Library, the "Statement on the Condemnation of Hate Speech, Islamophobia, and False Narratives about Bosniaks and BiH" was signed as a response to a malicious campaign against Bosniaks and BiH.

The initiative to condemn lies directed against Bosniaks, and to resist hatred and Islamophobia, cannot be disputed. On the contrary. We live in a world of extreme antagonisms, phobias, and aggressiveness, the victims of which include Bosniaks in BiH – from 1992 and the genocide up to this day.

However, this action, although fundamentally humane and necessary, was carried out very clumsily – to such an extent that it calls into question its ultimate effects. In this regard, the following important objections cannot be avoided:

1. The signatories are predominantly politicians, which is an unsuitable structure for the goal of the action. Other segments of society, especially from the academic community, journalists, athletes, artists, etc., should also express their views on such issues. Not only or mostly politicians! In this group, I do not see artists, I do not see anyone from the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ANUBiH), there are very few professors, no athletes. Furthermore, since it concerns universal values that are being signed for, it was necessary to include members of other peoples in BiH. I know some very important and influential people from other ethnic groups (even active politicians and intellectuals) who would certainly have signed such a statement, and it would thereby gain strength and credibility, because non-Bosniaks should also advocate for the truth about Bosniaks, just as vice versa – Bosniaks should fight for the humane status of all citizens of BiH. Therefore, they could and should have improved the structure of the signatories. This way, it resembles an election rally.

2. Consequently to the foregoing, I believe that this statement lacks a fundamentally important tone. Namely, when fighting for a valid and fair attitude towards any nation in BiH, it is necessary to emphasize the need for a civic organization and functioning of the state, because only such an organization actively works to mitigate national antagonisms. This is not evident here.

3. According to what I have observed, the Reis-ul-ulema (with a number of the highest dignitaries of the Islamic Community) had a central position in this act. I have immense respect for this institution, I consider myself a Muslim, etc., but I believe that this fact is negative, even politically counterproductive. It must be known and acted upon accordingly: the Reis does not represent the people (this is about a people!) but he represents believers, Muslims. Therefore, he had no place there, with all due respect to the institution. What we have seen plays into the hands of those who want to present Bosniaks as a religious group and not as a political subject, i.e., a political nation.