When a 'technical decision' becomes a political message: The BH Telecom – Hayat case and the limits of what is permissible in a democratic society

By: prof. dr. Hazim Bašić

The conflict between BH Telecom and a group of domestic TV channels, including Hayat TV, is presented at first glance as a cold, legal-commercial dispute over distribution rights. However, even a superficial analysis shows that this is a much deeper problem: a clash of market power, political influence, and the constitutional obligation to protect freedom of information and media pluralism.

A distributor is not a neutral intermediary

In modern media systems, distributors of television signals are no longer mere technical carriers of content. They are gatekeepers to information for the entire public. When a dominant operator, and BH Telecom undoubtedly is one, decides which media will be available to hundreds of thousands of households, that decision necessarily produces political and social consequences, regardless of formal explanations.

In this regard, the warning from the Association of Independent Intellectuals Krug 99 hits the very core of the problem: freedom of the media is not only the right of broadcasters to produce content, but also the right of citizens to access that content. Without this access, freedom of information becomes an abstract phrase.

A legal issue that is not just legal

The director of BH Telecom insists that this is exclusively about protecting legality and the public interest, citing doubts about the business model and ownership structure of the Portuguese company „VIP Team United“. However, at the same time, his statements imply a demand that is legally and regulatorily extremely problematic: that television stations renounce their contracts with their legitimate representative and agree to non-commercial broadcasting.

This brings us to the key question: Does a public company with a dominant market position have the right to condition broadcasters to give up their commercial rights in order to remain 'visible' to citizens? The answer, according to the current regulatory framework of BiH and European standards, is no. Or, to put it simply, BH Telecom, as a state-owned company, is willing to pay for TV packages such as: Pink, HBO, Arena, Cinemax, ... but not for the 'BiH TV package' created by 'VIP Team United', which includes about twenty Bosnian TV channels, including Hayat.

The BiH Communications Law, the rules of the Communications Regulatory Agency (RAK), as well as the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, clearly emphasize the principles of: non-discrimination, proportionality, protection of pluralism, and prohibition of abuse of a dominant market position. If the dispute is about price or rights, it is resolved before a court and a regulator, not by interrupting the signal. The exclusion of media from an offer is an extreme measure, permissible only in cases of proven violation of laws or regulatory rules, which has not been established in this case.

Election year and 'accidental' decisions

The fact that all of this is happening in an election year gives particular weight to this case. In such a context, any narrowing of media space, especially the space for critical and influential media, has a direct effect on the democratic process.

Therefore, the claim that this is a 'purely economic issue' cannot stand on its own. In democratic societies, there are no economic decisions by large public systems that are politically neutral. Especially not when a person close to a particular political option heads that system, and the affected media has a distinctly critical stance towards the authorities.

Comparative practice: the region as a warning

Examples from the region offer a clear lesson. In Serbia, conflicts between Telekom Srbija and United Media have shown how state telecommunications companies can become instruments of political pressure on the media. In Croatia and Montenegro, similar disputes have been resolved with the strong involvement of regulators, precisely to prevent silent censorship through the market.

One thing is common to all these cases: when a regulator does not react promptly and decisively, a market dispute escalates into political disciplining of the media.

Broader context: who manages BH Telecom and with what goal?

This dispute cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader picture of BH Telecom's management. Discussions are simultaneously underway in public about the company's enormous borrowing for the purchase of Telemach, which raises serious questions about the strategic direction, priorities, and political influence on management decisions.

In this context, it becomes legitimate to ask: Is the selective 'principledness' towards domestic media truly a matter of legality or a demonstration of power?

A test for institutions, not just for the media

The BH Telecom – Hayat case is not a dispute between one company and one television station. It is a test of the institutional maturity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is also a test of the independence of regulators, a test of the accountability of public enterprises, and a test of the genuine commitment to media freedom.

In a democratic society, there must be no 'technical decision' that produces political consequences without public and institutional control. Citizens' right to be informed cannot be collateral damage of market calculations, nor a means of pressure in political showdowns.

Sovereignty, as Krug 99 rightly stated, belongs neither to distributors nor to parties; it belongs to the citizens. And citizens have the right to pluralism, choice, and truth.