When a Fool Gets Hold of a Microphone: In Cvitanović's Ustasha Glossary, Kovačević Is Guilty Because a Civic State Is His Problem!

Written by: Rasim Belko

Ilija Cvitanović, president of HDZ 1990, has once again demonstrated what it looks like when self-confidence significantly exceeds knowledge of the subject. In his latest outburst, he managed to simultaneously threaten a criminal complaint, interpret the Constitution in a way that even first-year law students would hardly recognize, and announce, no less, a third entity as an almost natural consequence of Slaven Kovačević's candidacy and advocacy for a civic state.

Speaking about Slaven Kovačević's candidacy for the BiH Presidency member, Cvitanović dramatically claimed that the announcement of advocating for a civic state is "completely abnormal" and constitutes a violation of the Constitution. In his interpretation, invoking the civic concept automatically means an attack on the constitutional order, and therefore is grounds for a criminal complaint. The logic is simple: if it doesn't fit his political narrative, it must be illegal.

However, the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a press release from a party committee. Article II/2 of that Constitution clearly states that the European Convention on Human Rights is directly applicable in BiH and takes precedence over all other acts. And that convention guarantees equality of citizens and prohibits discrimination. In other words, the idea that all citizens have equal rights is not subversive, but, pay attention now, a constitutional category.

But Cvitanović, it seems, decided to skip that part. Perhaps it escaped him between the preamble and political wishes. Because, if we are consistent, Kovačević's candidacy is not a constitutional coup, but an exercise of rights prescribed by both the Constitution and the Election Law. And before filing a criminal complaint, it would be appropriate for Cvitanović to explain exactly what criminal offense was committed, because candidacy itself is not yet foreseen as an incrimination, no matter how politically undesirable it may be to someone.

For his announced "charade" of a complaint to have any procedural meaning, Kovačević must first be a confirmed candidate, which only happens after the CIK's decision. And here we come to the most amusing part: Kovačević is a Croat and is running for the Presidency member. So, even by Cvitanović's narrow matrix, the form is satisfied.

It is particularly interesting how, in Cvitanović's rhetoric from the Ustasha glossary, concern for constitutionality magically aligns with the political agenda that has for years gravitated around Dragan Čović's politics. When he can't even come close to him in elections, at least he can be the loudest interpreter of "legitimate representation." And whenever someone mentions the civic concept of the state, it is immediately translated as a threat to collective rights, even though individual rights are the foundation of any serious European democracy, because they do not threaten collective rights in any way. But, unfortunately for Čović and Cvitanović, in a civic state, collective rights are not an automatic tool for blocking, which is why they are nervous.

Because, no matter how radical it may sound to some, a civic state does not mean erasing identity, but the primacy of the rule of law and equality before the law. That is the essence of the European story to which everyone declaratively swears. Only, it seems, that European story is accepted as long as it does not threaten party constructs about "mini-states" and territorial dreams.

After all, if one man's candidacy is enough to "open space for a third entity," then the problem is much deeper than a single complaint. Then the problem lies in the fragile construction of political myths that collapse as soon as someone dares to say that a citizen is worth equally.

I am truly amused by the thought of a prosecutor seriously considering a criminal complaint against someone for running for office and advocating for equality of citizens. That would not only be a legal precedent but would also require an analysis of that prosecutor's mental capacity.

But perhaps the greatest irony in all this is that, instead of discussing programs, the economy, and real problems of the people, we have to deal with elementary lessons in constitutional law, and all because of those who most loudly swear by the Constitution.

Or, as wise people would say, when a fool gets hold of a microphone, stupidity is the rule, not the exception.