How to Overturn a Court Verdict with a Poll: A Referendum Worthless on the Paper It's Written

For NAP writes: Prof. Dr. Hazim Bašić, member of the Presidency of Krug 99

In Republika Srpska (RS), the most dangerous political weapon is being wielded again - a referendum. Not to allow citizens to express themselves on an important social issue, but to question a final court verdict against the former president of the entity through 'the will of the people'. A confusing referendum question has also been proposed, containing as many as three falsehoods, which reads:

“Do you accept the decisions of the unelected foreigner Christian Schmidt and the verdicts of the unconstitutional Court of BiH issued against the president of RS, as well as the decision of the Central Election Commission on revoking the mandate of RS president Milorad Dodik?”

By the very choice of terminology, it is clear that this is not a question, but a verdict against the state in a single sentence that carries serious democratic, legal, and political implications. The untruths embedded in this question relate to the status of the High Representative, the Court of BiH, and the role of the Central Election Commission.

Manipulative and Suggestive Question Formulation

The formulation of this awkward question is not neutral; it contains value judgments, is deeply suggestive, and contrary to the Code of the Venice Commission. The use of terms like 'unelected foreigner' and 'unconstitutional court' pre-emptively suggests guilt of the High Representative and the judicial institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Instead of citizens choosing between two equal options, they are being imposed with an obligation to defend a fictional 'attacked RS'. The question also carries political weight, aimed at inducing emotion and political loyalty, rather than a genuine decision by citizens based on facts.

It is indicative that the calling of the referendum comes after the revocation of the mandate. Therefore, it is not an instrument of democratic decision-making, but a form of political pressure aimed at attempting to challenge court verdicts and state institutions. Voting on court verdicts is a legal absurdity and represents an attack on the very core of the rule of law. Does a court verdict hold any value if the 'people' say it doesn't?

Violation of the Constitutional Order - Entity Above the State

The Dayton Constitution clearly stipulates that entities do not have the right to express themselves on matters of state competencies, the High Representative, or the work of the Constitutional Court or the Court of BiH. Such a referendum would be not only politically but also legally void, and could be qualified as an act of undermining the constitutional order, which only deepens the criminal and political responsibility of the entity leadership.

Through it, the former entity president is not defending the entity's constitution, but himself, using the citizens of RS as a shield. In which legal system can the execution of a verdict be prevented by calling a referendum? Opposition political parties have recognized that the referendum is a smokescreen. Even if implemented, it would have no legal effect and would have the weight of little more than a poll.

Mobilization Through Fear and False Patriotism

The poll question is written in a way to generate a sense of endangerment, threat, and injustice among the citizens of RS, and to mobilize them accordingly. Although the proceedings against the former entity president were conducted in accordance with the law and by legal institutions. This places the public in the position of defenders of 'people's rights', while in essence, private interests of an individual are being defended.

Manipulative rhetoric is a constant of the former entity president, confronting citizens with institutions whose every legal action he himself accepted. This is a strategy of false patriotism, where if the laws are not in his favor, an imaginary front is created and collective loyalty is sought.

The consequences of this entire affair of polling the citizens of RS are political radicalization and deepening divisions. Incidentally, the entire development of events is in line with the continued weakening of state institutions in accordance with various Serbian memoranda, resolutions, and strategies for the creation of the so-called 'Serbian world'.

Referendum on the Status of an Individual, Not an Entity

BiH has been under the scrutiny of the EU and the international community for years due to political instability. A referendum that would endanger state institutions would certainly provoke reactions, from new sanctions against SNSD to blocking European funds and negotiation processes. While the EU seeks reforms and accountability, SNSD offers conflict and the continuation of RS's isolation.

A referendum with such a question would not represent a democratic expression of the citizens' will, but a political performance and an attempt at political survival that does not defend RS, but destroys the constitutional and legal order. In this regard, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina already has relevant case law annulling similar acts that were adopted through dangerous political adventurism.